exam 1 Flashcards
(1) Definitions of Conflict. (a) There are many ways that psychologists/theorists have defined conflicts. Briefly summarize Deutsch’s and Pruitt & Kim’s respective definitions –how are they similar and how do they differ? Also, according to Deutsch, what differentiates competitive vs. cooperative conflicts and give an example of each and the consequences for conflict patterns and outcomes of each.
Deutsch is the incompatible activities, more realistic conflicts, I want to do something and you want to do something and we cannot do at the same time.
PK states it is not just about the incompatible activities, but also the incompatible interests. People hold different belief systems and feel that we cannot co-exist.
Competitive conflicts is the zero sum conflicts that any gain for you is a lost for me. Two people trying to get through the doorway, if you go through first then I cannot go through. It is more likely to escalate, more likely to form contentious tactics
Cooperative conflict is we want the outcome and we can share the same outcome, but we get there differently. Two parents wanting a positive outcome for their child, but believing that getting the positive outcome come from different pathway. Less likely to escalate, more likely to form trust
(b) According to Deutsch, what are “veridical” conflicts, and from his analysis, describe two other (non-veridical) types of conflicts and give an example of each. The “two sisters and six oranges” conflict is which of these “types” of conflict and why?
Veridical conflict is a true conflict, I perceive that you want to do something that gets the way I want to do, and that is the truth of the matter, we have incompatible activities and goals.
Contingent - we think we are in a conflict, but in fact we are not because there is an easy solution out. The two sisters and six oranges is a contingent conflict, they think they both need the six oranges, but turns out they need different parts of the oranges, so there really isn’t a conflict.
Latent - only one party in the conflict perceive the conflict. One roommate perceives the conflict because they want a different room temperature, and the other roommate do not see the conflict because they like the current conflict.
(2) Intrapsychic Conflict (a) According to Horney, what are neurotic conflicts—what are three things that characterize them, and how do they differ from non-neurotic conflicts? Give an example—from Horney or from your own observations—of a neurotic conflict (and say why it is neurotic)
Neurotic conflict are conflicts we find ourselves getting into many times, even though we think we resolved the issue in the conflict. It is often more intense. There is repetition compulsion actions aspect, intensity, and we do not understand our actions in neurotic conflicts because we are probably reacting to unconscious stuff that is triggered by the conflict.
Characteristics: in neurotic conflicts we do not feel free to come and go. Moving toward, moving away and moving against. We do not know what we want in neurotic conflict.
People find themselves in the same type of relationships that make them unhappy over and over again, or couples break up and get back together over and over again.
(b) From Deutsch, how do the theoretical frameworks of behaviorism and role theory each explain intrapsychic conflict (be specific on the motives, issues)? Give an example of a conflict that is readily understood by each framework and interpret it in light of the framework.
Behaviorism: motivations toward a goal, I am drawn to something positive and propelled something negative cognitive, there are goals of mixed outcomes for us, something drawn us toward might be negative at the same time, we just can;t where to go, or we are drawn toward two different yet positive goals. For example, in valentine’s day you have two wonderful people asking for your attention. Or pushed away by two negative goals. As we get closer to a goal or decision, then negative start to have more force (pushed). Two evils at the two end and we cannot decide which one is more evil, it is like a ping pong ball situation.It is a cognitive behavior view.
Role theory: You are in a position where you are in a role that has conflicting demands, being a peer mentor is an example where you are both a student and a staff person at the same time, and these two roles have different demands. There are also roles that overwhelmed us, if you are in a role that is too much for anyone to bear. For example, the role of being an academic dean is too overwhelming, it is a role that people sometimes cannot take all the responsibility.
(3) Constructive Conflicts & Destructive Conflicts. (a) According to Deutsch, what are the differences between destructive and constructive (productive) conflicts—and what are at least three ways that conflicts are/can be constructive (can serve a positive function)?
Constructive is both parties feel they have benefitted
Consequences: people feeling like their relationship is growing, they are learning about themselves, other parties, things will be better on the other side. People can still talk to each other.
Destructive is both parties do not feel they have benefitted, people feel anxiety, distrust, sadness, anger. Consequences cannot be undone
(b)Also, according to Deutsch, what is the likely effect/consequences of threats (and the capacity to make threats) on conflicts and how did he demonstrate this in his Acme Bolt experiments (describe expt design and findings). Also, how does communication in a conflict interact with (get effected by and/or effect) threats? Finally, are threats ever helpful, and if so, when and why?
Acme Bolt are two truck companies. They all have two paths to their destination, but they all have a shorter path but it is a one-lane road. Both parties take turns to take the one-lane road, because it’s efficient for both parties. He gives either one or both the ability to threaten - close the road after they pass through. The worst outcome is mutual threat, if someone threatened us, as long as I have the ability to threaten back, it will be fine. If both have the ability to threaten, we are likely to use the ability, if someone threatens, then the other party will threaten back, it breaks down trust. If only one person has the ability to threaten, but it does not escalate to the extent that both of us threaten. If neither party has the ability to threaten, this is the best outcome because we have to work it out somewhere. Bilateral threat is often seen as a good situation, but could also be the worst situation. Communication is productive in no threat situation, in bilateral threat, the both parties do not seem to want to use it.
Threats can be helpful, if your threat has some credibility, and the threat isn’t going to destroy the relationship.
(4) Conflict Models. (a) Define and describe the two major social psychological theories of conflict: Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) and Social Identity Theories (SIT) of conflict— how do they explain the causes of intergroup conflict and how do they differ in their explanations?
RCT - Robert cave study, boys go to the summer camp and split into two groups. This study is done to demonstrate that conflicts are due to realistic (intergroup) competition between groups. Veridical conflict model, competing for who gets better ice-cream. Boys do the same mean things to each other. This is all realistic conflicts.
SIT- is due to minimal group assignment/identities, is called minimal group studies, if I assigned to minimal groups at random, and asked to allocate rewards, this will demonstrate ingroup favoritism. We favor our own group because it enhances our self-esteem to see our own group more favorably, the self-esteem model. This is all perception and cognitions. Slightly favoring more, no anger.
(b) For each model, describe the basic methods and findings of the studies that support this model. Finally discuss what is meant “Cross-Cutting Boundaries/Goals” and how and why this can reduce the likelihood of conflict and especially its escalation.
Cross-cutting：group boundaries are start to get strengthend. One of the way to de-strengthen these boundaries is called cross cutting. The other thing you could do to create cross cutting method is called superordinate group. When you creat the larger goal, the boundaries go away. In the robert cave study, the boys from two groups are required to pull the water tank together, so the boundaries go away. This also can be we break the group apart and create new groups.
(5) Rubin, Pruitt & Kim (1) (a) According to RP&K, what are three conditions that encourage conflict and three that discourage conflict—and why (what are the psychological processes involved)? (ßfor these, don’t include 3rd parties). Also, what are the potential deescalating and escalating effects of third parties in conflicts – describe two potential effects for each (de-escal & escal).
Encourage: relative deprivation (The belief we have less than you, less than I used to have, less than the norm I need to meet, but relatively deprived), status and inconsistency (people moving around cause more conflicts), illegitimate status (if I feel you have more power than me and it is not legitimate)
Discourage: previous trusting relationship, if party have skills in conflict resolution,If there are norms established for conflict resolution (if we both know how the conflict will end).
Third party can de-escalate, can serve as mediating role, we want to look god to third party members, so we will save face for each other.
Third party have conflict escalating role, people stuck in a conflict because they do not want to look weak in third party. If a third party does not do a good job in mediating or they have something to gain in the conflict.
(b) Also, what are the five changes that occur as conflicts escalate (note: I realize two will likely overlap). Give examples of each from a conflict you have observed or learned about (other than MOVE).
Small → large, someone do not clean a cat food to the marriage is not working out
Light tactics → heavy tactics, road rage, from hong kong to people fight on the road
Specific → general, similar to small to large
Few → many, two people in conflict to many people involved
Doing well → hurting each other, I want to do well, to I want to see you suffer (divorce situations)
(6) Rubin, Pruitt & Kim (2). (a) Describe the Contender/Aggressor-Defender model of conflict and the view/model of conflict that P&K suggest replaces it (is more accurate) and why?Diagram this model, and discuss at least 2 changes in P and O that occur (according to this model) when P & O are individuals and 2 changes in P and O that are specific when P & O are groups
Contender defender, one party causes the conflict (contender), someone else defending against this contender. Someone does something that forces the party to respond to you. The model is not possible to go back and find the start. The relationship suitcase, put the wrong thing someone done, the in fight brings it all out and keep going back. P changes because P feels they have to respond the accusation made by the other party, so P starts to see myself as a defender. So P need to act aggressively against you so that changed you. Then you act against me again, then I need to justify that aggressiveness, my self-image is changed. I am the aggressive defender on my position. Change happens in group, group boundaries more defined (rigid), pressure on group unity, polarizing(extreme leaders, more persuasive), norm on group conflict strat to escalate.
(b) Pruitt & Kim (and earlier, also Deutsch) discuss the strategies that lower power individuals (and groups) can take to influence their outcomes in conflict—describe at least two of these strategies and how they operate.
Deutsch - harassment, PK - is more about manipulation. We do not have power, then we annoy, keep bugging the other party, the we will have influence over time. Pk - if you can’t state directly what you want, the only way getting there is to manipulate the other party. Strategies: annoying, manipulative (anne you are the best teacher in the world).
(7) The Move Crisis. (a) According to Pruitt & Kim, what are the five changes (e.g., lightà heavy) that occur as a conflict escalates (be sure to say to what aspect(s) of the conflict they apply)? And, how did these changes occur in the MOVE conflict in Philadelphia—describe how and in what way?
Few → many, people living in move houses, neighbors started to involve in the community group, united neighbors group, the police involved, lawyers involved, so got more people on both sides
Light → heavy, tactics escalated, went from talking, meeting to police barricades, making loud speakers and intentionally making noises
Specific → general (issues) disposing the trash it they wanted to, the neibor complained, then escalated to move is dangerous, police are racists.
Small → big (issues), racism is a much bigger issue than trash disposal
Doing well→ harming others, the city just want everything to go away, but it bombed a building
(b) Who were the parties involved in the MOVE crisis (describe at least four) and how does the conflict spiral model help to explain the MOVE crisis and what were the tactics used by both sides in the conflict that may have contributed to its escalation?
There was, a powerful move leader John Africa, chief police (see move as a challenge to him), neighborhood groups, Clarence Farmer (a black executive director of P commision and human relation).
Many of the negotiators started pulling out, it became increasingly difficult to be a moderate in this escalating spiral. On both sides, the negotiators felt that it is difficult to deal with the courts who were not always follow along what they had agreed, and difficult to negotiate with the move who are not always follow along with what they agreed. Both move, courts and cities become more and more entrenched in their positions. Anybody who left the move was seen as betrators to move, but anybody in the city government involved in the move was seen as the betrators to the city.
(9) Conflict Styles –in General & in Marriages. (a) Name and describe the five (–also add in the one included in the conflict styles questionnaire) strategies Rubin, Pruitt & Kim (and others) suggest parties may use in conflict (hint: these can also be individual differences). Be sure to discuss the “Concern for Self/Other” interpretation of this model.
Accommodating - Strategy essentially entails giving the opposing side what it wants. Keep the peace or perceives the issue as minor.
Avoiding - To put off conflict indefinitely. Hopes the problem resolves itself without a confrontation.
Collaborating - By integrating ideas set out by multiple people.
Compromising - Calls for both sides of a conflict to give up elements of their position in order to establish an acceptable solution.
Competing - One side wins and other side loses. Works best in emergency situations.
Strategy we take here is based on the concern for self and concern for others
