conflict management
...velopments in electronics, plastics, nutrition, and computers, and nobody was deliberately killed in the process. Cohesiveness and solidarity might be brought about through increased rewards within the society as well as through external threat. Thus wars on poverty, famine, and disease, like wars on neighbors, can raise society’s cohesiveness. Finally, international alliances may be based on trade or cultural exchange rather than on a pact of “mutual defense” against some third party. Most writers who have dealt with inter group conflict do not attempt to maintain a stance of ethical neutrality. They openly abhor inter group prejudice, discrimination, and violence. This value orientation is clear in the discussion that follows. Group Formation First, subjects were divided into two groups, which were equated as much as possible in terms of individual skills and abilities. These two groups were taken to the camp on separate buses and located in cabins far enough apart so that they would not contact each other until the experimenter arranged it. Group formation was accomplished by distributing rewards so that the best pattern of outcomes could come only from intra-group cooperation. That is, the boys participated in cookouts, overnight camping excursions, and other “fun” activities that required a close coordination of efforts. Meanwhile the boys began to express interest in and friendship for other members of their group. Leaders emerged, and norms developed and were enforced. The selection of snappy names for the groups (such as “Rattlers” and “Eagles”, the development of jargon and rituals, and the choice of special locations for group activities indicated a strong group feeling. These behavior patterns, of course, were consistent with earlier-cited studies suggesting that the satisfaction associated with group participation is a major determinant of cohesiveness. Inter-group Conflict After achieving group formation by making rewards contingent on intra-group cooperation, the experimenters created conflict by establishing a “win/lose” situation such that the best pattern of outcomes could come only from inter group competition. This situation was produced by offering points and prizes to the winners of a tournament of contests and games. In the course of the competition, initial good sportsmanship rapidly disappeared as the equally matched teams vied for the points. An important finding was what the competition had an important effect on the attitudes of the contenders. Each group tended to overestimate its own abilities and performances and to underestimate the abilities and performances of the opposition. Conflict Resolution The third, or conflict-resolution, phase involved establishing conditions such that the best pattern of rewards could come only from inter-group cooperation. The experimenters did so by creating super-ordinate goals–that is, goals that were compelling for both groups but that could not be attained through the efforts of one group alone. For example, since the water supply was important to both groups, they worked together to locate the breakage point when the system failed. In another instance the two sides were forced to chip in to have a movie shown in camp. In a third situation the experimenter removed the starter from a truck bringing food into camp, and, after attaching a towline, the two groups literally pulled together for their supper. Cooperation to attain one or two super-ordinate goals did not reduce the tensions, but cooperation at a series of such tasks resulted in a clear change in inter-group relations. Friendships formed between groups, there was a marked reduction in the tendency to rate outsiders unfavorably, and the boys from the two groups began cooperating in the absence of problems posed by the experimenters. Recurrent Themes The frictions that occurred between Sherif’s Rattlers and Eagles are similar, but not identical, to those that are evident in interracial and international conflicts. Adult groups differ in many ways from Sherif’s groups of preadolescents, and these differences can affect the course of their relationships. There are, however, certain themes in the camp studies that keep popping up in discussions of other inter-group relations. These recurrent themes are like Wagnerian Leitmotiven, played now on a piccolo, then on a pipe organ and then again by the whole orchestra. Three such themes are as follows: (1) win/lose situations spark a form of aggressive competition that is characterized by attempts to neutralize, harm, and eliminate the competing group. (2) Win/lose situations contribute to own-group bias–that is, cause group members to raise their evaluation of their own group and lower their evaluation of the opposing group. (3) if it were only possible to get groups to pursue common (rather than mutuality exclusive) goals, conflict would be eliminated. Win/Lose Situations Win/lose situations make the headlines and the history books. Historically, a major source of inter-group antagonism has been employment (Simpson & Yinger, 1958; Bonacich, 1972). Southern blacks emigrating north got a hostile reception from unskilled white laborers, who felt that, their jobs might be in jeopardy. Pressures to exclude foreigners from our shores may also have represented an attempt to protect jobs, and there is some speculation that, when Japanese Americans were stripped of their property and forced into concentration camps during World War II. This action was motivated by selfish economic considerations as well as by concern for “national security” (Simpson & Yinger, 1958). Class struggles and bloody battles between workers and management are essentially conflicts between the “haves” and the “have nots,” and, whereas wars may be waged for “the hearts” of people, it is amazing how often rubber, oil, tin, and land are at lease peripherally involved. Among the more recent prizes that contenders have seen as indivisible are Palestine, Cyprus, and the oil wells of the Middle East. Of course, not every resource will be disputed. For example, although the Chamber of Commerce of Niagara Falls, New York, might like to have the scenic Canadian side of the falls incorporated into the United States, one hears little discussion these days about the annexation of Canada. For a win/lose situation to develop, each side must feel that it has claim on the resource in question. Furthermore, not all disputed resources will spark open conflict. The lure of specific relative-gain goals such as southern Ontario may be offset by a recognition that, for the most part, the two groups have had a cooperative relationship that has yielded a high level of mutual gains. Besides, the anticipated rewards of victory may be offset by the anticipated costs of the conflict. In many cases, both parties recognize that negotiated solutions provide the best outcomes. A particular kind of win/lose situation is the exploitative relationship, in which one side does all the winning and the other side does all the losing. According to Blauner’s (1970) controversial theory of internal colonialism, discord between blacks and whites in the United States is caused by an exploitative relationship in which whites control all the resources. Traditionally, colonialism refers to conditions whereby one country exerts economic and political domination over another country, which is populated by people of a different race or culture. The colonizers exploit the land, the natural resources, and, above all, the people. According to Blauner, the black ghettos in our cities are ruthlessly exploited colonies within our national boundaries. Many groups of immigrants have settled into ghettos in the United States, but three features give black ghettos colonial status. First, whereas most other ghettos were voluntarily formed, black ghettos were enforced. Second, whereas most ghettos represented for the occupants a stopping point on the way to becoming one more indistinguishable mineral in the big melting pot, black ghettos have persisted over generations and have provided dead-end streets for many black families. Third, and most important, although in most ghettos it took only a brief time for ghetto dwellers to become landlords, merchants, and entrepreneurs within the ghetto, this was not true in the case of blacks. Greek Americans, Chinese Americans, and Polish Americans came to own their own laundries, banks, and restaurants, but the ghetto black has remained a captive patron of white-dominated businesses. Own-Group Bias The attitudinal effects of win/lose competition noted in the Sherif camp studies have also been repeatedly noted in-groups of conflicting adults. Specifically, there have been numerous reports of an own-group bias such that everyone within one’s own group is favorably evaluated and everyone in the other group is unfavorably evaluated. A number of recent experimental studies have been aimed at pinpointing the causes of own-group bias (Rabbie & Horwitz, 1969; Kahn & Ryen, 1972; Gerard & Hoyt, 1974; Rabbie, Benoist, Oosterbaan, & Visser, 1974; Tajfel & Billig, 1974). Super-ordinate Goals A third theme in the camp studies that recurs in discussions of inter-group conflict is that, if by the imposition of super-ordinate goals a win/lose situation can be transformed into a situation in which both groups can win, conflict will be reduced or eliminated. For example, in the organizational setting super-ordinate goals have been used to resolve internal conflicts (Blake & Mouton, 1962; Blake, Shepard, & Mouton, 1964). In workshop settings, where small groups were encouraged to come up with better solutions than those offered in competing groups, there was evidence of inter-group antagonism. When common interests were highlighted and the groups were encouraged to work together for the good of the organization, inter-group hostilities were overcome. Inspecting the history of international relations, one can find numerous illustrations of super-ordinate goals reducing inter-group tensions. Unfortunately, the super-ordinate goal in these cases usually involves the vanquishing of some third group. For example, during the 1930s many Americans considered both the Russian Communists and the German Nazis threatening and loathsome, but, despite the Communists’ initial edge, the Nazis eventually proved the more hateful of the two. With the super-ordinate goal of defeating the Axis powers, the United States and the U. S. S. R. became allies–at least until that super-ordinate goal was reached. Although this kind of historical event certainly conforms to Sherif’s theory, it does little to help us with the problem of conflict resolution, since, as Sherif points out, such alliances usually result in a widening of the conflict. Nonetheless, it may still be possible to discover super-ordinate goals (other than the subjugation of some third party) that could reduce the antagonisms between traditionally conflicting social groups. This is no easy job, for glib pronouncements such as “Let’s pull together for peace” will not work. According to Sherif and Sherif (1969), a super-ordinate goal must require cooperation, cannot be based on words alone, and may not be imposed by one group on another. Conflicts Within society Let’s move up scale from the small groups studied by Sherif and consider relationships among groups that constitute large identifiable segments of the U.S. population. An ethnic group is a collection of people who are considered by themselves and by others to have common racial origin (as revealed by physical factors such as skin tone and facial features). A common national origin, a common language and cultural tradition, or some combination of these factors (Harding et al., 1969). Although reference will be made to several different ethnic groups, attention will focus on the conflict between black and white Americans, because this conflict has been one of the most serious and also one of the most carefully studied. A discussion of inter-group relations forces the use of generalities. However, this should not obscure the fact that within any given ethnic group it is possible to find represented a wide spectrum of attitudes and behaviors toward the members of other ethnic groups. This section begins with a discussion of prejudice, that particular form of in-group bias characterized by strong negative views of the out-group. We will then consider the functions of discriminatory activity and will see that prejudice and discrimination tend to be self-perpetuating. Finally, we will look at two views concerning the best way to ensure good outcomes for one’s own ethnic group. Prejudice Prejudicial attitudes are negative feelings that, according to Harding et al. (1969), depart from one or more of three ideal norms: the norm of rationality, the norm of justice, and the norms of human heartedness. The norm of rationality suggests that we should be accurate and factually correct, logical in our reasoning, and cautious when making judgments. A prejudiced attitude is likely to be inaccurate, incorrect, and illogical. The norm of justice suggests that all people should be treated equally, except with respect to their objective abilities. A prejudiced attitude includes the belief that differential treatment should be based on group membership, rather than on individual ability. The norm of human heartedness prescribes tolerance and compassion. A prejudiced attitude often advocates kicking, rather than rooting for, the underdog. A fully prejudiced attitude, then, is one that is irrational, unjust, and cold hearted. First, the arrival of a group of unskilled blacks raises the possibility that there will be more workers than jobs and thus can result in lowered wages and less job security for the equally unskilled white. Prejudicial activit...