CONSTRUAL BIASES IN THE MEDIATION OF CONFLICT

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Fourteen studies are proposed exploring that role that various cognitive, perceptual motivational, and social processes play in creating and perpetuating social conflict, and in thwarting dispute resolution. One group of studies proceeds from an analysis of "naive realism" (i.e., the failure to distinguish between objective and subjective reality, and the related failure to make adequate inferential allowance for differences in people's interpretations of identical objective stimuli) to derive and consider two related phenomena: the tendency to overestimate the extremity and ideological consistency of partisans, and the tendency to see hostile bias in the efforts of mediators and other "third-parties." A second group of studies focuses on the tendency for partisans to "reactively" devalue compromises and concessions offered by the "otherside" (i.e., the tendency to decrease one's liking for compromises or concessions that have been explicitly offered, relative to alternative compromises or concessions that have not been offered). A third group of studies expands our concerns to three other dispute resolution barriers; i.e., the pursuit of equity, the unwillingness to bear losses in order to achieve gains, and the dissonance engendered by previous negotiation failures. The research strategy followed in these studies generally involves three related stages or components: first, demonstrating phenomena and exploring parameters; second, investigating underlying processes; and third, testing the success of various "interventions" that our conceptual analyses (and real-world experiences) lead us to believe might attenuate the conflict-producing or conflict-perpetuating phenomena in question. These studies speak to classic theoretical issues concerning the interplay of cognitive, perceptual, and motivational processes e.g., assimilation versus contrast, dissonance versus reactance, shifts in interpretation versus shifts in preference or priority -- in influencing human judgement and decision-making. At the same time, they promise significant dividends for practitioners who seek to understand and ameliorate the statemates, and spirals of hostility and distrust, that threaten individual mental health and jeopardize relationships among individuals, groups, and even nations.