The Psychology of Peace and Conflict

1. Introduction

Humans are capable of a wide range of positive and negative feelings, thoughts and
behaviors. We have a capacity for love and constructive behaviour and can create a feeling of
community and belonging, a feeling of ʻweʻ. However, human beings are also capable of
hate, destructive behaviour and of creating the antagonistic dynamics of ʻus versus themʻ.
Accordingly, we have the potential to create peace as well as violence – both individually and
collectively. The course ʻ Psychology of Peace and Conflict’ aims to explore these
capacities in order to understand how to build peace and reduce conflict between individuals,
groups and societies.
Based on this dyadic focus of the capacity for both peace and violence, this course
represents the intersection between the disciplines of Psychology, Conflict Resolution and
Peace Studies. These disciplines are intimately related as a considerable amount of the
foundational thought and practice of Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies is derived from
Psychology, specifically Social Psychology.
As peace cannot be understood appropriately without understanding violence, not
only the psychological roots of peace are investigated in this course, but also the sychological
roots of violence and aggression. Accordingly, students will explore a variety of sychological
concepts, while a specific emphasis is put on the subfield of Social Psychology. The cases
that will be analysed range from the micro, family level up to the macro, international level in
order to provide students with a broad understanding of how violence and aggression are
expressed and developed. Interestingly, this will show that some psychological mechanisms
that are at work on the micro level, also apply to the macro level. Further, the impact of
violence on psychological and social functioning will be revealed and students will acquire a
critically and psychologically informed perspective on how to prevent violence and to build
peace on different levels.
Our moto throughout the course is “Just as wars begin in the minds of men, peace
also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing
peace. The responsibility lies with each of us."( UNESCO,1986).

1
 1.1. Peace Psychology Defined

Peace psychology seeks to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and
mitigation of direct and structural violence. Framed positively, peace psychology promotes
the nonviolent management of conflict and the pursuit of social justice, what we refer to as
peacemaking and peace building, respectively (Christie et al., 2001, p.7).

As Louise Diamond says in the Peace Book 8: “Peace is more than the absence of
war, violence or conflict, peace is about the quality of our connections and relationships, with
ourselves, with others and with our communities. In this definition:

 Peace with ourselves is a sense of being part of something larger than ourselves, hopefully
leading to balance and a sense of well being so that we can make better choices and
maximize opportunities in our lives.
 Peace with others is our shared humanness leading to resolution, forgiveness, and
reconciliation.
 Peace in our communities leads to respect for our multiple differences, which leads to better
understanding, trust and co-existence.”

A similar definition of peace psychology was offered by MacNair (2003) Peace Psychology:
the study of mental processes and behavior that lead to violence, prevent violence, and
facilitate nonviolence as well as promoting fairness, respect, and dignity for all, for the
purpose of making violence a less likely occurrence and helping to heal its psychological
effects. (p. x)
Anderson (2004, p. 103) defined peace as “a condition in which individuals, families, groups,
communities, and/or nations experience low levels of violence and engage in mutually
harmonious relationships.”

Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all
its forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way. Peace therefore exists where
people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively with respectful
attention to the legitimate needs and interests of all concerned. The distinction is sometimes
made between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace
refers to the absence of violence or efforts to reduce violent episodes. When, for example, a
ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable
stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). Positive peace is efforts

2
to promote social justice .It is filled with positive content such as the restoration of
relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and
the constructive resolution of conflict.

In psychology, peacefulness is a characteristic of the behaviors, states, and attitudes of

individuals.
 Peaceful behaviour is defined here as actions that create and maintain nonviolent and
harmonious relationships. Cooperation and kindness are examples of peaceful behavior.
 Peaceful states include emotions such as calmness, quietness, and security as well as
conditions of inner harmony between aspects of self.
 Peaceful attitudes are defined here as beliefs and values that facilitate the creation and
maintenance of nonviolent and harmonious relationships.
1.2. Types of Peace
In psychology, peace can have different domains:
A. Intrapersonal Peacefulness`

Intrapersonal peacefulness may be defined in several ways:

(1) as a disposition for self-acceptance, self-compassion, and nonviolence toward self,
(2) as a relatively enduring state of harmony (i.e., congruence) between aspects of self, for
example Carl Rogers and his colleagues to assess congruence between perceived self and
ideal self and
(3) as Emotional Dispositions that support peaceful relationships and/or are associated with
experiencing harmony. For example, peaceful emotional traits include feelings of fulfilment,
security, harmony, calmness, satisfaction and unpeaceful emotional traits include dispositions
for anger and hostility, insecurity, anxiety, irritability, and discontentment.

To assess this dimension of peace, the trait of neuroticism may be useful for describing a
very general disposition for experiencing peaceful vs. unpeaceful emotional states.
Neuroticism is one of the “big five” personality dimensions many psychologists consider
higher-order personality factors useful for describing the core aspects of personality.

3
 B. Interpersonal Peacefulness

A peaceful person consistently exhibits behavior and attitudes that are nonviolent and that
creates and maintains harmonious relationships with other persons. Compared to most
people, a peaceful person is less likely to behave in hurtful ways toward others and is more
likely to be cooperative, considerate, helpful, and trustworthy. The attitudes of
interpersonally peaceful people tend to be tolerant, empathic, trusting, and forgiving. It seems
obvious that these behaviors and attitudes facilitate the development and maintenance of
harmonious interpersonal relationships.

The assessment of interpersonal peacefulness would measure both (1) nonviolent behaviors
and attitudes toward other people and (2) behaviours and attitudes that create and maintain
harmonious relationships with other people. One way to include both dimensions is to
combine them into a single dimension of harmonious vs. violent. This is done in the case of
some instruments for measuring the Big Five trait of agreeableness.
C. International Peacefulness

Peacefulness in the international domain is defined here as favorable attitudes toward

nonviolent approaches to international conflict resolution, unfavourable attitudes toward
the use of violence against other nations, and favorable attitudes toward development and
maintenance of harmonious relations with other nations.

Relatively few people are directly involved in planning or executing foreign policy.
Therefore, given that our concern is the study of people in the general population,
peacefulness of individuals in the international domain will be operationally defined here as
a characteristic of attitudes rather than behaviors. Individuals can behave peacefully in this
domain by voting for candidates who favor peaceful foreign policies or by other forms of
political action. Still, the assessment of international peacefulness would ideally measure
both militaristic attitudes and cooperative attitudes toward international relations.

1.3. A Holistic Understanding of Peace and N o n violence

Peacefulness is sometimes seen as Nonviolent Dispositions. Nonviolence has been viewed as

both a philosophy and behaviour. One definition describes nonviolence as “an action that
uses power and influence to reach one’s goal without direct injury or violence to the person
or persons working to frustrate one’s goal achievement” . Nonviolent persons might be

4
principled or pragmatic. From the perspective of a peaceful personality, the principled
approach seems most relevant. A principled nonviolent person:

1. believes that violent behaviour and retaliations are to be avoided,

2. desires to understand the truth within a conflict,
3. accepts the burden of suffering to break the cycle of violence,
4. believes in noncooperation with evil, and

5. engages in behaviors that confront injustice with the intent to increase social justice
in a manner consistent with the above-mentioned beliefs without using direct violence.

Nonviolent action, as a method of making contention, makes three important contributions to

building and sustaining a culture of peace. First, nonviolent means of struggle promote social
norms that avoid violence, even without any kind of overarching commitment to pacifism.
Second, nonviolent struggle helps to build trust among individuals and groups, even when
they find themselves in contention/argument. Third, the structural requirements for effective
nonviolent action diffuse power throughout society effectively empowering groups who
might otherwise be excluded, broadening democratic participation, and valuing inter-group
communication.

1.4. System of Violence.

The challenge for peace psychologists is to become systems analysts, which requires an effort
to simultaneously focus on the individual as the locus of the problem while also transforming
the structural and cultural context within which violent behavior is embedded. Violence can
be direct or structural.

Structural violence, occurs when basic human needs are not met and life spans are
shortened because of inequalities in the way political and economic structures of a society
distribute resources (Galtung, 1969). Structural violence is all around us and is strongly
expressed through systems of social injustice that exist in the form of social classes within
societies, between countries and between the developed and the developing world. Even
though we are surrounded by this social problem, we do not seem to perceive or acknowledge
it appropriately and most of us contribute to it in one or another way. An example would be
the clothes we wear. In 2010 a Swedish Documentary revealed the miserable conditions
under which Cambodian factory workers produce the clothes we can see in some of the neat
shop-windows of H&M stores around Europe.These workers only earn one third of what they

5
would need to cover their living costs. Therefore, they do not have enough money to buy
food, pay rent and take care of their children. Moreover, the working conditions in the
factories are so bad that workers frequently collapse. The production of clothes for H&M in
Cambodia is only one of many similar cases. Only recently more than 110 workers died in a
blaze in a Bangladeshi factory that supplied clothes for international brands including
Walmart and C&A. There were no safety measures to rescue them. Information like this is
probably not entirely new to you, as we can read and hear about these cases in newspapers,
online and on television. Therefore, a question we should ask ourselves is, why we still buy
these products despite the possibility of knowing about their origin and their impact on other
people?

Structural Violence can take cultural forms. 'Cultural violence' is defined here as any aspect
of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. Symbolic
violence built into a culture does not kill or maim like direct violence or the violence built
into the structure. Examples of cultural violence are indicated, using a division of culture into
religion and ideology, art and language, gender,etc.

Direct violence refers to physical violence that harms or kills people quickly, producing
somatic trauma or total incapacitation.

Direct Violence Structural Violence

Kills people directly Kills people indirectly
Kills quickly Kills slowly
Somatic harm Somatic deprivation
Dramatic Commonplace
Personal Impersonal
Acute insult to well-being Chronic insult to well-being
Intermittent Continuous
Subject-action-object observable Subject-action-object unobservable
Intentional and immoral Unintentional and amoral
Episodes may be prevented Inertia may be mitigated

1.5. System of Peace

There are two kinds of peace processes which form a system of peace that is well suited
for the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence.

6
Peacemaking
Peacemaking is designed to reduce the frequency and intensity of direct violence. The section
on peacemaking begins with a chapter on U.N. peacekeeping, an approach in which would-be
combatants are separated by neutral forces. Peacekeeping may be used flexibly, either before
or after episodes of direct violence, that is, to prevent or mitigate episodes of violence.
Peacekeeping has traditionally focused on managing, rather than resolving, conflicts.
Although peacemaking is often very useful, the approach has limitations, not least of which
is the problem that peacemaking can be used as a tool by those with power who can insist on
peaceful means of resolving disputes, while ignoring socially just ends. The dialogue process
that characterizes peacemaking approaches is important but a sustainable peace requires
structural and cultural peace building, actions and supporting narratives that redress the
deeper and more permanent roots of the problem.
Peace building
Peace building is designed to reduce structural violence. It is aimed at socially just ends,
actions and supporting narratives that redress the deeper and more permanent roots of the
problem.
Peace building has cultural, political, and economic dimensions (Galtung, 1996).
Culturally, peace building requires the transformation of cultural narratives or beliefs that
justify and legitimize the dominance of one group over another. Politically, peace building
occurs when political systems that oppress people are transformed so that there are equal
opportunities for political representation and voice. Peace building includes transforming
economic structures that exploit and deprive people of resources needed for optimal growth
and development so that everyone has adequate material amenities such as decent housing,
jobs, education, and health care.

Peacemaking Peace building

Reduces direct violence Reduces structural violence
Emphasis on nonviolent means Emphasis on socially just ends
Reactive Proactive
Temporally and spatially constrained Ubiquitous (continuous)
Prevention of violent episodes Promotion of social justice
Interest in the status quo Threat to status quo

1.6. Peace Education: A Conceptual Clarification

7
 Peace education is a holistic education. Its slippery and flexible nature motivated its various
interpretations. It was noted that peace education is a multifaceted educational programme that
encompasses different approaches capable of transforming the behavioural patterns of people
through the inculcation of desired knowledge, attitudes and skills for effective contribution to the
cultural, social, economic and political development of their countries (Alimba, 2007). Hicks(1985)
described peace education as activities that develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to
explore concepts of peace, enquiry into the obstacles to peace ( both in individuals and societies), to
resolve conflicts in a just and non-violent way, and to study ways of constructing just and
sustainable alternative future. Similarly, peace education is the process of promoting the knowledge,
skills, attitudes and values needed to bring about behaviour changes that will enable children, youth
and adults to prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; to resolve conflict peacefully,
and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, intergroup, national or
international level (Fountain, 1999). It is imperative to note that the skills, attitudes and knowledge
which peace education propagates can be employed to tackle diverse problems confronting
humanity. Hence, the conceptualization of peace education is based on the problem to be tackled.
For instance in North America and Europe, peace education is defined within the border of conflict
resolution education or conflict management education. In Japan, peace education is defined within
the context of mitigating the miseries of the A-bomb. Hence, anti-nuclear bomb education becomes
the theme that guides the definition of peace education. In Korea, peace education is centered on
how to reunite the North and South Korea. Consequently, reunification education becomes the yield
stick for the interpretation of peace education in the region. It is important to stress that in Africa,
peace education should be defined as that programme that should inculcate tolerance and mutual
understanding in order to challenge ethnic and religious sentiments which are the main bane of
violent conflicts in the continent. The specific regional variation in peace education profile is an
indication that peace education reacts to the respective prevailing diverse forms of violence (Harris,
2000 and Bar-Tal, 2000).These analyses reinforce the idea that the skills, attitudes and knowledge
which can be gardened through peace education can be used to tackle a whole range of problems
which can be personal, interpersonal, national, regional and international in nature. Therefore, some
of the skills, knowledge and attitudes that can be acquired through peace education for the
transformation are presented in figure 1.

8
 Knowledge Attitude Skill

Knowledge on issues Self respect Critical thinking

relating to;  Honesty  Problem solving
 Self awareness  Open-mindedness  Self solving
 Peace and conflict  Fair play  Selfwareness/reflection
 Justice and power  Obedience  Assertiveness
 Human rights  Caring  Reading
 Globalization  Empathy  Orderliness
 Duties and rights of  Tolerance  Perseverance
citizens  Adaptation to change  Cooperation
 Environment/ecology  Sense of solidarity  Cheerfulness
 Social justice and power  Respect for differences  Self control
 Non violence  Gender equity  Self reliance
 Conflict resolution and  Sense of justice  Sensitivity
transformation  Sense of equality  Compassion
 Culture and race  Reconciliation  Active listening
 Gender and religion  Bias awareness  Patience
 Health care and AIDS  Appreciation  Mediation
 Arms proliferation and  Transparency  Negotiation
drug trade  Conflict resolution

Some of the skills, knowledge and attitudes that can be acquired through peace education for
transformation. . The acquisition of these values will empower people to embrace peace, live
for peace and work for peace anywhere they find themselves. Their thinking patterns and
conducts will be positively influenced in such a way that their behaviours concerning people
and material objects will be heavily controlled in nation.

1.6.1.Peace Education Programs

As for the diversity of peace education programs, one can speak of at least three major
classes of programs.

One class consists of programs designed to change the way specific groups in conflict relate
to each other, demystifying/exposing the adversary’s/opponent’s images and attempting to

9
 understand its culture, point of view, and humanity (e.g., Education for Mutual
Understanding in Northern Ireland; Smith 1995).

A second class consists of programs designed to provide general knowledge about conflicts,
causes of oppression, and war; to cultivate general attitudes about peace and nonviolence; and
to arouse awareness of the suffering caused by war (e.g., Facing History and Ourselves;
Strom 1994). A case in point is the program at Teachers College, Columbia University—
peace education that attempts to prepare students for active and responsible citizenship by
developing their critical thinking, inquiry, and reflective skills
(http://www.tc.columbia.edu/PeaceEd/).

A third class consists of programs designed to cultivate nonviolent behaviors and conflict
resolu-tion skills of individuals (e.g., Conflict Resolution Education; Jones and Kmita 2000).
In reality, of course, most programs are likely to be mixtures of these three classes
emphasizing one or another aspect.
Other kinds of programs focus on human rights, democracy, gender issues, and the
development of peaceful classroom practices and climate (e.g., Johnson and Johnson 2005).

Y Which program of peace education do you suggest to Ethiopian context? Why?

1.6.2.Channels and Forms of Peace Education

For peace education to achieve its set target, the channels of propagation, implementation pattern,
and resources to be used should be given a priority attention. There are three main channels
through which peace education activities can be dispensed. We have the informal, formal and non-
formal channels. The informal channel of propagating peace education involves developments at
home and family settings, which have bearing on how peaceful behaviours are nested and
promoted. The informal channel is characterized by approaches that border on role model,
imitation and other means such as storytelling, proverbs, use of poems e.t.c in homes, families and
the immediate environment. The formal channel for propagating peace education entails the use of
schools to educate people for peace. It involves the incorporation of peace education values into
the school curriculum, so that people can be taught how to pursue peace with self and others in the
environment. Non-formal channel of peace education involves training people through workshops,
seminars and conferences at the local level, so that they can be aware of how to live peacefully and
harmoniously with others. These channels are essential outlets through which peace education can

10
be dispensed to specific or wider audience to promote the impartation of a culture of peace. There
are various forms of peace education.
1.6.3.Key Peace Education Themes and Methodology
1.6.3.1. Peace Education Themes

• Skills on conflict Transformation and Peace Building

 Understanding the Root Causes of conflict
 Why Is Peace Important?
 Intervention During Violence
 Conflict Resolutions & Negotiations
 Protection of Children, Women & Older People
 Negotiation Skills
 Conflict Mapping
1.6.3.2. Peace Education Methodology
Community leaders training, • Workshops, • Seminars
• Community meetings, • Organized community-based peace councils
• Radio broadcasting , Community newsletter
• Peace fairs and festivals • Community network for peace
• Peace concerts, games, songs, poems, • Peace symbols,
 Extra-curricular activities, Case studies, • Case Analysis

1.6. 4.Peace Education and Youth Empowerment for Peace

The transformative power of peace education has been attested to by research findings.
For instance, in a study conducted by Bar-Tal (2002), it was discovered that peace education
“changed attitudes, increased tolerance, reduce prejudices, weakened stereotypes, changed
conceptions of self and of “other” and reinforced sense of collective identity”. Fountain (1999)
reported that peace education has been used to develop a life skills education in Zimbabwe for
handling AIDS; in Angola for creating landmines awareness; in Croatia for school-based
programme for psychosocial healing; in Tanzania for enhancing knowledge of community
mechanisms for building peace and resolving conflict and in Lebanon for understanding
interdependence between individuals and societies. Equally, Salomon (2003) revealed that a
series of peace education quasi-experimental studies carried out with Israeli-Jewish and
Palestinian youngsters revealed that despite the ongoing violence, participation in various
programs yield positive attitudinal, perceptual and relational changes manifested in, for example,
more positive views of “ peace”, better ability to see the other side’s perspective, and greater
willingness for contact. Salomon (2003) argued further that these changes depend on
participants’ initial political views. Going by this, Gavriel Salomon justified the fact that peace

11
 education can directly or indirectly cause a positive change in the behaviour of people. Ohanyan
and Lewis (2005) assessed the impact of peace education on shaping the attitudes of people in an
interethnic contact and they showed that “feelings for the other side have changed since taking
part in the (peace education) programme. The analysis of the relationship between interethnic
contacts showed statistically significant outcomes, meaning, “Specifically interethnic contact has
made students more tolerant and open minded of the other side (Ohanyan and Lewis, 2005).

1.6.5.Attributes of peace educators

 peaceful in mind and heart Open to change Independent

 Optimistic Sympathetic Neutral
 Language-proficient has conflict analysis skills
 able to listen and communicate with others willing to take risks
 Multi-dimensional, emotionally and intellectually wise

2. Understanding Conflicts
2.1. Concepts of conflict
Conflict is normal and natural and cannot be avoided. It is an integral element of human
existence. As Conflict cannot be eliminated in our lives, so also is our desire for peace. Every
human being naturally desires to live in peace, and yet we find ourselves constantly in
conflict.

A conflict is a situation in which one or both parties perceive a threat (whether or not the
threat is real). It’s what happens when people feel there is an incompatibility between their
goals, when needs are unmet, and when expectations are unfulfilled.
• perceived differences in interests, views, or goals (Deutsch, 1973);
• opposing preferences (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992);
• a belief that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously
(Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994);

2.2. Conflict VS violence

There is a distinction between ‘conflict’ and ‘violence’. Conflict is something natural.
Everybody experiences conflicts, and every single day people may have many different
conflicts, of varying levels of intensity, regardless of caste, gender, nationality, age,
culture, ideology or religion.

12
 Violence, however, is one way of dealing with conflicts, though there are many forms of
violence. Violence happens when a conflict has been systematically mismanaged or neglected,
and when violence is accepted and seen as a legitimate way of responding to conflicts within
society. While violence may result in some possible outcomes to the conflict – winning or
beating the other – it cannot transform the conflict constructively, and often leads to an ever-
worsening cycle of violence.

Conflict violence

 Conflicts are inevitable Violence is not inevitable

 Conflicts can be constructive or destructive Violence is destructive
 Conflict is primarily about human cognition Violence primarily involves
behavior

Nature of Conflict

Conflict is a natural and necessary part of our lives. Whether at home with our families, at
work with colleagues or in negotiations between governments, conflict pervades our
relationships. The paradox of conflict is that it is both the force that can tear relationships
apart and the force that binds them together. This dual nature of conflict makes it an
important concept to study and understand. Conflict is an inevitable and necessary feature of
domestic and international relations.The challenge facing governments is not the elimination
of conflict, but rather, how to effectively address conflict when it arises. Conflict can be
managed negatively through avoidance at one extreme and the use or threat of force at the
other. Alternatively, conflict can be managed positively through negotiation, joint problem-
solving and consensus-building. These options help build and sustain constructive bilateral
and multi-lateral relations.
Constructive conflict management is as much a science as an art. It is based on a
substantial body of theory, skills and techniques developed from decades of experience in
international peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace building. Acquiring a better
understanding of the conceptual tools and skills professional conflict managers use can help
us gain confidence in addressing conflict in a manner which resolves the issues and maintains
or even strengthens relationships. While we may not all go on to become professional

13
peacemakers, these skills and knowledge can help us in any social setting. These tools can
help for example, government officials, address disputes more quickly and effectively,
preventing them from growing into domestic or international crises.
2.3. The Conflict Triangle

Violence breeds violence. This is almost a mathematical equation of violent conflicts. If one
side uses violence against another, it is more likely that the ‘other’ will use violence
against them. If you hurt or cause suffering to me or to my community, I may be more
likely to want to hurt or cause suffering to you and your community.

With each act of violence the cycle and scale of violence, revenge, killing, and torture
escalates. What may not have been acceptable before (‘pre-violence’) now becomes
‘acceptable’, becomes part of the war and violence we have come to know, with the return to
violence threatening to further intensify. As this process continues, more and more
people become drawn in, and more and more people affected, leading to increasing suffering,
devastation, pain and trauma on all sides -- a situation Gandhi described as “[a]n eye for an
eye [that] leaves the whole world blind.”

There are at least three aspects to any conflict – the three corners of the conflict, the
ABC triangle. Conflicts may start, and escalate, at any point of the triangle. To fully
transform a conflict, all three points must be addressed constructively. If any point of the
triangle is left unaddressed, it can be a source of future conflicts, and future violence.

A. Attitudes (how the people view, feel about conflict)

“violence is the only language they understand”, “violence is an acceptable means to

achieve goal”, fear, anger, sadness, powerlessness, sense of impotence, need for revenge,

14
hatred, fear, blaming the ‘other’, dehumanization, demonization, we/they, good vs. evil,
right-wrong, win-lose,)

How do you develop peaceful attitude/feeling?

Positive feeling for individuals, for communities.

Reduce unwanted feeling that means negative feeling about self and others.
Shape feeling style meaning which issue is negative or positive in my feeling style
i.e. by understanding the issue?
promote the others positive feeling by accepting or by understanding the one who
feelings.

B. Behavior (how do people act physically)

killing, abuse, shooting, hurting, harming, torture, beating, inflicting suffering, bombing,
kidnapping, attacking, sabotage, burning down businesses, blowing up homes, offices,
and roads; withdrawal, turning away, doing nothing, not getting involved, etc.

How do one creates peaceful behaviour?

Maintains harmonious relationship with other individuals, with other community.

Cooperation with others in work place not only work place but also in social lives.
accepting our diversity cultures.
Eating and drinking with others together.
Respecting elders, individual’s religion types.
Playing recreation with other groups, communities.

accepting values, norms and beliefs of ethnic groups

C. Cognition what people think about conflict, underlying believes about conflict.

How do you promote peaceful cognition/thinking?

Think about positive thinking for other individuals, communities and like.
Minimizing negative thinking for other individuals, communities and like.

15
 By avoiding any negative thinking from my attitude for such kind of thinking.
Developing rational thinking or exercise relational thinking for individuals, for
communities so the result or consequence of such kinds of thought to add
peacefulness.

If the above description are conflict triangle, how do you draw Peace triangle?

2.4. Approach to conflict

A. War culture approaches to conflict

War culture approaches to conflict dominate in certain sectors in many countries today,
affecting how we see, deal with, and respond to conflict and violence. The essential
characteristics of a war culture approach to conflict are to see conflict as:
 Something negative, destructive, bad; a struggle between ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’, with
‘Self’ chosen by or on the side of Good, and the ‘Other’ acting on behalf of or serving
Evil;
 Win-lose: one side wins, the other side loses, with no in between and victory or
defeat as the only possible outcomes;
 Zero-sum: for one side to get what it wants, the other side has to lose what it wants.
The resources or issue being ‘fought’ over is finite and absolute, and cannot be
shared, but only owned, won, controlled by one side at the loss of the other;
 Trauma: Moments of ‘defeat’ and ‘suffering’ inflicted in the past, used as justification
for struggle or violence and future victory to make up for or overcome injustices and
past suffering;
 Demonization and dehumanization: the portrayal of those at the ‘other side’ as evil or
less human, thus, making it easier to kill or eradicate them;
 Polarization: reduction of the parties to two – Self and Other – severing all links,
contact, relations between them(which may show common ground, similarities, or
serve to build bridges), de-legitimizing and eliminating even the possibility of
alternatives or of not belonging to either of the two sides. Polarization breaks down all
relations other than those of extremes and violence, with the parties confronting one another
as opponents.

16
War culture is promoted through shared texts, monuments, historical symbols, speeches,
political policies, education, music and popular folk songs, academic writings, media,
journalism, and much, much more. Addressing contradictions without addressing the way in
which we perceive and deal with conflicts can mean that violence and war may be
used again in the future when responding to other contradictions, or that the underlying
contradictions which gave rise to this war may not be fully addressed.
B. Culture of Peace values

To overcome and ultimately to immunize a community to large-scale violence it is

important that in addition to transforming and transcending direct and structural
violence, a culture of peace which nurtures and supports peaceful and constructive
approaches to transforming conflicts is promoted. The values and ideas which make
up peace cultures provide holistic, interlinking and complementary worldviews which
open up for effective and constructive ways of dealing with conflicts. Identifying elements of
cultures of peace within communities can help enrich the soil for peace building and conflict
transformation. Below are some values and beliefs, which many peace cultures around the
world embrace:
 Human Rights. Including social, economic, political, civil and cultural rights as
fundamental and basic for all peoples, regardless of race, gender, nationality, class,age, and
language group. Human Rights as a foundation provides an important element of a culture of
peace.
 Recognition of the rights of all groups and peoples and not just of one’s own can be
an important step for transcending conflicts and the dualist manicheist elements of war
culture. Certain groups may also require special group (in addition to individual) and even
village and cultural rights. Rather than seeing this as weakening or dividing a singular and
unitary whole, it can be seen as strengthening and enriching the diversity of parts which make
up that whole.
 Human Dignity. A central tenet of a culture of peace is human dignity. This may also
be combined with earth dignity and life dignity (respecting and celebrating the life
of all living beings and the earth). Respecting the human dignity of each individual
and group, even when we may disagree with them or seek different objectives, is vital to
finding the commitment and courage to working together to transform conflicts
constructively. Celebration and valuing of human dignity allows for seeing diversity as
richness while respecting the common dignity of all peoples.

17
  Violence as Life Barrier. Direct, structural and cultural violence is one of the greatest
barriers to the realization of human dignity. Economic, social, political, and cultural
arginalization, oppression and exclusion are obstacles to people’s being able to live their lives
in dignity.
 Conflict as Constructive. Whereas war cultures see conflict as negative and
destructive (and often identify conflict with violence), a culture of peace sees conflicts
as an opportunity for creativity: working to transform conflicts constructively. While this
may at times be difficult, requiring commitment, humility and courage, it is also a goal and a
value, as well as a way of seeing the world. In this view conflict is a challenge to find the best
possible outcome for all parties and groups involved. Rather than a threat, conflict becomes
an opportunity for human beings and communities to constructively work together to
transform contradictions and improve well-being.
 Conflict as Uniting. Conflict is something which brings parties together. It is a shared
situation, a relationship uniting and affecting all the parties involved in the conflict.
Rather than seeing ‘the other’ as the enemy or the cause of the problem that had to be
defeated or won over, conflict can be seen as a challenge which requires the cooperation and
involvement of all parties.

2.5. Conflict Escalation

Escalation of conflict refers to an increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of
tactics used in pursuing it. It is driven by changes within each of the parties, new patterns of
interaction between them, and the involvement of new parties in the struggle. When conflicts
escalate, more people tend to become involved. Parties begin to make bigger and stronger
threats and impose harsher negative sanctions. Violence may start, or if violence has already
occurred it may become more severe and/or widespread as the number of participants
involved in the conflict increases, and a greater proportion of a state's citizens actively engage
in fighting.

Conflict theorists Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin list five changes that occur as a conflict
escalates. First, parties move from light tactics to heavy tactics. Light tactics include such
things as persuasive arguments, promises, efforts to please the other side, while heavy tactics
include threats, power plays, and even violence. Second, the conflict grows in size. The
numbers of issues in contention expands, and parties devote more resources to the struggle.
Third, issues move from specific to general, and the relationship between the parties
deteriorates. Parties develop grandiose positions, and often perceive the other side as "evil."

18
Fourth, the number of parties grows from one to many, as more and more people and groups
are drawn into the conflict. Fifth, the goal of the parties changes from "doing well" to
winning, and finally, to hurting the other.

Under certain circumstances, escalation is the rational thing to do. If a party has
overwhelming power over its opponent, it makes sense to use this power to overcome the
opponent's resistance. Parties might also intentionally escalate the conflict in order to
pressure the other side, involve third parties, or rally more people to their cause. In many
cases, this sort of tactical escalation can have positive effects and help move parties toward a
mutually beneficial relationship.

However, a great deal of conflict escalation is inadvertent, and occurs without the parties
having fully considered the implications of their actions. Sometimes this is a result of
perceived crises and time pressures that compel the parties to act before they have considered
alternative courses of action or have a full understanding of the situation. The use of force
and threats, if regarded as too extreme, can ultimately backfire and provoke retaliation. It is
in these cases that conflicts have the potential to spiral out of control and have terribly
damaging effects. Destructively waged conflicts typically involve great losses for one or
more of the contending parties, and tend to persist for a long time. To avoid these negative
consequences, a better understanding of the dynamics of escalation is needed.

Conditions that Encourage Escalation

Some conflict escalation is driven by incompatible goals. Many note that destructive social
and inter-personal conflicts always begin with the emergence of contentious goals of two
adversaries. If the parties do not see a possibility of finding a mutually beneficial solution,
and one believes that it has the power to substantially alter the aspirations of the other, it may
try to bully the other side into submission.
Psychological Dynamics in Escalation
Escalation is both a cause and a result of significant psychological changes among the parties
involved. In addition to anger and fear , negative attitudes, perceptions, and stereotypes of the
opponent can drive escalation, as well as being caused by it (another spiral). Parties have a
tendency to blame the other side for any harms suffered, and want at least restitution, if not
retaliation. They may also form ideas about the dispositions, basic traits, and motives of the
other side. For example, each side may believe that the other is fundamentally selfish,
unfriendly, and hostile to its welfare. As a result, actors often come to regard revenge and

19
punishing the other side as an end in itself. Discussions about substantive issues and
grievances give way to personal attacks upon the other.

Another psychological process that contributes to negative attitudes is selective perception.

Once parties have expectations about the other side, they tend to notice the behavior that fits
these expectations. But this tendency to make observations that fit their preconceptions
simply makes those preconceptions stronger. As a result, the actions of distrusted parties are
seen as threatening, even when their actions are ambiguous. There is a tendency to
misinterpret their behavior, and to give them little benefit of the doubt. This may give rise to
fear and defensive escalation. Even when an adversary makes some conciliatory actions, this
conduct is likely to go unnoticed, or to be discounted as deceptive. Not surprisingly, selective
perceptions often get in the way of effective negotiation and problem-solving processes.

This process of selective perception is further enforced by attribution distortion. Once one
party has formed preconceptions about the other, any information that supports this
hypothesis will be attributed to the opposing side's basic disposition. Any observations that
do not fit their expectations, such as friendly behavior, will be attributed to situational causes
or regarded as a coincidence. As a result, there is almost nothing that the opponent can do to
dispel the party's negative expectations. These negative evaluations allow parties to
rationalize their own hostile behavior, which simply intensifies the conflict.

Past grievances, feelings of injustice, and a high level of frustration may also provoke
escalation. Hostility-driven escalation is typically caused by grievances or a sense of
injustice, and may ultimately be rooted in events of the distant past. One party feels that it has
been treated unfairly by its opponent, and angrily blames its opponent for the suffering it has
endured.
De-escalation

But what can be done when conflict has already reached a significantly high level of
intensity? In these cases, parties must turn to de-escalation strategies to counteract the
escalation process and move toward a reconciliation.

Conflict de-escalation refers to a decrease in the severity of the coercive means used and in

the number of parties engaged in the struggle. One or more dimensions of the conflict
become less intense and the conflict begins to lessen in size. De-escalation can be directed
away from intense animosity or toward increased cooperation.

20
The shift from escalation to de-escalation is not a single event, but rather a process that
advances in a broad step-by-step fashion and is produced by pressures that build over time.
This process includes trying to get adversaries to the negotiating table, forming agreements
about peripheral issues, and moving toward resolution of the basic issues. All of this is
typically accompanied by a reduction in hostility and mistrust between the adversaries.

Fortunately, people in an escalated conflict can only do so much damage to each other, and
for only so long. De-escalation typically occurs after parties have reached a hurting stalemate.
At this point, neither party can escalate the conflict further. The point of maximum conflict
intensity and destructiveness has been reached, and neither side anticipates that the balance of
forces will change so that it may triumph. Contentious tactics have failed, resources have
been exhausted, and both sides have incurred unacceptable costs. At this point, the dversaries
are likely to realize that things must change and they begin to develop a new way of thinking
about their conflict. Once they realize that their current strategy cannot triumph (at least not
with acceptable costs), they are likely to begin to pursue a more conciliatory approach. If they
refuse to end the stalemate by yielding or withdrawing, they must work together to find a
mutually acceptable way out.

At this point, one side typically makes an important conciliatory gesture. Hostility decreases,
the tendency to retaliate lessens, and the level of coerciveness declines. Eventually dversaries
may begin to confer benefits on each other and reward each other for cooperating. All of
these factors initiate the process of de-escalation.

Conditions that Encourage De-escalation

Some of the same processes that contribute to escalation also contribute, in different
circumstances, to de-escalation. The processes of de-escalation occur within each adversary,
in the relations between adversaries, and among parties in the social environment. To a large
extent, all of these de-escalation processes occur as a result of various changes in conflict
conditions. These changed conditions produce a new context in which de-escalation policies
are more likely to succeed.

Social-psychological Changes

The process of de-escalation that takes place within each adversary includes various social-
psychological changes and organizational developments. These processes help people to

21
recognize their own responsibility for the conflict and to reframe the conflict so that a
mutually beneficial solution seems possible.

Social-psychological processes that can contribute to de-escalation include cognitive

dissonance, entrapment, relationship building, and empathy. Cognitive dissonance theory
suggests that once people have made conciliatory moves towards an adversary, they tend to
justify their actions. In an attempt to make their values consistent with their actual conduct,
parties may devalue previously sought goals. If the actions are reciprocated and turn out to be
beneficial, de-escalation becomes even more likely.

Like cognitive dissonance, entrapment often fosters escalation but can be controlled to help

avoid escalation. Indeed, certain aspects of entrapment can contribute directly to de-
escalation. Once adversaries have initiated conciliatory actions, entrapments may help to
keep them on course. This is because de-escalatory actions have costs and involve an
investment on the part of the adversaries. Parties may therefore find themselves yielding
more than they had anticipated in order to behave consistently with past actions. To abandon
de-escalation after investing so much would be to admit that their previous actions had been
mistaken.

Sympathy and empathy also contribute to de-escalation and help to sustain it. A person

sympathizing with another is emotionally moved by that person's feelings. Empathy, on the
other hand, stresses taking the role of the other, accurately perceiving the other's feelings and
thoughts, and experiencing those feelings and thoughts "as if" they were one's own. Those
who sympathize or empathize with their adversaries are far less likely to inflict devastating
harm on them. In addition, such feelings help to produce and support further de-escalatory
policies.

2.6. Conflict Mapping and peace Building Strategy

In conflict mapping, there are two points to consider; Conflict arena and the conflict
formation.
The conflict arena is the actual physical space, the territory, in which the conflict is
taking place or is acted out. This may be a local community, a country, or entire
region. While mappings of conflict arenas generally focus only on the area in which
violence is being used, an actual conflict arena can often be much broader.

The conflict formation is based not upon the physical or territorial space of the conflict,

22
but upon all of the actors, parties, groups and organizations involved in, affected
by, and party to the conflict, and the relationships between them. This includes both
those who may use violence, as well as all others who are contributing to, affected by,
and part of the conflict; those who support the status quo, as well as those trying to
change it.

Parties contributing to the dynamics, nature and shape of a conflict may often be
outside the actual conflict arena, including neighboring villages and other parts of
the country, foreign countries, international governmental and non-governmental
organizations, UN and international government agencies, donors, international
financial institutions, weapons producers and dealers, and many, many others.

Mappings of conflict formations often only focus on violent actors to the conflict,
disempowering those who are being affected and can be potentially mobilized and work
for peace, and neglecting those who may be behind the scenes, affected by the violence
and the conflict, or actively participating and are part of the conflict formation but not
using violence.

To transform conflict constructively through peaceful means and to transform the

dynamics of the conflict, effective mapping of both the conflict arena and the conflict
formation are vital. Mapping of all actors should also be done together with different actors
and parties to the conflict, as some groups and individuals may leave out actors that they do
not perceive as part of the conflict, but which others may consider highly important. A full
mapping of all actors to the conflict formation helps to improve the diagnosis of the conflict,
and open up for therapies: what groups, organizations and individuals affected at every level,
how, can do, and who to mobilize to bring the fighting to an end and to transform the conflict
constructively.
The 9 steps to peace building

1. Map the conflict

• Map all actors, groups, organizations at all levels, involved in, affected by, and contributing
to the conflict.
• Map all issues, goals, interests of each party, including how you see them, and how they
see them themselves.

23
• Map the relationship(s) between (i) the different actors, (ii) the issues, and (iii) the actors
and the different issues.
2. Map related conflicts
• What other conflicts, at the local, district, national and regional levels, and along the eleven
fault lines (gender, generation, political, military, economic, cultural, social, national,
territory, nature, neighboring or foreign countries), impact upon, contribute to, affect, and are
related to the conflict you are looking at.
3. Map unidentified actors including left out actors and potential actors
• Which actors did we forget to include when doing the first mapping of the conflict?
• Are there other groups and actors at the local, district, national c o n f l i c t t r a n s f o r m
a t i o n & p e a c e b u i l d i n g levels?
• Are their potential actors, i.e. those not yet involved in or affected by the conflict, but who
may be able to contribute constructively to peace building and conflict transformation?
4. How can we do it?
• Go concretely into each proposal, develop the strategy and what is needed to implement it
in practice.
5. What has been done before?
• What has been done before in the area, including what has been done in other countries in
similar situations, learning from these experiences and using these to go improve strategy and
practice.
6. What can be done?
• Building upon the mapping in steps 1 – 3, brainstorm and come up with as many ideas as
possible on what can be done, by each actor and at every level, as creatively and
constructively as possible, for peace building and conflict transformation.
7. Repeat the process 10,000 times
• Repeat the process with different actors and groups, individually and together, at the local
level and in communities across the country. Use this as a process of dialogue for peace
building and conflict transformation at the local and national levels.
8. Implement it
• Carry out the proposals developed in 4 and 5, after going over 6 and 7.• Improve and
strengthen the proposals and initiatives further.
9. What are others doing?

24
• Identify what is being done by others, and how more can be done together than apart,
going back again to steps 4 and 5, and working to develop active cooperation and
joint efforts. This is essential for promoting cooperation.

2.7. Levels of Conflicts

Conflict can occur at a number of levels of human functioning. Conflict in your head between
opposing motives or ideas is shown by your “internal dialogue” and is at the intrapersonal
level. Beyond that, the primary concern here is with social conflict, i.e., conflict between
people whether they are acting as individuals, as members of groups, or as representatives of
organizations or nations.
Interpersonal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or
approaches in their relationship. Communication breakdown is often an important source of
interpersonal conflict and learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and
resolving such difficulties. At the same time, very real differences occur between people that
cannot be resolved by any amount of improved communication.
Role conflict involves very real differences in role definitions, expectations or
responsibilities between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If there are
ambiguities in role definitions in an organization or unclear boundaries of responsibilities,
then the stage is set for interpersonal friction between the persons involved. Unfortunately,
the conflict is often misdiagnosed as interpersonal conflict rather than role conflict, and
resolution is then complicated and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often quite high in
role conflict since people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong tendency to
personalize the conflict.
Intergroup conflict occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups,
departments or levels of decision making in the same organization, and union and
management. Competition for scarce resources is a common source of intergroup conflict,
and societies have developed numerous regulatory mechanisms, such as collective bargaining
and mediation, for dealing with intergroup conflict in less disruptive ways. Social-
psychological processes are very important in intergroup conflict (Fisher, 1990). Group
members tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified negative beliefs) of the opposing group,
tend to blame them for their own problems (scapegoating), and practice discrimination
against them. These classic symptoms of intergroup conflict can be just as evident in
organizations as in race relations in community settings. Intergroup conflict is especially
tense and prone to escalation and intractability when group identities are threatened. The

25
costs of destructive intergroup conflict can be extremely high for a society in both economic
and social terms.
International conflict occurs between states at the global level. Competition for resources
certainly plays a part, but value and power conflict are often intertwined and sometimes
predominate. The differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a constant
game of give and take, or threat and counter threat, sometimes for the highest of stakes.
Mechanisms of propaganda can lead to many of the same social-psychological distortions
that characterize interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

2.8. Consequences of Conflicts

The Neutrality of Conflict
The fact that Conflict can have a negative and very destructive impact on our lives, while it
can also lead to growth and development indicates that Conflict itself is neutral and harmless.
What matters is our response to conflict and conflict situations. Conflict is always an
indication that somewhere, there is a problem or an issue that requires attention and proper
action.Our response or reaction to conflict very often determines the consequences of the
conflict. In conflict or during conflict situations, we can choose how we want to react. It is
our reaction to conflict that result in either positive or negative consequences.
Constructive/positive Consequences
Many Psychologists have insisted therefore that, rather being resolved, conflict can be
transformed. This means that conflict can be changed or transformed into something positive,
useful and good. conflict can provides opportunities for positive changes and development.
When we properly respond to conflict, we come closer and enter into more profound and
more meaningful relationships with fellow human beings.
 Conflict helps establish our identity and independence. Conflicts, especially at earlier
stages of your life, help you assert your personal identity as separate from the
aspirations, beliefs and behaviours of those around you.
 Intensity of conflict demonstrates the closeness and importance of relationships.
Intimate relationships require us to express opposing feelings such as love and anger.
The coexistence of these emotions in a relationship create a sharpness when conflicts
arise. While the intensity of emotions can threaten the relationship, if they are dealt
with constructively, they also help us measure the depth and importance of the
relationship.

26
  Conflict can build new relationships. At times, conflict brings together people who
did not have a previous relationship. During the process of conflict and its resolution, these
parties may find out that they have common interests and then work to maintain an ongoing
relationship.
 Conflict can create coalitions. Similar to building relationships, sometimes
adversaries come together to build coalitions to achieve common goals or fend off a common
threat. During the conflict, previous antagonism is suppressed to work towards these greater
goals.
 Conflict serves as a safety-valve mechanism which helps to sustain relationships.
Relationships which repress disagreement or conflict grow rigid over time, making
them brittle. Exchanges of conflict, at times through the assistance of a third-party,
allows people to vent pent-up hostility and reduce tension in a relationship.
 Conflict helps parties assess each other’s power and can work to redistribute power in
a system of conflict. Because there are few ways to truly measure the power of the
other party, conflicts sometimes arise to allow parties to assess one another's strength.
In cases where there is an imbalance of power, a party may seek ways to increase its
internal power. This process can often change the nature of power within the conflict
system.
 Conflict establishes and maintains group identities. Groups in conflict tend to create
clearer boundaries which help members determine who is part of the “in-group” and
who is part of the “out-group”. In this way, conflict can help individuals understand how
they are part of a certain group and mobilise them to take action to defend the group’s
interests.
 Conflicts enhance group cohesion through issue and belief clarification. When a
group is threatened, its members pull together in solidarity. As they clarify issues and beliefs,
renegades and dissenters are weeded out of the group, creating a more sharply
defined ideology on which all members agree.
 Conflict creates or modifies rules, norms, laws and institutions. It is through the
raising of issues that rules, norms, laws and institutions are changed or created. Problems or
frustrations left unexpressed result in the maintaining of the status quo.
Y What negative consequences of conflict do you suggest other than being a major
source of destruction, death, and violence?

27
 3. Conflict Management and Related Concepts
A. dispute settlement, aimed at ending a dispute as quickly and amicably as possible.
This means that it is possible to settle a dispute that exists within the context of a
larger conflict, without resolving the overall conflict. This occurs when a dispute
is settled, but the underlying causes of the conflict are not addressed.
B. Conflict resolution The resolution of a conflict means a conflict feels finished, that is,
no aspect continues to feel troubling. A re-solution, that is, a new view of the situation or
plan of action, leads in a resumption of peacefulness. It involves going beyond negotiating
interests to meet all sides' basic needs, while simultaneously finding a way to
respect their underlying values and identities. Resolution requires identifying the
causal factors behind the conflict, and finding ways to deal with them.

Conflict resolution implies that conflict is bad, and is therefore something that should be
ended. It also assumes that conflict is a short-term phenomenon that can be "resolved"
permanently through mediation or other intervention processes.
C. Conflict management correctly assumes that conflicts are long-term processes
that often cannot be quickly resolved. The problem with the notion of
"management," however, is that it suggests that people can be directed or
controlled as if they were physical objects. In addition management suggests that
the goal is the reduction or control of volatility, rather than dealing with the
real source of the problem.
D. Reconciliation: involves the formation or restoration of genuine peaceful relationships
between societies and that this requires extensive changes in the socio-psychological
repertoire of group members in both societies. The essence of reconciliation involves socio-
psychological processes consisting of changes of motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes and
emotions by the majority of society members. There can be no genuine peace without
reconciliation.
E. Conflict transformation is a prescriptive concept. It suggests that the destructive
consequences of a conflict can be modified or transformed so that self-images,
relationships, and social structures improve as a result of conflict instead of being
harmed by it. Usually, this involves transforming perceptions of issues, actions, and
other people or groups.
Conflict transformation does not suggest that we simply eliminate or control
conflict(unlike conflict management), but rather that we recognize and work with its

28
 "dialectic nature." It argues that social conflict is a natural occurrence between
humans who are involved in relationships.

3.1. Conflict Resolution

 Principles of Conflict Resolution
• conflict resolution is a cooperative endeavor, rather than competitive)
• solutions sought are integrative ones, meeting the interests and needs of all
• foundation is an understanding of all parties’ interests, versus power or rights-
based approaches
• both the process and its outcome are nonviolent
 From Principles to Practice
• Build cooperative attitude (not competitive)
• Use active listening for interests
• Listen also for feelings
• Move from positions to an analysis of interests and needs of each party
• Communicate interests and needs
• Strive for Integrative Solutions, expanding the pie
• If serious difficulties in negotiating arise, formulate BATNA

There are different approaches to conflict resolution.

A. Conflict Styles
In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with
conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people
typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different
styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict
Mode Instrument (TKI), which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when
conflict arises. Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:
1. Competitive: A number of people become competitive or resort to aggressive strategies
when responding to conflicts. They confront conflicts with their lives and would want to win at
all costs. By so doing, they force others in the conflict to accept their own positions and way of
doing things. The problem with this position is that forcing people to accept our positions and
making them lose out, is not the best in conflict resolution. Competitors in conflict are always

29
willing to lose their relationships with others, and do not show any concern for the needs and
interests of other people.
2. Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all
people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate
effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when you need to
bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous
conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
3. Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that
will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the
compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when
the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at
a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
4. Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the
expense of the person's own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others,
but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not
assertive but is highly cooperative.
The person tries to conceal anger in the face of conflict by trying to show people that all is
well. Experience shows that people who respond to conflict in this way are afraid of losing
something. By so doing, they are willing to abandon their interests and accept other people's
positions, even when it is obvious that they do not agree with such positions. The reason for
such actions is the preservation of relationships and interests. When eventually they lose out in
the process, they become resentful and angry with other people. One good reason for
accommodation however is that, when we refuse to agree, the anger and the crisis refuse to go
away.
Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is
more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this "favor" you
gave. However people may not return favors, and overall this approach is unlikely to give the
best outcomes.
5. Avoiding There are some people who believe that conflict resolution or
transformation is not realizable. Therefore, when confronted with conflicts, they become
helpless, afraid, nervous and scared, because they have no idea on how to improve or better the
situation. They respond to conflict by avoiding it or trying to run away completely. They are
sometimes, mistakenly referred to as “Peacemakers”. Experience shows that we do not solve
problems by escaping or running away. When we run away from problems, they will continue

30
 to pursue us. When we escape conflicts, we miss the opportunities for dialogue, consultation,
and so we do not contribute to resolving the crisis.
It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when
someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However, in many situations this is a
weak and ineffective approach to take.
Once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate
approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you're in. You can also think about your
own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary. Ideally you can
adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate
interests, and mends damaged working relationships.

Assertiveness (concern for self)

Collaborative
Problem Solving

B. The Interest-Based Relational Approach

The second theory is commonly referred to as the "Interest-Based Relational (IBR)
Approach". This type of conflict resolution respects individual differences while helping
people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position.

In resolving conflict using this approach, you follow these rules:

 Make sure that good relationships are the first priority: As far as possible, make
sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to
be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure.
 Keep people and problems separate: Recognize that in many cases the other person
is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions.
By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging
working relationships.

31
 Pay attention to the interests that are being presented: By listening carefully you'll
most-likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position.
 Listen first; talk second: To solve a problem effectively you have to understand
where the other person is coming from before defending your own position.
 Set out the "Facts": Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will
have an impact on the decision.
 Explore options together: Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and
that you can get to this idea jointly.
By following these rules, you can often keep contentious discussions positive and
constructive. This helps to prevent the antagonism and dislike which so-often causes conflict
to spin out of control.

32