Chapter 3: Conflict Interaction PDF

Chapter 3 CONFLICT INTERACTION K...

Chapter 3 CONFLICT INTERACTION K nowledge of what goes on in parties’ heads is useful for understanding conflicts like the Women’s Hotline case (Case Study I.1, pages 2–3). It is not the whole story, however. As we argued in Chapter 1, conflicts are constituted in interaction and cannot be explained only in psychological terms. From an interactional perspective, conflicts like the Women’s Hotline case emerge from the complex interplay of the parties’ actions, moves, and countermoves. The interactional perspective assumes that situations are more fluid than fixed, that they evolve as an episode of interaction unfolds. For instance, imagine a common sales encounter in a retail outlet. The service provider approaches the shopper and offers the standard opening: “Hello, may I help you?” As language is a creatively ambiguous code, the customer looks up and says in a highly suggestive tone: “You sure can help me. What are you doing Friday night?” What situation are these people sharing? Are they involved in what is typically called a customer-service encounter? Or is the situation more one of prospective dating? The interactional view suggests that it depends on how the conver- sation develops. The parties’ actions will define the situation and, just as important, that definition will change due to subsequent acts. Consistent with this position, the interactional perspective also embraces the idea of mutual influence. Communication is not so much a product as it is a process that is enacted. As an ongoing process, any given behavior is influenced as much by preceding behaviors as by psychological processes. Concepts of importance to conflict scholars— relationships, power, climate, dominance, and the like—are defined not by a single move or by a single actor but through interaction. In this sense, realities and meanings between Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. people emerge and are negotiated through moves and responses during interactions. To be sure, how a particular interaction is accomplished will have an effect on the pattern- ing of future interactions, but the general rule is that what an interaction is about—its purpose and outcomes—is open to continuous negotiation among participants. The interactional perspective on conflict emphasizes several questions: What patterns exist in conflict interaction? How do these patterns move the conflict in productive or destructive directions? How do people use messages to accomplish their goals in con- flicts? What factors influence how sequences of moves unfold in conflict interaction? The answers to these questions are not always simple or straightforward. Conflict inter- action is quite complex, and we do not fully understand how it works. Scholars are making progress, however, and have identified several regularities—common patterns and factors— that can help us understand conflict interaction and guide our actions accordingly. The five sections of this chapter discuss some important regularities in conflict interaction. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  76 Conflict Interaction The first regularity is represented by stage models of conflict, which give us “the big picture” of how conflicts typically unfold over time. Stage models describe conflicts in terms of key events, specific types of episodes that occur during conflicts, and how one episode leads to another. Stage models are useful because they tell us what to expect during conflicts and suggest things to look for as we move through a conflict. The next three regularities concern patterns in moves and countermoves in conflict. Section 3.2 focuses on interdependence as the fundamental relationship of parties in conflict and on the attitudes and behaviors it fosters. In this section, we discuss various types of interdependence, their impact on conflict, and how they are shaped by conflict interaction. Section 3.3 explores two critical types of interchanges between interdepen- dent parties, reciprocity and compensation. Reciprocity and compensation are the build- ing blocks of conflicts. They are the source of momentum—for good or ill—in conflicts and the means by which productive changes in the direction of conflicts are enacted. The fourth section shifts our focus to the content of conflicts and explores the framing of issues in conflict interaction. We build on the ideas from Chapter 2 on cognitive frames and explore how issues may multiply or narrow as a conflict ensues. The fifth section of this chapter steps back to consider social identity and intergroup conflict. These bring features of the encompassing social structure such as gender, ethnic, or class differences into the conflict, often to its detriment. We discuss factors that pro- mote the introduction of group differences into a conflict and some ways of responding to them. Altogether, these five regularities help us understand some important influences on conflict interaction. They do not represent a complete and comprehensive picture, how- ever, because in the end it is simply not possible to predict accurately how a conflict will unfold. But they do give us ideas about the dynamics of conflict interaction and suggest some ways in which we might tack in productive directions. 3.1 STAGES OF CONFLICT In Chapter 1 we introduced a normative two-stage model as our reference point for understanding conflict interaction. Other, more elaborate descriptions of the stages of conflicts have also been advanced. These models have been developed based on studies of a wide range of conflicts, including broad societal and international conflicts, con- flicts in organizations and small groups, and conflicts in relationships. They describe the emergence and progression of conflicts over the long term and give us important insights into the origins and management of conflict. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. 3.1.1 Rummel’s Five-Stage Model Based on a study of international conflicts, Rummel (1976) suggested that conflicts pass through five sequential stages: 1. Initially conflict is latent: The parties (usually leaders of the nations involved) hold different dispositions or attitudes that carry the potential for conflict. Differences in values, objectives, and outlooks lay the groundwork for future conflict. 2. During the initiation stage, some triggering event causes the parties to act. At this point, the potential differences become the basis for conflict. 3. After the conflict has been initiated, the conflict moves into a stage of open con- flict. In this third stage, parties assess each other’s capabilities and willingness to Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 77 use force, threats, and rewards, and sometimes they engage in attack and defense. During this stage, the parties confront the issues before them as they try to reach some settlement. 4. The settlement leads to a balance of power stage in which the participants come to understand the consequences of the resolution and learn to live with the outcome. This stage is characterized by the set expectations of individuals and may last for some time until significant changes in circumstances, attitudes, or goals arise. 5. Such evolving changes lead to a disruption stage in which parties realize that circum- stances are ripe once again for the emergence of potential conflict and eventual confrontation if a new triggering event occurs. Rummel’s model implies a continual cycle—from latency to initiation to open conflict to a balance of power to a disruption, back to a new latency, and so on—until the issue is ultimately resolved, if it ever is. The first Iraq War in the Middle East is an example of Rummel’s sequence. Saddam Hussein’s and the United States’ interests in Kuwait had the potential to be in conflict. Saddam wanted the oil resources of Kuwait in order to build a greater Iraq, and Iraq had long made territorial claims on Kuwait. The United States needed Kuwaiti oil resources as well and had an interest in preserving the pro-Western government of Kuwait. Hence there was a latent conflict. Saddam’s invasion was a triggering event that led President Bush to mobilize a multinational effort to pressure Saddam to withdraw. Various types of diplomatic and economic power were used to get Saddam to pull out of Kuwait. When this failed, a coalition invaded Kuwait and routed Saddam’s forces. This led eventually to a new balance of power in which the coalition forces drove Iraq from Kuwait and imposed sanctions on Iraq when it tried to stamp out rebellions by Shiites in southern Iraq and the Kurds in the North. Things settled back into an uneasy peace, full of latent conflict from 1991 to 2001, when another disruption occurred, the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. While this model focuses on international conflict, it can be extended by analogy to other contexts. Conflicts in intimate relationships often follow a similar course. A latent conflict might stir for some time until a triggering event sets it off and the partners con- front each other. This confrontation might play out in an open fight that ends in a stale- mate, with neither party willing to give any ground. The conflict then settles back into latency, but because it really has not been addressed, the conflict simmers until the next triggering event occurs. 3.1.2 Pondy’s Model Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Pondy (1967) articulated a similar five-stage model of the emergence and development of conflict in organizational contexts: 1. Conflict is latent when conflicting issues, such as insufficient resources or divergent goals, arise in the organization, but has not yet been recognized by parties. 2. When latent issues reach the awareness of one or more parties, parties are in the perceived conflict stage. Pondy also notes that a conflict can be also perceived when no latent conflict exists. This occurs when parties misunderstand each other’s positions. 3. Parties then enter a stage of felt conflict in which the conflict changes one party’s feel- ings for the other. In this stage, the conflict becomes emotionally charged as parties feel anxiety, mistrust, or hostility toward others. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  78 Conflict Interaction 4. Manifest conflict occurs when parties act on the perceived and felt differences. 5. Finally, conflict enters an aftermath stage in which new relationships and arrange- ments are formed because of how the manifest conflict is handled. During this stage parties assess their outcomes, positive and negative. 3.1.3 Stage Models of Negotiation Studies of formal negotiations suggest that the negotiation process unfolds in identi- fiable stages as well (Douglas, 1962; Holmes, 1992; Morley & Stephenson, 1977; Put- nam & Jones, 1982b; Putnam, Wilson, Waltman, & Turner, 1986). One groundbreaking study of the interaction in union-management negotiations found that a three-stage framework described conflict development in this context (Morley & Stephenson, 1977): 1. In the first stage, distributive bargaining, the parties test the feasibility of possible demands, establish criteria for appropriate settlements, assess the power of each side, and evaluate the strength of each side’s case. Here the parties see themselves ful- filling their roles as representatives of a “side” in the negotiations, building planned cases for constituents. 2. In the second stage, problem solving, the parties explore a range of solutions that might satisfy the criteria established at the outset. There is some tactical maneuver- ing but, by and large, the focus is on establishing a working relationship by propos- ing and evaluating solutions to identified problems. 3. In the final decision-making stage, the parties come to agreement on some terms and explore the implications of their decision. The focus is on reality checking—assess- ing the feasibility and implementation of terms that both sides support. As you can see, there is a good deal of similarity among these three models. What do they tell us about conflict? 3.1.4 Insights of Stage Models of Conflict Stage models are built on an episodic conception of how conflict interaction unfolds. Stages (also called phases by some scholars) are, by definition, periods in which the char- acter of the conflict and conflict interaction is fairly uniform and identifiable. Although somewhat different sequences of episodes are posited for different conflict contexts, the basic premise that conflicts travel through meaningful segments of interaction is com- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. mon to all models. Stage theories offer several important insights about the nature of conflict interaction. First, stage models suggest that conflicts have a definite pattern or rhythm. The pattern often seems to depend on participants’ expectations about likely directions conflicts will take. These expectations are governed by an underlying logic of progres- sions that conflicts go through and serve to make even apparently confusing interac- tions understandable over the long run. Looking back and forward simultaneously, parties can see an ambiguous situation of latent conflict growing into a test of power and can anticipate the need to de-escalate the conflict by compromise or at least by backing off. This closely resembles the scripts for conflict discussed in the previous chapter. Conflict scripts are built around stages or steps that conflicts are expected to take, and thus both influence our behavior and help us make sense of how the conflict unfolds. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 79 Stage models imply that an understanding of a conflict comes from taking a broad view of the history of the conflict in terms of the sequence of episodes that the parties have engaged in. Stage models lead to a conception of conflict that includes not only confrontation and discussion of differences between parties but also intermittent peri- ods of equilibrium and calm when the parties settle into new arrangements resulting from the conflict (Christensen & Pasch, 1993; Putnam, 2006). A second important implication of stage models is that the same messages, behav- ior, and interaction patterns can serve different functions in different conflict stages. Each stage provides the broader, meaningful context that makes behavior understand- able in light of what is going on at any particular conflict stage. Ellis and Fisher (1975) found, for example, that ambiguous comments occur in both the beginning and the ending stages of decision-making conflict in small groups. At the beginning, these comments reflect the ambiguity of indecision; people are unsure about their atti- tudes and are trying to orient themselves to the issue before the group. In the final stage, however, the ambiguous comments reflect members’ moves from one position to another. Members are changing their minds so that agreement can be reached and a group decision can be made. They make ambiguous comments to soften their adher- ence to previously stated positions without admitting they are wrong. Parties’ inter- pretations of specific acts or interchanges are likely to differ, depending on the stage a conflict is in. Stage models also suggest that triggering events are particularly important in conflicts. This is not because these events are particularly important in themselves, but because the events occur at a critical point in the conflict interaction (Donohue & Kolt, 1992). As a conflict ripens and people feel pressure to face up to the issues, seemingly common and inconsequential events can trigger rapid escalation. A misplaced criticism, teasing, or even a casual reference to a touchy subject can be tinder in a dry forest that soon ignites. While latent differences may influence interaction in subtle and destructive ways, the issues themselves are often hazy or ill-defined until the triggering event brings them out in the open. How these issues are framed initially influences the subsequent course of the conflict. Fourth, stage models posit that conflict often includes a testing period before any direct confrontation occurs. This testing period allows parties to reduce their uncer- tainty about what others will do if they make certain moves. For example, in the face of an impending conflict, one party may want to cooperate but fears being taken advan- tage of. By making certain subtle cooperative overtures, the party can assess likely responses without taking big risks. By testing the waters, parties gain knowledge of the likely consequences of moves they might make. This knowledge enables parties Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. to develop broad strategies and choose specific tactics as the conflict unfolds. Stage models suggest that these testing periods can play a critical role in determining the direction conflicts will take. The main weakness in stage models of conflict is that they may be overly simplistic. Critics suggest that research on stages of individual and group processes sometimes over- emphasizes the role of a logical step-by-step sequence in the development of conflicts. Poole and colleagues (Poole & Roth, 1989; Sambamurthy, Poole, & Kelly, 1992) found that task groups engaging in conflict often departed from these ideal models and exhib- ited multiple sequences of conflict stages. In some cases they did not directly discuss the conflict but instead engaged in low-level disagreements in which they searched for common ground. In other cases there were several cycles of conflict, and in still others the groups followed the previously described stage models fairly closely; the most com- mon deviations were overlaps in stages. Sambamurthy et al. (1992) found that this last Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  80 Conflict Interaction sequence resulted in better outcomes for their groups than did the first three sequences, consistent with predictions in the differentiation-integration model. Stage models highlight the ways in which parties’ behaviors tend to perpetuate con- flict cycles and illustrate how conflicts develop a momentum that leads interaction in constructive or destructive directions. This does not, however, mean that conflicts must inevitably follow the stages in these models. After all, the parties create stages through their interactions, and thus they may change direction. Parties may act in accordance with the episodic structure of the conflict they perceive, or they may consciously choose to change the direction of the conflict. Chapter 8 discusses some general approaches to doing this. Stage models of conflict depict how a conflict unfolds over the longer term. They give us the “big picture” of a conflict. But stages are generated through specific actions that the parties take. They are large-scale patterns that are made up of specific acts and responses that occur in immediate conflict interaction. What patterns does immediate conflict interaction exhibit, and what factors shape it? One of the most important factors shaping conflict behavior is the interdependence among the parties. CASE STUDY 3.1 STAGE MODELS AND THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE The Parking Lot Scuffle exhibits clear stage structure. In terms of Rummel’s model, there was no latent stage in this conflict. Because Tim and Jay did not meet each other until the accident, there was no incipient conflict. The triggering incident was the accident itself, which precipitated the interaction that led to the conflict. The discussion up to and through the scuffle was a balancing of power between Jay and Tim. They tested each other’s positions and resolved and ulti- mately balanced power through physical violence. The end of the scuffle found the conflict in an unresolved state because issues, such as who will pay for the damage and whether Tim and Jay can work out a shared interpretation of the situation, were undetermined. At the end of the scuffle, the conflict subsided, but it may break out again later on when Jay and Tim must discuss the acci- dent, responsibilities, and liabilities. A new triggering incident may start another cycle of power balancing, and the conflict probably will continue until the parties attain a settlement that both accept. In terms of Pondy’s model, Tim and Jay passed through the perceived and felt conflict stages very quickly and moved right into the manifest conflict Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. stage. During this stage, they engaged primarily in distributive behavior and emerged into the aftermath stage following the scuffle. Their assessments of the episode are likely to be quite negative, which could create latent conflict in future encounters. They are likely to go through the perceived and felt conflict stages quickly when they meet, precipitating a manifest conflict once again. Discussion Question What does the stage model suggest Jay and/or Tim could do to break the cycle of conflict apparent in this case? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 81 3.2 INTERDEPENDENCE Interdependence is a central feature of our definition of conflict. In his groundbreak- ing work, Morton Deutsch (1973) noted that “the processes of conflict resolution that are likely to be displayed will be strongly influenced by the context within which the conflict occurs” (p. 10). Deutsch argued that the critical contextual feature of conflict situations—the one that makes the difference between cooperative resolution and potentially destructive competition—is the type of interdependence established between the parties. Deutsch defined two basic types of interdependence: (1) promotive, wherein the per- sons involved in the conflict perceive that gains by either one will promote gains by the other, while losses will promote losses; and (2) contrient, wherein everyone perceives that one’s gain will be the other’s loss. Perceptions of promotive interdependence, Deutsch argued, tend to promote cooperative interaction, whereas perceptions of contrient inter- dependence tend to produce competition. We would add a third type of interdepen- dence, individualistic, wherein members do not believe they are dependent on each other at all. It is characterized by a lack of common motives, autonomous behavior, rather indifferent attitudes toward others, and preoccupation with one’s own affairs. Deutsch identified several effects of promotive and contrient interdependence. When parties perceive promotive interdependence they tend to stress mutual interests and coordinated division of labor, exhibit trusting and friendly attitudes, perceive similarity in their beliefs and goals, and communicate more openly and honestly. When parties perceive contrient interdependence, they tend to focus on antagonistic interests and on constraining each other, exhibit suspicious and hostile attitudes, overemphasize differ- ences, and communicate in a misleading and restrained manner. Studies by Deutsch and later researchers showed that eventually these consequences fed back to influence interaction, thereby strengthening the dominant tendency in the conflict: “cooperation breeds cooperation, while competition breeds competition” (Deutsch, 1973, p. 367). The self-reinforcing cycle between perceptions of interdependence and conflict behavior creates an overarching climate—a shared sense of the situation that shapes how parties calculate their moves and interpret those of others. This climate shapes parties’ assumptions about common interests and their perceptions of similarity or difference in their positions. It breeds friendly or hostile attitudes toward each other and affects their level of trust. This, in turn, influences their communication, which further reinforces the climate, and so on. This cycle is common in groups and organizations. For example, a manager and an employee with a bad work record are likely to enter a performance appraisal interview Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. with the expectation that it will be an unpleasant, competitive situation wherein the boss rebukes the employee and the employee tries to evade responsibility. This contrient, suspicious climate leads both to interact mistrustfully and competitively to “protect” themselves. This reinforces the climate, which reinforces the interaction, and so on, in a negative spiral. Similar positive spirals also work for promotive, trusting climates. Cli- mate and its role in conflict will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. One limitation of Deutsch’s analysis is that it considers interdependence as an either/ or dichotomy. Deutsch assumes that parties are either promotively interdependent or contriently interdependent (or, we might add, individualistic). In the Introduction, however, we noted that most conflicts involve mixed motive situations. That is, parties are interdependent so that some aspects of their relationships are potentially promo- tive and motivate them to cooperate, while other aspects are potentially contrient and motivate them to compete. Still other aspects of their relationships are individualistic. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  82 Conflict Interaction This presents us with a dilemma as we try to understand the effects on interdependence. How do we determine whether a situation is promotive, contrient, or interdependent? The solution to the dilemma lies in Deutsch’s insistence that it is not actual interde- pendence but perceived interdependence that guides conflict behavior. Deutsch originally discovered the impact of interdependence through experiments in which he directly manipulated the interdependence of the parties. But he also realized that it was the par- ties’ perceptions of interdependence that made the difference; this would be the key in situations in which interdependence was not as clear as it was in the lab—that is, in the real world (see Case Study 3.2). As conflicts unfold, parties look for cues to help them understand their interdepen- dence. Probably the most important cues come from the communication and behavior of the other party. If Jack makes a move that seems aggressive and selfish to Jill, she is likely to decide that they are contriently interdependent (though of course she may not use that term). Context cues are also important. If we are meeting across the table from the other party, contrient interdependence and competition are implied by the spatial arrangement; if, on the other hand, we are sitting in two armchairs at slight angles to each other, research suggests that this is more likely to cue promotive interdependence (Burgoon, 2003). Also important are past experiences with the party, beliefs about con- flict, conflict scripts, and other emotional and cognitive elements discussed in Chapter 2. Based on these cues, parties make judgments about their interdependence. From this it follows that perceived interdependence may change over the course of the conflict. If, after some sharp interchanges, Jack apologizes to Jill and expresses his desire to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, Jill’s perceptions of interdependence may change. She may adopt a “wait and see” attitude and search for cues that strengthen the case for promotive interdependence in Jack’s future behavior. Perceived interdepen- dence is shaped by interactions among the parties. This does not mean that interdependence is solely a matter of perception. A married couple is interdependent in many ways, and these actual interdependencies produce many of the cues that shape their perceived interdependence. However, perceptions of interdependence—which focus attention on some interdependencies at the expense of others—act as filters for actual interdependence. Another limitation of Deutsch’s argument is that it assumes both parties perceive the situation in the same way. That is, he assumes that if one perceives it as contrient, the other does too; if one sees the situation as promotive, the other also sees it that way. Par- ties’ perceptions often match. However, this does not have to be the case. People often interpret the same thing differently. What might account for this divergence? The answer to this question can be found in tendencies toward reciprocity and compensation in Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. human interaction. CASE STUDY 3.2 INTERDEPENDENCE AND THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE At the beginning of the parking lot scuffle, Jay was very uncertain about the situ- ation. He had not expected the moped to be in his parking place, and he jumped out of his car, trying to make sense of what had happened. When Tim registered his hostile comments, Jay perceived the situation as characterized by contrient interdependence. Jay attempted to bully his way through this barrier, probably because he interpreted Tim’s remarks as indicating that Jay would be seen as a weakling if he gave in to Tim’s attacks. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 83 Tim’s perception of the situation as contrient was triggered the moment Jay smashed into his scooter. He believed that Jay was at fault, but probably assumed that Jay would try to wriggle out of his responsibility. So Tim went right after Jay, seeking to force him to make restitution. As the interaction pro- gressed, Jay seemed a greater and greater barrier to Tim, and Tim continued to apply pressure, which ended in the scuffle. The climate in this case was competitive and threatening for both Jay and Tim. Tim immediately felt threatened because of the damage to his personal property—even more so because vehicles are often an important part of our per- sonal identity in modern U.S. culture. He adopted a competitive approach that created a sense of threat and defensiveness in Jay’s life space. Jay responded with a competitive move by line 8, which further reinforced Tim’s tendencies to compete. Discussion Questions What factors created the perception of contrient interdependence between Tim and Jay? What common ground did Tim and Jay have, if any? Can a case be made that there was promotive interdependence in this situation? Is interdependence more reality based or perceptually based in this case? 3.3 RECIPROCITY AND COMPENSATION Conversations unfold as each person takes a turn talking. With each turn, the person makes a “move”—a behavior that has strategic significance. Any particular interaction is created through a particular sequence of moves as each participant takes a turn in response to the other’s turn. Each move influences the next move, which in turn influ- ences the following move, and so on, a phenomenon known as mutual influence. Perhaps the strongest feature of mutual influence is the norm of reciprocity. Accord- ing to several theorists, reciprocity undergirds all social exchange processes (Roloff & Campion, 1985). This norm prescribes two things: “people should help those who have helped them, and people should not injure those who have helped them.” As Roloff Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. (1987b, p. 12) puts it, “a recipient of a benefit is morally obligated to return a benefit in kind.” Behavioral reciprocity is defined as the process of adaptation in which one party responds in a similar direction to another party’s behaviors with behaviors of compara- ble functional value (Caughlin, Vangelisti, & Mikucki-Enyart, 2013; Olekalns, Putnam, Weingart, & Metcalf, 2008; Street & Cappella, 1985). The key to reciprocity is function. Because the same behavior may serve different purposes, reciprocity is more complex than simple imitation. For example, a joke may serve to reduce anxiety, establish rapport, or point out an imperfection in a nonthreatening way. If party A tells a joke to defuse tensions, party B is said to have reciprocated if she engages in a behavior that also serves that function, such as laughing at the joke; party B need not tell a joke to reciprocate. Compensation, sometimes also called accommodation (a term we reserve for a conflict style discussed in Chapter 4), is the corresponding process of behavioral adaptation in Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  84 Conflict Interaction which one responds to a partner’s behaviors with opposite behaviors of comparable functional value. For example, if one party attacks another, the second party would be compensating if he or she represses the impulse to react negatively and instead engages in positive behavior toward the other party. Suppose party A initially makes dominant gestures and remarks in a conflict situation while party B initiates equalizing messages. If A then reduces his or her dominance in response to B, this would be reciprocity. The same would be true if B increases domi- nance in response to A. By contrast, if B became submissive in response to the domi- nance of A, this would represent compensation. Conflict interaction is often driven by reciprocity. In 1957, Leary described what he termed an “interpersonal reflex” to respond to hostile behavior with hostile behavior, leading to emotional escalation of conflicts. Burgoon et al. (1995) found that a predom- inant tendency in interpersonal interaction is to reciprocate negative behavior. In inter- personal relationships, complaints, defensiveness, and expressions of negative affect are often responded to in kind (Messman & Canary, 1998). Vuchinich (1984, 1990) analyzed conflict interchanges in fifty-two different families and found strong evidence of a sym- metrical matching of conversational behaviors, particularly those expressing opposition. He found that the best determinant of any given move was the immediately preceding turn. Studies of children’s conflicts suggest that an opposition move made by one child is likely to elicit a sequence of oppositional moves (Eisenberg & Garvey, 1981; Goodwin, 1982). Negative reciprocity has also been found in labor-management conflicts (Carne- vale, 1986) and in cycles of complaining comments in small decision-making groups (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010). Intimate partner violence and communica- tive aggression are also highly reciprocal (Spitzberg, 2013). A high proportion of people who report experiencing intimate partner violence and communicative aggression also report that they have perpetrated it. On a more positive note, Putnam and Jones (1982a, 1982b) found that bargainers generally engage in an attack-defend style of conflict but uphold positive reciprocity when cooperative gestures are offered. They found that concessions offered in bargaining situations are frequently followed in kind. Gaelick, Bodenhausen, and Wyer (1985) also found that positive behaviors and emotions were likely to be reciprocated in conflict interactions. Escalation and de-escalation of conflicts are often a result of reciprocity. Each move, positive or negative, has the potential to establish a new, self-reinforcing sequence by ini- tiating reciprocal responses. Mikolic, Parker, and Pruitt (1997) summarized an impres- sive amount of evidence that aggressiveness and negative behavior in conflicts tends to escalate in a self-reinforcing pattern. Their study of responses to persistent annoying Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. behavior in interpersonal conflicts found an escalating sequence of responses, starting with requests for compliance, followed by impatient demands, complaints, angry state- ments, threats, and abuse and physical aggression. Markey, Funder, and Ozer (2003) also found that the more intense the interaction, the stronger the tendency toward reciprocity. Positive moves are also likely to be reciprocated and steer the conflict in more pro- ductive directions. In both intimate and labor-management contexts, cycles of positive responses, such as supportive statements and agreements, have also been found to occur, usually when the conflict has taken a fundamental turn toward a constructive direction (Donohue, Diez, & Hamilton, 1984; Gaelick et al., 1985). Indeed, competent behavior in conflicts is in part defined as the ability to appropriately engage in actions that move the conflict in positive directions (see Exhibit 3.1). Rigidity of the type described in Chapter 2 also contributes to negative reciprocity. Stud- ies comparing distressed and nondistressed intimate couples, for example, have found Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 85 differences in how repetitive the communication patterns are for these couples (Gottman, 1979; Ting-Toomey, 1983). Couples in the more distressed conflict relationships tend to interact in highly structured ways—their interaction tends to be built on more repetitive cycles and exchanges (Spitzberg, 2013). This repetition is symptomatic of self-perpetuating interaction in which one party’s move elicits a highly predictable response that in turn produces a predictable counterresponse. In addition, these studies reveal the nature of these repetitive cycles. In distressed intimate couples, parties tend to exchange hostile and confrontive remarks so that common exchanges include one person complaining or con- fronting while the other defends (Gaelick et al., 1985; Ting-Toomey, 1983). Exhibit 3.1 Can Conflict Competence Be Assessed? Some conflict theorists have offered ways of assessing whether the behavior peo- ple engage in during conflict can be judged as competent. This is an important question because it leads us to consider the major factors which influence people’s perceptions of the behavioral choices people make when they address conflict in any situation. When do we see someone as acting admirably in conflict? When do we believe that someone has stepped over a line in reacting to an issue or is unable to manage the complexity of difficult conflicts as they arise? Cupach, Canary, and Spitzberg (2010) have offered a framework for thinking about how conflict behav- ior can be assessed—the conditions under which behavioral choices are viewed as competent or incompetent in dealing with conflict. There are two broad criteria along which conflict behavior can be assessed: effec- tiveness of the behavior and appropriateness of the behavior. Effectiveness: Conflict behaviors can be judged according to the impact or results they attain. Key questions to consider about the effectiveness of the conflict behavior include the following: Do the conflict behaviors accomplish the desired goals of the person who enacts them? Do the behaviors show an awareness of and address a range of goals simultaneously? Instrumental Goals: the tangible outcomes or resources someone is pursuing in the conflict. Self-Presentation Goals: the personal image someone wants to pre- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. serve during and after the conflict. Relational Goals: the relationship status someone wants to preserve with those with whom he/she is in conflict. Do the behaviors address goals that the person believes are significant or important? Is the person making good choices about which behaviors are appropriate to pursue various goals? Appropriateness: Conflict behaviors can also be judged as to whether they align with the norms and expectations for how people should deal with conflict How are the conflict behaviors judged within a community, organization, or relationship in which they are enacted? Do the behaviors violate ethical norms of the group of people who observe or are affected by the conflict? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  86 Conflict Interaction Do the conflict behaviors transgress a community’s consensus about what behaviors are justifiable, appropriate, or socially acceptable? In assessing the conflict competency of behaviors, both of the previous criteria come into play. Behaviors that are effective may not be seen as appropriate (as, e.g., when violent behavior is used in an attempt to change the behavior of a spouse in a marriage). On the other hand, behaviors that are seen as appropriate may not be effective in reaching personal goals (as, e.g., when monetary rewards are promised to employees for changing their work behaviors, but the rewards have no effect on employee performance). There are three factors that are known to influence whether someone is likely to engage in conflict behaviors that are seen as competent by the criteria mentioned earlier: Knowledge: Does the person have adequate knowledge about such factors as the following: what motivates people; what public and private rules exist that shape expectations about the acceptability of behaviors; and when it is important to balance relational and instrumental goals? Motivation: Does the person have the desire or will to try to act effectively and appropriately? If people believe that they cannot balance effectiveness and appropriateness when they are in conflict, they sometimes lose motivation to try to sustain this balance when choosing conflict behaviors. They act to pursue goals without concern for appropriateness. Skill: Does the person have the communicative skill to enact behaviors that can simultaneously attain effectiveness and appropriateness? Balancing mul- tiple goals and staying within acceptable norms of behavior is often challeng- ing for people in stressful or difficult conflict situations. Competence takes a level of communicative skill that eludes some people, especially when they are engaged in vital conflicts that affect their futures or personal security. Negative reciprocity can also extend across conflict episodes. One common pattern in intimate relationships is the “demand/withdraw pattern” (Caughlin et al., 2013; Rol- off & Soule, 2002). In this pattern one partner confronts the other with complaints, criticisms, and demands, and the other withdraws, sometimes becoming defensive and sometimes passive. This pattern may extend through a number of episodes, becoming a sort of relational habit. At first glance, this pattern may seem to be accommodative, but Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. scholars have concluded it amounts functionally to negative reciprocity in which neither partner gets what he or she wants and the relationship deteriorates. Evidence suggests that the confrontational partner is more likely to be female and the withdrawing party is more likely to be male (Roloff & Soule, 2002). However, when the issue is important to them, there is evidence that males are equally likely to take the role of confronter as females are. While the confronter seems to be the one who initiates demand-withdraw, it really depends on where one draws the line. In a sequence of interchanges character- ized by demand-withdraw-demand-withdraw-demand-withdraw, the demander is the initiator if we start at the first move, but if we happened onto the conflict in the fourth move, the withdrawer is most likely to be labeled the initiator. There is, indeed, reason to believe that withdrawing may sometimes spark demands (Roberts & Krokoff, 1990; Watzlawick et al., 1967). Demand-withdraw, like all reciprocal patterns, is a system in which it is impossible to single out one or the other party as responsible. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  Conflict Interaction 87 As we might expect, negative exchanges sparked by reciprocity are associated with dissatisfaction with relationships (Caughlin et al., 2013). For example, Gottman (1979, 1994) observed that in distressed relationships wives often match their husbands’ initial moves and engage in one-upmanship, creating a highly charged and bitter interaction (see Case Study 3.3). In workplace settings, group members can engage in cycles of com- plaining that often negatively influences the group mood, the personal satisfaction of the members, and the quality of organizational outcomes (Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009). Compensation also plays an important role in conflicts. A compensating response to a negative act can break a destructive cycle and move the conflict in a more positive direction. Lukasic (2001) found evidence that adolescents who were deeply hurt by their friends during conflicts were likely to forgive their friends. In his study of family con- flicts, Vuchinich (1986) found that about one-third of the attacks observed in family arguments were either ignored or given in to. Studies of satisfied couples indicate that parties often respond to negative acts like complaints by ignoring them, focusing on the nature of the complaint, and making positive statements to the other party (Roloff & Soule, 2002). In Chapter 8 we will discuss ways in which conflicts can be rerouted from destructive paths, and several of these involve compensation as a first step. High levels of negative emotions make it difficult for parties to accommodate nega- tive behavior (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994). To overcome the temptation to recip- rocate negative behavior, optimism and a conviction that the conflict can be resolved are important. Johnson and Roloff (1998) found that the more optimistic parties were about the resolvability of an interpersonal conflict, the more likely they were to make positive statements and affirm their relationship with the other party. The accompanying Exhibit 3.2 discusses “tit-for-tat,” a conflict management strategy that combines reciproc- ity and compensation to move a conflict in a positive direction. CASE STUDY 3.3 RECIPROCITY AND COMPENSATION IN THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE Tim believed Jay was at fault for running into his scooter and expected Jay to pay for the damage. This type of behavioral and financial compensation is, of course, the norm in the United States when someone has been injured. How- ever, Jay did not see the situation this way. He believed that it was Tim’s fault for parking his scooter where it did not belong and so was not willing to engage in compensatory behavior. Instead, Jay responded to Tim with questions and statements that were Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. not exactly reciprocating Tim’s challenges, but were clearly not compensating them. By turn 8 Jay is clearly reciprocating Tim’s competitive behavior, and the two are locked in a cycle of reciprocation that rapidly escalates the conflict, culminating in blows. Discussion Questions Could Jay have compensated for Tim’s aggressive behavior in a way that did not involve admitting fault or giving in to Tim’s demands? Why do escalating cycles of competitive and aggressive behavior achieve the momentum that they often do? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-01 04:42:11.  88 Conflict Interaction Exhibit 3.2 The Tit-for-Tat Strategy A good example of judicious mixing of reciprocity and compensation is the tit-for- tat strategy. This strategy relies on tendencies to reciprocity in conflict interaction. To carry out this strategy you should initially match the moves of the other party. If the other party makes a competitive or hostile move, so should you; if the other party makes a cooperative or conciliatory move, so should you. This should go on for a few exchanges so that the other knows you are wil