Instructions: Do the Case Studies 2.1 on pg. 43, 2.3 on pg. 55, & 2.6 on pg. 67 Working Through Conflict, and answer all the questions for each case study.

Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict 43 CASE STUDY 2.1 THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE Imagine yourself as Jay. What assumptions are you making about Tim as the conflict unfolds? Jay drove to work alone every weekday. On this particular Monday morning he arrived in his office parking lot a few minutes before 9 AM. He had several things on his mind and was not prepared to see a small moped parked in his reserved spot. In fact, because the moped was set back deep in the spot and between cars, he could not see it until he made the turn into the space. Jay slammed on the brakes but failed to stop before hitting the scooter. The moped wobbled and then fell to the ground. Jay backed up his car and then placed the car in park. He got out and moved quickly to examine the results. He was surveying the damage done to his own bumper when Tim, whom he recognized but could not name, approached him on the run. The following interaction ensued: 1 Tim: What's your problem? What the hell did you do to my Honda? I said, What did you do? 2 Jay: I drove into my spot and didn't see your bike. What was it doing parked there? 3 Tim: Look, my tire's flat. I can't move the wheel. Crushed in and doesn't move. 4 Jay: I didn't see it until I was on top of it. 5 Tim: You are going to have to pay for this. I can't afford this. 6 Jay: What was it doing in a parking space? 7 Tim: What's your problem? It was parked. Look at the wheel. You came around pretty good. 8 Jay: Listen, this is my spot. I didn't see it, and it shouldn't have been there. You're lucky I stopped when I did. Look at my bumper. What was it doing there? 9 Tim: You ass. Who cares whose spot it is? Some jerk like you drives over my Honda and says, "This is my spot. " I don't care who you are. You will fix my Honda! 10 Jay: You are the one with a problem. Do you work here? 11 Tim: What does that have to do with anything? Stop looking at your bumper; it looks fine. I want your driver's license and insurance. 12 Jay: Who in the hell do you think you are? (Starts walking away.) 13 Tim: You are not going anywhere. (Grabs Jay's arm.) 14 Jay: Let go of me. You are screwed. I'm calling the police. (Turns to move toward the office.) 15 Tim slugs Jay from behind. The two scuffle for a few moments until others arrive to break them apart. Discussion Questions Why did this conflict escalate to physical violence? What assumptions about interaction and about conflict does your answer reveal? ardi44 Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict Consider the explanations that have been offered for well-known conflicts: the mar- Ital difficulties between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the debates over ordination of att gay clergy in various religious denominations, the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. What assumptions underlie these explanations? 2.1 THE PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE Landmark advances in art and science often elicit as much criticism as praise. At the turn of the century, Freud's psychoanalytic theory changed how people saw themselves as much as French impressionist art had altered people's views of the world. Yet both Freud and the Impressionists were also the targets of significant criticism, even ridicule. Freud and his followers studied the dynamics of the human mind (Freud, 1949). They tried to explain how intrapersonal states and mental activity give rise to behavior in social contexts. Psychodynamic theory has been overshadowed by experimental and cognitive approaches to psychology in recent years, but it is beginning to receive increased attention in psychological research (Bower, 2007) One value of the psychodynamic perspective is that it "thinks big." It is concerned with issues like the meaning of life, how we face death, and the origins of love and hate. It deals with fundamental human issues and has suggested important insights that have become part of our day-to-day thinking-concepts like the ego, the unconscious, repression, and wish fulfillment. Several ideas from psychodynamics are fundamental to an understanding of conflict (Coser, 1956). Freud and his followers portray the human mind as a reservoir of psychic energy that is channeled into various activities. This energy is the impulse behind all human activity and can be channeled into any number of different behaviors, ranging from positive pursuits such as work or raising family to destructive impulses such as vandalism or verbal attacks. However it is channeled, this energy must be released. If it is not released through one channel, psychic energy builds up pressure to be released through another. Sometimes the psyche is likened to a system of hydraulic pipes in which turning off one outlet puts pressure on others. The frustrations and uncertainties involved in conflict generate two powerful impulses-the aggressive impulse and anxiety-which we must manage. The various ways in which these two forms of energy are channeled play a critical role in conflict interaction because they determine how parties react to conflict. The psychodynamic perspective suggests that aggressive energy frequently arises from feelings of guilt, a lack of self-worth, or frustrations resulting from unful- filled needs or thwarted desires. Aggression may be directed at the actual source of the guilt or frustration, either back at oneself in the form of self-hate or in attacks on another person. Self-hatred, however, is destructive, and aggression toward others is discouraged by moral codes and also by their negative consequences. When this occurs, individuals find various conscious or unconscious ways to redirect their aggressive impulses. One strategy is to attempt to suppress aggressive drives. Suppression can take the form of simply not acknowledging the drives and channeling this energy into an alternative activity. For example, an employee who is angry at his boss for denying him a promotion may simply suppress his anger and re-channel it into working even harder. The psychodynamic perspec- tive stresses the benefits of suppression because it leads to less anxiety, guilt, or pain thanChapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict 55 Rapson, 1994; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010). So, Jack may respond to Jill's angry outburst by becoming angry in return and shouting back at her, which intensifies Jill's anger and encourages her to shout even louder, which infuriates Jack, and so on. As we will see in Chapter 3, reciprocation is a natural and powerful tendency in human interaction. Emotional contagion is one contributing factor to reciprocation. Jones (2001) cautions us to recognize that emotional contagion-like emotion itself-is not a simple phenomenon. She points out that "Not only do people differ in their focus on affect tive communication as information . . . but also they differ in their propensity to be affected by the emotional communication of others" (p. 92). The communication of emotions by others may not affect us if we discount the emotional display (e.g., "He's just tired and grumpy; don't pay attention to that outburst"), or when we are aware of potentially harmful impact of emo- tions, The nature of the relationships may influence response to emotional communication. Sentiment override (Roloff & Wright, 2013) refers to the tendency for people satisfied with their relationships to interpret their partners' behavior in positive ways, while dissatisfied parties tend to interpret the other's behavior more negatively. Intensity of conflict may also play a role. Hatfield, Cacioppo, and Rapson (1994) found that in situations of intense competition, people are likely to dampen their responses to others' emotional displays. Participants in sports are familiar with this, as they often try to "keep their cool" as the other "experiences a meltdown." Communication media also have effects on emotional expression. Suler (2004) summarizes evidence for an "online disinhibition effect" in which people self-disclose or act out more frequently or intensely than they would in person. Disinhibition occurs because people using media, like blogs, text messaging, and Twitter, tend to feel more anonymous and less visible to others. They also are dissociated from others because they do not see their reactions as they would in person. Sometimes people also begin to feel as though their online personae are distinct and different from their in-person selves. Finally, the lack of sanctions from others and general freedom on the internet can lead people to minimize authority and the consequences of their actions. All these dynamics combine to "give people the courage to go places and do things that they otherwise wouldn't," and it frees them up to express emotions more directly, clearly, and strongly than they would in face-to-face interaction (Suler, 2004, p. 322). This is true for both negative and positive emotions. As this discussion illustrates, emotions may have powerful impacts on conflicts, but the impacts are complex. Case 2.3 considers the role emotion played in the Parking Lot Scuffle. Emotional communication can have both positive and negative effects on conflict manage- ment. These effects are tightly bound with cognitive processes associated with conflict, to which we now turn. Table 2.2 gives some basic suggestions for working with emotion in conflicts. CASE STUDY 2.3 EMOTION IN THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE The predominant emotion at the beginning of this conflict was anger. Jay hit the moped, and his natural reaction was to become upset at the accident. His pulse rate was ele- vated, and he may have been trembling a bit, a common reaction to an accident that is a "near miss" in which nothing really harmful happened to him. Tim saw his Honda and56 Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict was angry because his cherished moped had been damaged. Tim launched a verbal attack, a reflexive action triggered by anger. Tim's attack prompted Jay to reassess his feelings in a secondary appraisal. 2. HIS physiological reactions were already similar to those of anger, and the anger expressed by Tim elicited a matching anger response from Jay. This emotional con. tagion put both in similar emotional states, which had the potential to escalate conflict. As the interchange unfolds, Tim experienced emotional flooding. His anger was so extreme that it seemed to block his ability to comprehend Jay. Tim was con- cerned only with getting reparations from Jay or, if these weren't forthcoming, with taking revenge on Jay. Another common reaction to anger is to avoid the other party, and this seems to be what Jay was doing near the end of the episode. He turned away from Tim, trying to end the confrontation and calm down. Tim, flooded with anger, hit him. Discussion Questions Was the emotional contagion inevitable? Could anything have been done to avoid the escalation of anger and to inject some positive emotion into the situation? TABLE 2.2 Working with Emotions: Questions to Ask and Measures to Take Regarding Emotions in Conflict . Accept emotion as a natural part of conflict and acknowledge your emotions. Identify your emotional states. You may not always be aware of exactly what emotions you are feeling. Ask yourself whether the emotion you have labeled your current state with is appropriate for this situation. Be aware of the behavioral tendencies associated with various emotions and consider whether these tendencies are constructive or destructive in the current situation. . Realize the possibility of emotional flooding. If your emotions overwhelm you, find a way to get some distance and perspective on them. . Be vigilant for emotional contagion. Are you and the other party feeding on one another's emotions? Is there some way to short-circuit this? Foster hope and positive energy. . Own up to your emotions and discuss them with the other party. . Help the other party discuss his or her emotions. Recognize the other's emotions as legitimate and respect his insight into them. or her feelings. You will not be able to get someone else to dismiss emotions, but you can help him or her gain . Chapters 7 and 8 provide suggestions for building a climate safe for emotional expression and for communicating in ways that counteract some of the negative impacts of emotional flooding and contagion.Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict 67 open discussion and individual thinking, found this unacceptable and explained it in preju- dicial terms. Note also that the Americans were engaging in the fundamental attribution error (attributing Japanese actions to bad intentions rather than to how things are done in Japanese culture), which compounded the misinterpretation. Such misunderstandings are commonplace when people from different cultures and back- grounds come together. Attributions are made almost automatically, and generally people are not aware that their conclusions about others are based on faulty reasoning. When mistaken assumptions such as these drive behavior, they keep parties at a distance and feed negative conflict cycles. Just as conflict is not static, the attributions made by individuals do not remain constant. As a conflict unfolds, attributions may change, thereby promoting use of different strategies. In this sense, the strategies a person uses are part of an emergent process mediated by ongoing reevaluation and attribution. Sillars and Parry (1982) found that as stress levels during con- flict situations increase, other-directed blame due to the fundamental attribution error also rises. Spontaneous verbal statements that provide integrative understandings decrease as stress increases. On the whole, research and theory in this area can be summarized by three propositions. First, people choose conflict resolution strategies based on the attributions they make regarding the cause of the conflict. Second, biases in the attribution process tend to encourage nonco- operative modes of conflict. Third, the choice of conflict strategies influences the likelihood of conflict resolution and the degree of satisfaction with the relationship. Case 2.6 considers the role of attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle (p. 43). What can we do about the negative impacts of attribution processes? Measures to enhance understanding and cut through mistaken assumptions are discussed throughout the remainder of the book. Chapter 8 discusses several structured methods for communication and problem solving that are particularly valuable in uncovering and correcting misunderstandings. One important step in limiting the impact of attributions on conflict is to remember that attribution errors occur constantly and to be watchful for them. We have a tendency to make similar attributions in our conflict experiences across time, partners, and situations (Bono et al., 2002). Research has shown that attributions, once made, are difficult to dismiss. In part, this seems to be due to a lack of awareness of typical patterns. One useful corrective is to take attri- bution errors into account when we try to understand conflicts or disagreements. We can do this by remembering that we are very likely to misinterpret the behavior of people from differ- ent cultures, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and it is important to understand their point of view. CASE STUDY 2.6 THE ROLE OF ATTRIBUTIONS IN THE PARKING LOT SCUFFLE At the outset of the conflict, Jay engaged in somewhat tentative behavior and attempted to understand the situation and find answers to the dilemma. (Whether Jay's line 2 stands as a question or an accusation is open to debate, but given the context of Jay's justification in line 4, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.) When Jay68 Chapter 2 The Inner Experience of Conflict saw lim's accusations, negative evaluations, insults, and insistence that Jay pay for repairs, he was likely to make a dispositional attribution that Tim was simply an unrea- sonable and irrational person. Along with this came a presumption of negative intent. This was likely to make Jay angry toward Tim, partly due to a need to defend himself and partly in response to Tim's "unreasonable" reaction. From the beginning, Tim attributed both the accident and the escalating conflict that follows to Jay. This dispositional attribution cast Jay as generally uncaring of oth- ers' property and unwilling to accept responsibility. From this vantage, it is likely that Tim perceived Jay as the aggressor, and this led him to respond with more negative tactics and, eventually, violence. It is easy for us to see "from the outside" that anger sparked Jay's. In the heat of the moment, however, attributional "reflexes" told Tim that his behavior was caused by Jay's unreasonable reaction (the situation), while Jay was intentionally trying to weasel out of his responsibility (due to his disposition), and redefine the situation for Tim so that he felt perfectly justified in his behavior toward Jay. Also caught up in the same attributional biases, Jay is likely to have concluded that Tim is generally an aggressive person and deserves the hostility Jay expressed toward Tim in line 14. Discussion Questions What might Jay and/or Tim have done to sort out their mistaken attributions from actual competitive intentions? Could the damage done by attribution processes in this conflict have been limited or counteracted? Attribution research suggests that we are also more likely to find excuses for our own behavior and to blame others for their behavior. When this blaming occurs-when we assume others' behavior stems from their bad intentions toward us-we should remind ourselves that they may feel driven by the situation as well and look for ways to change the situation to encourage cooperation. Remember that we tend to credit ourselves for good outcomes and blame others for bad ones. Hence, we should take a good hard look at our behavior to ensure that it is not causing the problem, and we should be more charitable toward others, not presume that they are creating the problems we face. There is a catch, however. Despite the problems introduced by attribution biases, others may really have competitive intentions. If this is indeed true, then our strategy in a conflict could be very different than if we are merely misunderstanding their behavior and assuming bad inten- tions when none exist. The challenge is sorting things out and deciding how to respond. Thinking About Conflicts Have you ever thought about a conflict that you expected to occur, or have you mulled over one that you previously had? What thoughts ran through your head, and how did you feel? Did thinking about the conflict make you angrier at the other party, or didChapter 2 THE INNER EXPERIENCE OF CONFLICT ecall the Women's Hotline Case (Case I.1, pages 2-3). The conflict and how it was R resolved were strongly influenced by parties' interpretations of one another's behavior and by assumptions each side made about the other. For instance, several staff mem- bers believed that Diane was not willing to bear her share of the work, while Diane drew the conclusion that the staff was not sympathetic with her problems. The staff made incorrect inferences about Diane's motivations in asking for a leave of absence. Diane's anger at their rejection led her to file a grievance. Sharing their doubts and fears encouraged members to reinterpret Diane's behavior in more generous terms. It is clear that the conflict was strongly influenced by what was going on inside parties' heads, by emotion and cognition. While con- flict is constituted in interaction, the behavior that constitutes that interaction has its origins in individual cognition and affective processes. So it is to the inner experience of conflict that we now turn. In this chapter we explore the psychological processes that influence conflict inter- action. We consider psychological dynamics that affect our perception and interpreta- tion of conflicts, how we process conflict-related information, and how we behave during conflicts. Some of these dynamics are rooted in deep-seated motivations and emotional reactions, and others in our beliefs and thought processes. Thinking and feeling are often regarded as quite different processes, but as we will see, they affect each other in import- ant ways. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first reviews psychodynamic theory, a psychological theory that influenced classic theories of conflict. Section two explores the role of emotions in conflict. Cognitive processes that influence our interpretations of and reactions to conflicts are the subject of the third section. The final section con- siders how psychodynamics, emotions, and cognitive processes interact to affect conflict interaction. To illustrate how the different factors discussed in this chapter figure in conflict, they will be used to illuminate the same conflict case, the Parking Lot Scuffle. Before diving into the next section, refer to Case 2.1, which reviews a conflict between two relative strangers as it was cap- tured by an observer. This is the actual dialogue recorded between the parties; only phrases that some readers might find offensive have been changed