Barriers to conflict resolution

Ross, Lee; Stillinger, Constance

doi:10.1007/bf01000332

Cited by 109 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, Malhotra & Murnighan (2002) argue that overly controlling contracts, which leave little room for discretion, crowd out trust development because they lead to situational rather than personal attributions for the cooperativeness of partners. This may be especially likely during conflict, because parties are less likely to make generous attributions of each other's behavior when the relationship has turned antagonistic (Ross & Stillinger, 1991). These mechanisms suggest: Prior research has not directly examined the effect of control provisions on competencebased trust.…”

Section: The Effect Of Control Provisions On Trustmentioning

confidence: 93%

Trust and Collaboration in the Aftermath of Conflict: The Effects of Contract Structure

Malhotra

Lumineau

2011

AMJ

390

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Leveraging a longitudinal dataset concerning 102 inter-firm disputes, we evaluate the effects of contract structure on trust and on the likelihood of continued collaboration. We theoretically refine and empirically extend prior research by (a) distinguishing between control and coordination functions of contracts, (b) separating goodwill-based and competence-based trust, and (c) evaluating the effects of contract structure on relational outcomes in the context of disputes. We find that control provisions increase competence-based trust, but reduce goodwillbased trust, resulting in a net decrease in the likelihood of continued collaboration. Coordination provisions increase competence-based trust, leading to an increased likelihood of continued collaboration.

show abstract

Section: The Effect Of Control Provisions On Trustmentioning

confidence: 93%

Trust and Collaboration in the Aftermath of Conflict: The Effects of Contract Structure

Malhotra

Lumineau

2011

AMJ

390

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various theories of negotiating peace between opposing sides, whether in the context of a financial negotiation or between heads of state, suggest that a fundamental roadblock is a lack of perspective-taking [25,26]. Interventions often involve attempting to encourage each party to appreciate the alternative perspective and to consider that both perspectives are valid and reasonable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ascribing beliefs to ingroup and outgroup political candidates: neural correlates of perspective-taking, issue importance and days until the election

Spunt

Lieberman

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used the five weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential election as a backdrop to examine the ways that the brain processes attitudes and beliefs under different circumstances. We examined individual differences in personal issue importance and trait perspective-taking, as well as the temporal context in which attitude representation took place (i.e. number of days until the election). Finally, we examined the extent to which similar or dissimilar processes were recruited when considering the attitudes of political ingroup and outgroup candidates. Brain regions involved in social cognition and theory of mind, and to a lesser extent the limbic system, were modulated by these factors. Higher issue importance led to greater recruitment of neural regions involved in social cognition, across target perspectives. Higher trait perspective-taking was also associated with greater recruitment of several regions involved in social cognition, but differed depending on target perspective; greater activity was observed in prefrontal regions associated with social cognition when considering the perspective of one's own candidate compared with the opponent, and this effect was amplified closer to the election. Taken together, these results highlight ways in which ability and motivational relevance modulate socio-affective processing of the attitudes of others.

show abstract

“…In other words misperception of a group norm can cause a self-fulfilling feedback to make the perceived group norm even more extreme. This has implications for negotiation and conflict resolution (see Ross and Stillinger, 1991;Thompson and Gonzalez, 1997, for an analysis). There is other evidence that people tend to believe that their behavior speaks for itself, that they see the world objectively, and that only other people are susceptible to bias and misconstrual of events.…”

Section: Experiments 2 Intra-and Intergroup Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Folkbiology Matters: Resource Conflict Despite Shared Goals and Knowledge

Medin

Roß

Cox³

et al. 2006

Hum Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a continuing controversy over Native American fishing and hunting rights. We show that Native American (Menominee) and European American fish experts have a common knowledge base and share values and attitudes associated with fishing practices (though organized around different ethical principles). Nonetheless, perceived group differences are dramatic (especially European American perceptions of Native Americans). Cultural differences in models of nature and associated inference processes appear to mediate these stereotypes and may hold the key to reducing intergroup conflict over resources.

show abstract

Barriers to conflict resolution

Cited by 109 publications

References 16 publications

Trust and Collaboration in the Aftermath of Conflict: The Effects of Contract Structure

Trust and Collaboration in the Aftermath of Conflict: The Effects of Contract Structure

Ascribing beliefs to ingroup and outgroup political candidates: neural correlates of perspective-taking, issue importance and days until the election

Why Folkbiology Matters: Resource Conflict Despite Shared Goals and Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About