Third Parties, Violence, and Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Although researchers know much about the causes of aggression, they know surprisingly little about how aggression leads to violence or how violence is controlled. To explore the microregulation of violence, we conducted a systematic behavioral analysis of footage from closed-circuit television surveillance of public spaces. Using 42 incidents involving 312 people, we compared aggressive incidents that ended in violence with those that did not. Behaviors of antagonists and third parties were coded as either escalating or conciliatory acts. Results showed that third parties were more likely to take conciliatory actions than to escalate violence and that this tendency increased as group size increased. This analysis revealed a pattern of third-party behaviors that prevent aggression from becoming violent and showed that conciliatory behaviors are more successful when carried out by multiple third parties than when carried out by one person. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of collective third-party dynamics in understanding conflict resolution.

Consolation in the aftermath of robberies resembles post-aggression consolation in chimpanzees

“…Furthermore, our findings showed that for a given pair of individuals, the likelihood of consolation increased with the number of other individuals present. This contradicts the hypothesized bystander effect and confirms recent evidence that violence may diminish the bystander effect [42] or even reverse it [4]. Unlike prior findings on consolation in bonobos [12], our findings demonstrate that the physical distance between two individuals does not affect the probability of consolation.…”

“…Specifically, we analyzed the immediate aftermath of nonfatal robberies to look for adult human consolation. Surveillance camera footage offers a unique and ethically sound way of studying adult behavior in high-danger contexts [4]. …”

Third Party Involvement in Barroom Conflicts

“…Note that we obtained descriptions of aggressive acts and ratings of intoxication for each person involved in incidents of aggression. This yielded considerably more detail about the aggressive incidents than was available in previous research on barroom aggression (Graham, et al, 1980; 2000; Homel, et al, 2004; Homel and Clark, 1994; Levine, et al, 2011). …”

“…Research demonstrates that third parties frequently enter interpersonal conflicts and often affect the outcomes (e.g., Cooney, 1998; Graham and Wells, 2003; Levine, Taylor, and Best, 2011; Wells and Graham, 1999; Planty, 2002). Third parties can act as agents of social control who mediate the conflict or they can make conflicts worse by either encouraging the main participants to be aggressive or by entering the fray themselves (e.g.…”

“…Only two previous studies have examined the role of third parties in aggressive incidents taking place in drinking settings. Levine and colleagues (Levine, Taylor, and Best, 2011) analyzed recorded television surveillance of public drinking spaces in England and found that third parties were more likely to take conciliatory actions than to escalate violence, particularly when multiple third parties were involved. Notably, they concluded that third parties’ aggressive rather than conciliatory actions increased the likelihood of severe violence.…”