THEORIES OF PEACE AND CONFLICT

• Conflict Curve

• History is full of conflicts that were eventually resolved, and there has been
discussion over whether such resolutions should be amicable or coercive. For most
people, avoiding violence and finding peaceful solutions to conflicts are
preferable. The scientific model's dispute settlement curve encourages parties to
reach a peaceful agreement.
• A quarrel that is resolved by force may only serve to spark new conflict later on.
The dispute settlement curve divides conflict management strategies into
competitive and conciliatory. At least one side of this curve may reach some
understanding of their aggressor's goal. On CRC, they reach similar conclusions
regarding their horribleness and goodwill.
• The first step in establishing a settlement is for the warring parties to
agree on at least some of the CRC's negotiating objectives. Unless the
hostility of the assailant is particular, CRC somehow does not exist.
Under such conditions, it may lead to doomsday with equal
annihilation. The curve illustrates why peaceful protests may bring
down oppressive governments and even coerce rulers into making
policy changes.
• Dual Model

• Care for oneself and caring for others are at the heart of a dual conceptual starting
of resolving conflicts. This theoretical stance proposes that people's favoured
approaches to resolving disagreements are grounded in these two fundamental
principles. The concept suggests that for a group to function well, its individuals
must maintain a balance between looking out for their objectives and those of the
community.
People's unique approaches to resolving conflicts emerge at the junction of these
two aspects. Based upon their propensity to pursue either selfish or altruistic ends,
people may choose between five distinct approaches to resolving conflicts, as
outlined by the double paradigm.
• Relationship Theory
• Unlike traditional psychological approaches, Baxter and Montgomery's
idea of computed using the following examines how both people and
groups utilize language to resolve disagreements and ambiguity in
interpersonal interactions. This idea emphasizes the need for
synchronized discourse to preserve a connection despite the inevitable
tensions that may occur. According to RDT, couples experience conflict
because their personalities are at odds with one another, and their
interactions are dynamic or constantly shifting.
• Approach to Conflict
• As was previously said, workplace conflicts may arise from various
sources, including but not limited to differences in opinion and personal
styles. Disagreements arise when two parties have divergent agendas,
objectives, or beliefs. These disagreements are generally the
consequence of misunderstandings rather than main distinctions.
Conflicts can arise between members of a team, between departments,
between projects, between an organization and a customer, between a
leader and the team, or between the requirements of the company as
well as an individual's wants.
• Sacrificing the Conflict
•
• In contrast to the win-win compromise, this conclusion involves the
parties to the disagreement finding a mutually agreeable solution to both
sides. This may happen as a result of two people talking to each other
and trying to see things from someone else's perspective. A compromise
may be the best option when the stakes are low to medium and more
forceful or involved methods are not warranted to achieve the aims. It
may be an excellent preliminary stage when participants do not know
each other very well or still need to share a high degree of mutual
regard. It could be helpful when achieving interim resolution on
complex matters.
• In a pinch, a compromise might be the quickest approach to resolve things.
Conflicts may be reduced, but if the resolution is not satisfying, so is the outcome.
Because time is such a crucial consideration when using this approach, poor
management of the issue may easily lead to dissatisfaction on the parts of both
parties. Further, it may need an evaluation function of the partly satisfying
compromise obtained, as it does not assist in creating confidence in the long term.
• The Cognitive Perspective
• This refers to those theories that believe thoughts and perception are
most important in determining communication behaviors. These are
the theories that believe that what goes on in the mind of a person
determines what he will say.
• They also believe that everybody is different and unique, therefore
will see things differently. So, the cognitive look at ideas of
communication – encoding, decoding, planning and strategizing. They
also assume that the cognitive constructs are revealed in their beliefs,
attitudes, values, and perceptions.
• The cognitive try to answer three research questions in conflict
analysis:
• 1. How do individuals and groups differ in their approach to conflict?
• For example, are women less violent than men? 2. What trait best
• predicts communication during conflict? Personality traits are
searched
• here, from verbally aggressive, to assertiveness, etc and 3. How does
• perception influence communication during conflict? For example,
what
• are socially acceptable conducts?
• Verbal Aggressiveness Theory – VAT
• Knowing fully well that the contemporary theories are
communication oriented, the VAT being one of them argues that
aggression as a trait possessed by people can be ignited based on the
interaction with factors in a particular situation.
• Infante and Wigley, (1987) argue that verbal aggression is depended
on one’s level of argumentativeness which is motivated by a
willingness to want to argue.
• If one feels satisfied arguing, they will argue, but if reverse is the
case, the person will not want to argue.
• The implication of this is that people with low argumentative traits,
are high in verbal aggressiveness, because they are frustrated and
lack the skills to succeed in such situations and therefore turn to
aggression in a negative trait that can lead to conflict escalation, long-
lasting damage to self-concept and deterioration of relationships.
• It is important to encourage people to develop argumentative traits
as it is positively related to career satisfaction, achievement, superior
subordinate satisfaction, organizational growth and development.
• Attribution Theory
• This theory applies mostly in interpersonal conflict. In analyzing
conflicts, people look at the causes of the action by attributing it to
thecharacteristic, intentions and the attitudes of the people involved.
• The second effect of attribution theory is that because their actions
will be attributed to other factors, they are encouraged to act
appropriately in different situations.
• Innate (internal) ability of an individual to act in a particular way is
referred to as dispositional factors, while external factors like the
nature of the task, luck, interferences are called situational factors.
• So, in analyzing any conflict situation, both dispositional and
situational factors are considered. These attributions help in the
choice of conflict management style that could be adopted.
• Social Influence Theory
• This theory emphasized the use of aggressive verbal acts when they
can find justification for it. As much as verbal aggressiveness is
frowned at, people can still get coercive without getting the
condemnation that go with it because they can find justification for it.
‘At the heart of this theory lies the premise that not all coercive acts
are perceived as aggressive’ (Folger, Marshall, and Stutman 1997).