Intrapersonal before Getting Interpersonal: a Theoretical Reflection on the Role of Psychology in Conflict Interaction

From the perspective of international relations theory, realists might argue that power mediation is more apt to settle intransigent conflicts. I oppose such views. Instead, I follow conflict scholars Loraleigh Keashly and Ronald Fisher in their reasoning that such coercive tactics indeed increase the parties’ resistance to resolution¹.

To reach long-term solutions to protracted conflicts, I argue that conflict resolution must focus on approaches and methods that address the underlying psychological dynamics of the conflict embedded in basic human needs of the conflict parties².

Diving into Conflict Interaction Dynamics

Conflict interaction in violent conflict is deeply interwoven with hatred, destructive attitude and mistrust. To abate such antagonisms, psychology scholar Cheryl De La Rey presents various methods for reconciliation, among which she identifies conflict scholar Jay Rothman’s concept of reflexive dialogue as the method that best describes the process of reconciliation³.

According to Rothman, reflexive dialogue aims to ‘reframe [the participants’] perceptions and analyses of each other and their own identities: in short, they learn to articulate their own voice clearly and to recognize each other’s voices as valid’⁴.

Within the Context of Conflict Transformation

What is more, the author recognizes great resonance with Robert Bush and Joseph Folger’s transformative mediation model⁵.

It is thus conflict interaction itself, rather than the issues at stake, that deserves greater care and consideration.

To paraphrase peace scholar John Paul Lederach, it is essential to establish a conflict transformation framework that prioritizes relationship building rather than one being dominated by events and agreements⁶.

More Heart, Less Mind

Most scholars and practitioners argue that reconciliation belongs to the phase of post-conflict peacebuilding; that is, once a peace agreement is signed. In lieu of an attempt to denunciate the role of reconciliation in a post-conflict setting, I see the value of its healing functions also being extended to other phases of conflict resolution⁷: prior to and during conflict settlement.

In other words, I express support for an innovative form of conflict resolution that portrays relationship building as an end in itself.

A starting point may consist of examining more rigorously how conflict interaction in deep-rooted social conflicts can be improved with the aim to strengthen the value of the negotiation process by looking at the underlying social-psychological dimensions of the conflict dynamics.

Human-Driven Approaches

The mainstream negotiation and mediation literature underscores the importance of converging supposedly incompatible goals and conflict settlement⁸.

In fact, a lot of attention has been devoted to the settlement-driven and too little to the human-driven or relational-driven approaches, i.e. conflict resolution approaches whereby relationship-building processes are the main objective.

By no means do I intend to detract the valuable efforts of more traditional approaches to peacebuilding, such as integrative bargaining. On the contrary, I welcome these methods. As a matter of fact, I envisage a more mutually recognizing connection between them and the role of psychology in the field of peacebuilding⁹.

Robert Rothstein has furthermore stated that ‘since there is obviously an important psychological or emotional component of protracted conflicts, there is surely likely to be an equally important psychological or emotional component to their resolution’¹⁰. This statement paints the backdrop to the argument that I wish to convey in this article.

Re-Humanizing Conflict Interaction

In this regard, I agree with Wendy Lambourne to the extent that the relational and psychological dimensions in peacebuilding remain under-researched¹¹.

In fact, in her doctoral dissertation, Berenike Carstarphen¹² denotes that attitudes, affective processes and the constructive role of emotions constitute a gap in the conflict resolution literature.

Moreover, recognizing that societies are socially constructed, I argue that a more prominent role is required for the re-humanization of conflict interaction.

Indeed, there is need for a greater and more constructive role of emotions in conflict resolution approaches that attempt to counter downward spiralling conflict interaction.

Such reframing of conflict interaction requires greater emphasis on relationship building as well as bringing about attitudinal transformation.

Adopting a Transcendent Identity

An essential step in this endeavour is considering non-negotiable identity needs, such as national identity¹³, as a sine qua non for approaches that envisage long-term solutions to protracted conflicts.

In this context, unravelling the de-humanization or demonization of the parties in violent, deep-rooted identity-based social conflicts is observed as a crucial endeavour to transform destructive conflict interaction.

Therefore, attitudinal transformation must be contextualized in terms of identity of self and the other.

What Is Herbert Telling Us?

An interesting notion to contemplate at this point, is Herbert Kelman’s concept of transcendent identity.

Kelman refers with transcendent identity to a common identity for the different identity groups that does not supplant the particularistic identities. At the very contrary, such identity accepts the coexistence of the separate identities.

Kelman emphasizes the importance of cultivating the particularistic identities of each group, referring hereby to Henri Tajfel’s social identity theory, which emphasizes the individual basic need for psychological distinctiveness within and between groups¹⁴.

Kelman contends that ‘[t]here are two major types of negative identity elements that are often brought to the fore by the relationship to the other in a protracted conflict: the view of one’s self as weak and vulnerable, and the view of one’s self as violent and unjust’¹⁵. The former refers to the role of victim and the latter to that of victimizer.

Although no party would prefer to present itself neither as the other’s helpless victim nor as the other’s brutal aggressor, Kelman argues that the nature of the conflict imposes these distorted views of self upon them.

More importantly, it is the conflict interaction itself that engenders such negative interdependence.

Reframing the Socially Constructed Identities

To support the disentanglement of this negative interdependence, Kelman’s notion of interactive conflict transformation can be of help here.

It entails transforming the destructive conflict relationship by scrutinizing the identity of each party; by surmounting the fixated idea that, in fact, ‘the other is a source of some of the negative elements in one’s own identity’¹⁶; by addressing the parties’ fears and needs; and, by fostering trust among the parties.

It Is All About Perception

Thus, it all comes down to reframing the socially constructed identities of the participants. Since perceptions drive attitude¹⁷ and behavior¹⁸, reframing identities in a protracted conflict can be boiled down to reframing perceptions towards the conflict and the conflict interaction itself.

I do not pretend to suggest that conflict parties are in any way wrong about their own perceptions.

Instead, by reframing perceptions, I specifically refer to the process whereby conflict parties autonomously decide to consider the other’s perceptions as well.

This can happen through direct interaction with the other or through self-reflection.

First Things First

The above theoretical observations have taught me to appreciate a greater role — and, perhaps, a greater need — for intrapersonal aspects in conflict resolution.

Before being able to genuinely take into account the other’s perceptions, I would argue that the transformation of a conflict must begin at the intrapersonal level.

This means that we first deal with attitudinal transformation (intrapersonal change) before addressing relational transformation (interpersonal and intergroup changes).

Start with Yourself

I would argue that once a person’s mind is receptive to actively start working with his or her own underlying grievances and deep-seated wounds, a healing process is allowed to commence.

Only when a certain stage of greater self-awareness and personal strength towards oneself is reached, the individual will be susceptible to begin considering the feelings, needs and fears of the other person¹⁹.

At this moment, the transformation process of the interpersonal relationship can begin. Similarly, once the interpersonal relationship has been empowered, the intergroup relationship can receive greater attention.

[1] Keashly, L., & Fisher, R. J. (1990). Towards a contingency approach to third party intervention in regional conflict: a Cyprus illustration. International Journal, 45(2), 424–453.

[2] This view has been shared by, for instance, Wendy Lambourne (see Lambourne, W. (2004). Post-conflict peacebuilding: Meeting human needs for justice and reconciliation. Peace, Conflict and Development, 4(April), p.21).

[3] De la Rey, C. (2001). In: Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. A. (Eds.). Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, pp. 251–262.

[4] Rothman, J. (1996). Reflexive dialogue as transformation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 13(4), p.351.

[5] Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. John Wiley & Sons.

[6] Lederach, J.P. (2002). Justpeace — The Challenge of the 21st Century. In: People Building Peace. ed. European Centre for Conflict Prevention. The Hague, The Netherlands: European Centre for Conflict Prevention, pp.35.

[7] Ronald Fisher makes the distinction between relationship building and reconciliation (see Fisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, pp.258) and J. Lewis Rasmussen calls for strategically integrating relationship building into the officical negotiation process (see Rasmussen, J. L. (2001). Negotiating a revolution: Toward integrating relationship building and reconciliation into office peace negotiations. In: Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory & Practice. ed. Mohammed Abu-Nimer. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp.103)

[8] Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Group USA.

[9] This view has also been expressed by, for instance, Robert Rothstein (see note 10).

[10] Rothstein, R.L. (1999). Fragile Peace and its Aftermath. In: After the Peace: Resistance and Reconciliation. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, pp.239.

[11] Lambourne, W. (2004). Post-conflict peacebuilding: Meeting human needs for justice and reconciliation. Peace, Conflict and Development, 4(April), p.21.

[12] Carstarphen, B. O. (2003). Shift happens: Transformations during small group interventions in protracted social conflicts (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University).

[13] Kelman, H. C. (2001). The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli-Palestinian Problem-Solving Workshops. In: Ashmore, R. D., Jussim, L. J., & Wilder, D. (Eds.). Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press, pp. 196.

[14] Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 33(1), p.24.

[15] Kelman, H.C. (1999). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), p.593.

[16] Kelman (1999), p.595.

[17] Dijksterhuis, A., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(4), 865–877.

[18] Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of experimental social psychology, 22(5), 453–474.

[19] See also Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2004).

Back to Articles