Having The Capacity For Empathy (continued)

De Waal (2008, 292) concludes in a comprehensive study of empathy and altruism:[1]

"More than three decades ago, biologists deliberately removed the altruism from altruism. There is now increasing evidence that the brain is hard wired for social connection, and that the same empathy mechanism proposed to underlie human altruism (Batson1991) may underlie the directed altruism of other animals. Empathy could well provide the main motivation making individuals who have exchanged benefits in the past to continue doing so in the future. Instead of assuming learned expectations or calculations about future benefits, this approach emphasizes a spontaneous altruistic impulse and a mediating role of the emotions. It is summarized in the five conclusions below:

1. An evolutionarily parsimonious account (cf.deWaal1999) of directed altruism assumes similar motivational processes in humans and other animals.
2. Empathy, broadly defined, is a phylogenetically ancient capacity.
3. Without the emotional engagement brought about by empathy, it is unclear what could motivate the extremely costly helping behavior occasionally observed in social animals.
4. Consistent with kin selection and reciprocal altruism theory, empathy favors familiar individuals and previous cooperators, and is biased against previous defectors.
5. Combined with perspective-taking abilities, empathy’s motivational autonomy opens the door to intentionally altruistic altruism in a few large-brained species." (DeWaal, Frans 2008)

Neuroscientists over the past twenty years have discovered what they call “mirror neurons” in human beings and other animals. A neuron is a nerve cell in animals that processes and transmits information via electro-chemical means. A mirror neuron is a neuron that transmits both when an animal acts and/or when an animal observes another animal act. Although an extremely complex area to prove and to understand, the theory is worth exploring. Some neuroscientists believe that the discovery of these neurons will one day be as important to the understanding of human behavior as DNA is to the understanding of human biology. “The simple fact that a subset of the cells in our brains-the mirror neurons- fire when an individual kicks a soccer ball, sees a ball being kicked, hears a ball being kicked, and even just says or hears the word ‘kick’ leads to amazing consequences and new understandings” says Marco Iacoboni in his in-depth exploration and detailed account of research in the field of mirror neurons (Iacoboni, 12). If we are neurologically stimulated from action emanating from ourselves and by observation of, or thoughts about others, then the concepts of empathy, imitation, sympathy, compassion, emotional understanding, etc… and how they are part of our natural behavior becomes easier to understand. As the research unfolds and we begin to understand more about how mirror neurons affect empathy, the innateness of their existence may guide us towards a better understanding of how we use empathy as a tool in conflict resolution. All signs point toward empathy being a crucial and present common ability that most humans have and use. Physiological and psychological studies about empathy from various parts of the world would be a natural next step to take in this exploration in order to compare and contrast beliefs and potential human differences in various settings.

_______________________________________________________________

[1]Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. In Zoology it is; instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. (American Heritage Dictionary 54)

HAVING THE CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY:

Empathy is the capability to understand and identify with someone else’s feelings, situation, and motives for action or inaction. It is a direct window into someone else’s mind where you can “put yourself in their shoes.” Except in cases of some neurological disabilities, most humans have the capacity for empathy and it is an ability with which we are born. After a moderately comprehensive research review, talking with mediation practitioners, working as a mediator, and working to understand a recent survey of mediators, I am confident in making the statement that most people have what it takes to understand what someone else is feeling and encountering via their ability to empathize. That being said, I also believe that this capacity, like the others explored in this paper, can be enhanced or suppressed through what we are exposed to or not exposed to during our lives. Empathy is an ability that many people in the conflict management profession hold up as an absolute necessity for moving conflicts towards resolution. (2)Both the people in conflict and the conflict manager must have empathy. Empathy is not sympathy, or compassion, and although empathy may lead to sympathy and compassion, it stands on its own as the mechanism for arriving at an understanding.

About empathy, Donald Saposnek writes, “This capacity for being able to understand and connect with the feelings of others is a skill that, according to research, lies on a continuum. At one extreme (as in pathologies of Asperger’s disorder and sociopathy) are people who either do not have, or are extremely deficient in, the capacity for empathy. At the other extreme are effective mental health practitioners, who are high in what Daniel Goleman (1995) refers to as emotional intelligence. This innate, intuitive capacity to understand and feel what other people are feeling and to read the emotions of others, by both verbal and nonverbal clues, is crucial for an effective mediator” (Saposnek 250). Empathy is also crucial for the parties in a dispute to have in order for them to move productively toward resolution. Daniel Goleman, through his work around emotional intelligence, concludes that “empathy is a given of biology” (Goleman 103). Daniel Batson et. al. in their studies on empathy and altruism conclude that empathy in individuals is not something that is derived from self-satisfaction but is quite selfless and altruistic. This fits into the general notion of empathy being derived for others and ties directly into our core ability to cooperate. We do not feel and act with empathy simply because we want pleasure, we do it as part of our instinct, almost like breathing (Batson 425).

(2) Batson Baril Peacemaker Survey – April 2009 shows surfacing party empathy as a key conflict engagement tool used by those surveyed. See also Chart # 1 and Appendix A.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS:

The effect that past, current and future relationships have on the resolution of conflict can be profound. Relationships are the most abundant connecting bond in the universe. For every one entity, there is the relationship between it and every other entity, and starting with every single element there is a relationship between it and the groups of relationships made up by all the other elements. Some relationships are peripheral and make no real difference to the participants, while others create a connection, a bond, and potentially, a dependence, or inter-dependence upon those in the relationship. Some elements in a relationship may not have an awareness of the connection as in the relationship between a page in a book and its cover, while other relationships like those between a mother and daughter are explicit and have natural expectations and influences on behavior.

Having an understanding of the reciprocal nature of relationships may be a key factor in resolving conflicts from the participant’s standpoint. From a very early age, we humans understand our reliance on, and relationship to, other human beings. In North American societies, we tend to think of relationships between individuals while in more community-driven societies people tend to think of relationships having a broader spectrum of people that are involved. Lederach describes the Central American experience of thinking of the community as a large “net” of entangled relationships. Describing the word “encredo” which is a synonym for conflict in Central America, he says, “The image is one of knots and connections: an intimate and intricate mess. A net, when tangled, must be worked through and undone slowly and patiently. Even untangled, it still remains connected and knotted: it is a whole…In other words, encredo is a concept of conflict embedded in tight-knit, primary social relationships” (Lederach 78). Whether it is in a society that is driven by individuals or by groups and the community, there will be relationships at play in all conflicts.

The relationship value each party perceives is a critical factor in relationships and their influence on conflict resolution. Relationship value is the level of importance that each actor in a relationship perceives. In a study of relationships in primates van Schaik & Aureli write “…we expect that relationship value will explain much of the variation in all aspects of conflict resolution, not just reconciliation, and will probably do so in both primates and non-primates” (Schaik 308). They go on to say “The most important generalization to emerge from two decades of work on reconciliation (i.e., post-conflict, friendly reunion between opponents) in primates is that individuals that reconcile are likely to have a strong social bond” (Schaik 307). Social bonding and its benefits is the commonality that attracts humans, primates, and other species to making peace with one another.

By understanding the value of relationships and the reciprocity they can deliver, we have the potential for resolving conflict. Bonta highlights that a major commonality in peaceful societies is their appreciation for, and attending to, ongoing individual and community relationships (Bonta 1993, 1996). His research points to the idea that we understand the nature of relationships and that that awareness can create a space for conflicts to be more readily resolved than if there is no relationship. It is hard to prove that humans understand the nature of relationships from the time they are born, but it would seem that as a species, we have an awareness of the importance of relationships with other people and groups, and we have a deep understanding of the reciprocity that goes hand in hand with that awareness.

Next time I will dive into the exciting area of capacities we call empathy.

HAVING THE COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO FORGIVE - Part 2:

A 1982 study of young people explores the correlation of apology to forgiveness and points to some important age considerations. It is important here that the younger students have a greater capacity to forgive and judge without social input, i.e. an apology, than older students do.

In 2 experiments, 221 kindergartners and 1st, 4th, and 7th graders judged actors who committed a transgression under conditions of low or high responsibility and low or high consequences. The actors’ motives were good or bad and the act was intended or accidental. The actor then either did nothing or employed 1 of 3 increasingly elaborate apologies. As hypothesized, the actor's predicament was most severe, producing the harshest judgments when (a) the actor had high responsibility for committing an inadvertent act that produced high consequences, and (b) the act was the result of a bad rather than good motive or was intended rather than accidental. More elaborate apologies produced less blame and punishment and more forgiveness, liking, positive evaluations, and attributions of greater remorse. The judgments of the 7th graders were more affected by the actor's apology than those of the younger students (Ss). These age differences reflect the younger Ss' poorer ability to integrate social information and appreciate the implications of social conventions. However, the younger Ss' judgments were similar to those of older Ss (Darby 742).

These age differences seem to confirm that the capacity to forgive is present at an early age but becomes more refined as we learn to use it and work with others to elicit it.

These studies and comments start to reinforce the idea that the act of forgiveness is a part of most human behavior, starting at an early age. The complexities of how and when forgiveness can occur are too extensive to explore in this project but are important and worth further study. The evidence points to the act of forgiving as being directly associated with others actions (i.e. an apology) both as humans get older and more socialized and as a function of cultural differences. Both of these sway me toward the belief that there is a large element of learning involved in the understanding and act of forgiving, even if the cognitive ability is innate.

As pursued earlier in this paper, the capacity and desire for reconciliation appears to be a behavior/trait that is very much rooted in most people from a very early age and can be traced within other animal species as a core survival technique. The correlation and interdependency between forgiveness and reconciliation is important. If reconciliation can be achieved in a “truce” like resolution without forgiveness, but true long-term reconciliation that allows for healing and real reduced anxiety, requires forgiveness, components of relationship closeness and cooperation may also be a factor when forgiveness becomes a vital element. The understanding of relationships, at which we primates seem to be so good at, may be innately intertwined with our capability to forgive. Research points to forgiveness being a behavior which humans tend to become more skilled in as they mature. The research also indicates that most people have at least some access to a capacity to forgive, even if that forgiveness behavior must be predicated by an apology or other reconciling behavior (Darby 742).

HAVING THE COGNITIVE CAPACITY TO FORGIVE:

There is a large element of learning involved in the understanding and act of forgiving, even if the cognitive capacity is innate. Seung-Ryong Park writes “Forgiveness is not reconciliation. Forgiveness is an internal release that a forgiver has achieved after much effort; reconciliation is a behavioral coming together that a forgiver and the forgiven may establish with trust” (Park 359). Park also speaks to the idea that reconciliation is dependant upon some level of forgiveness and cooperation by stating, “Reconciliation without forgiveness is hardly entitled to constitute genuine reconciliation. It is rather a truce or an interaction based on mutual interests” (Park 359).

Bernard Mayer talks about the emotional aspects of forgiving and apologizing and I believe points us toward the idea that we are geared to move toward emotional resolution:

"The role of forgiveness and apology in reaching emotional resolution can also be critical. I have noticed that delivering an apology is usually more important to reaching closure than receiving one, and forgiving is often more important than being forgiven. Both apologizing and forgiving, when genuinely offered, are acts of emotional resolution. In effect each is a way for people to put some part of the emotional aspect of a conflict behind them. By offering an apology or forgiveness, disputants move themselves toward emotional resolution, even if their action does not have that effect on others." (Mayer 104)

Ken Heare, in his in-depth study of South African reconciliation, shows that even in situations where history and long standing disputes should cause the act of forgiving to be impossible, the human capacity to forgive can still be found if one digs deep enough:

"The question should no longer be whether forgiveness is possible. The case of South Africa has provided example after example of individuals and groups who have effectively engaged in the process. The question now becomes how do we change our societal view to encourage forgiveness as a normal process? Professionals in the field of ADR have the opportunity to create the societal mindset toward forgiveness. By creating dialog, we open the door to exploring interpersonal healing. We create the space for stories to be told and empathy for perpetrators and victims to be realized.” “If we are truly concerned with resolving conflict, we must take a step into the painful and often messy process of reconciliation and forgiveness." (Heare 24)

Could there be varying levels of forgiveness aptitude or effect among different cultures, and, what causes these differences? Clinical observations that focused on US based groups that are exposed to forgiveness treatment and interventions vs. those that are not exposed have shown significant decreases in anxiety, anger, and grief compared with control groups that had not yet received the treatment/intervention. (Park 360, Coyle and Enright 1997). Less of a direct correlation was found in similar experiments made in Korea and Taiwan (Park 361).

Understanding the Benefits of Cooperation (Continued # 2)

There is a growing body of evidence showing that cooperative behavior has origins in the physical make-up of humans. Ken Cloke writes in a recent article that explores the nuerophysiology of the brain, “Oxytocin is widely believed responsible for prompting empathy, compassion, trust, generosity, altruism, parent-child bonding, and monogamy in many species, including human beings.” Oxytocin[1], or the lack of, may explain some of our conflict behaviors and the chemical reactions in our bodies. It may one day lead to a better understanding of common capacities, reactions, and behaviors. Cloke continues, “Clearly, aggression and war are ‘hard-wired’ into the brain, but so are empathy and collaboration. Recent research has emphasized the cooperative aspects of warlike behavior, which forms a core element not only in gangs, but sports teams, organizations and nation states, which use internal cooperation as an aid to external competition. Indeed, modern warfare can be seen as requiring a high level of internal collaborative activity” (Cloke 7). If we can explain some of our behaviors via common universal physical reactions, it could follow that we all share the capacities for these bahaviors.

Whether or not we can show that humans have the ability to act cooperatively in a certain circumstance, I believe that the prevailing theories and research show that cooperative behavior is a part of our biological core. I now wonder if further study, comparing the literature of cooperation in more communal societies with that of more individualistic and competitive societies would highlight learned differences in those societies or would it reinforce the biological potential for common roots in cooperation. Natural cooperative behavior is an area rich with possibilities for cross-cultural study and research and should certainly be focused on in the phase two and three work of this overall project.
[1]Oxytocin is a hormone released from the posterior lobe of the pituitary gland. (American Heritage 1259)

Next time I will focus on the human capacity to forgive!

Understanding the Benefits of Cooperation CONTINUED

In Robert Axelrod’s book, The Evolution of Cooperation, the idea that cooperation can be a naturally occurring phenomenon in many biological systems is explored. In particular, the idea that cooperation occurs within species and between species is important. Mutually advantageous cooperative relationships are found in many biological systems. Trees that feed and house ants which in turn protect the trees is one example. Fig wasps and fig trees where wasps, which are parasites of fig flowers, serve as the tree’s sole means of pollination is another example (Axelrod 90). How do these cooperative relationships develop? Does each new generation of wasp have to learn to cooperate with the fig tree, is it part of the wasp’s natural ability to have this reciprocal relationship, or is it the circumstance that has developed over generations of learning that makes the selection of this behavior pattern successful for each new generation? Cooperation may be an accident in the evolution of a species, but if that accident works to promote the species’ survival in the long term, it would follow that the cooperative behavior has become an innate ability of which the species now has ownership. It may also follow that we as humans learned to cooperate in groups because we are stronger in groups than we are as individuals. Have we made use of this skill for long enough, and have those humans that know this skill innately survived at a better rate than those that don’t know the skill? Is that skill no longer learned but is in fact part of our genetic predisposition? The literature reviewed so far makes me believe that humans are in the midst of a cooperation evolution right now and that we as individuals and groups may be in a mixed state of higher and lower levels of cooperative ability.

Raviv relies on learning and teaching as the basis for cooperation in humans and groups of humans. Raviv writes, “Peace continues as long as nations cooperate effectively and manage their conflicts constructively. War results from the breakdown of cooperation and the destructive management of conflict. War ends when effective cooperation is reestablished among participants. Children and adolescents tend to gain an understanding of the nature of war and peace through their daily experiences with cooperation and conflict…It is through their daily participation in cooperative efforts that an implicit understanding of peace is developed” (Raviv 276). From a very early age, humans have had the ability to understand that cooperation can work to end conflicts and yet it would appear that we have the ability to also unlearn this idea and move more towards an individual-centered base of thinking. The overlap of what we are born with and what we develop through learning is exaggerated when we deal with cooperation. If our successes, especially in early childhood, come from cooperation with those around us, our natural abilities to cooperate are reinforced. If a higher success rate comes in the form of competition and individualistic behavior, our abilities to cooperate can be lost or at least forgotten. David Specht writes “An additional complexity around this is that cooperation is by definition a co-venture necessitating the involvement of multiple parties. So that it is possible that one group may be inclined to cooperate, but find themselves unable to address their conflict in that way because of an unwillingness of their counterpart to similarly engage, increasing the likelihood that they may, as a matter of survival perhaps, resort to either strategies of accommodating or competing. So we may know and even be inclined toward cooperation by virtue of nature and nurture both and still find ourselves resorting to other less desirable strategies” (Specht comments).

UNDERSTANDING THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATION:

Understanding the need for and benefits of cooperation has everything to do with why some groups of people survive, prosper, and are more successful than other groups. Focusing on that need for cooperation is a central tenet of many forms of conflict resolution. Two theories are important to understand in this realm: one is the idea that cooperation, not competition, is most productive in social interactions and human tasks; and two, cooperation is a human core capacity we are hard-wired to understand and use.

Kurt Lewin, Morton Deutsch, and the international social psychology movement over the past sixty years have turned the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” on its head as it relates to conflict resolution. The trend in the past was to believe that competition always moved humans in a long-term positive direction while now it is commonly accepted, and theorized through extensive research, that cooperation is more natural and works better to resolve conflicts and create conflict management systems (Deutsch, Workshop Notes). Taken from his workshop notes in 2004, Morton Deutsch said the following:

"The focus of much of my work in the field of conflict resolution has been centered on the question: What determines whether a conflict takes a constructive or destructive course? After much research and thought, I came to the following conclusions:

1.) A conflict is likely to take a constructive course if it is viewed as a mutual problem to be worked on together in a cooperative process; a conflict is likely to take a destructive course if it is defined as a win-lose conflict in which the conflicting parties engage in a competitive process to determine who wins and who loses.

2.) The typical effects of a successful cooperative process when introduced into a conflict, that is not already strongly determined, tend to induce a cooperative, constructive process of conflict resolution. Such typical effect includes: open, honest communication; friendliness and readiness to be helpful to one another; enhancement of the other’s power and well being; and mutual trust and trustworthiness. In contrast, the typical effects of a competitive process tend to induce a destructive, competitive process of conflict resolution. These typical effects include: communication designed to deceive; hostility and obstructiveness directed toward the other; attempts to weaken the power of the other and to keep or place the other in an inferior position; mutual suspicion and untrustworthiness. (Workshop Notes 2004)"

Deutsch’s life work is relevant to this study as it solidly outlines our common human propensity to cooperate in order to be most efficient, survive as a species, and flourish. Other researchers take this argument further and suggest that many primates, including humans, understand from a very early age, maybe from birth, that cooperation is a key to survival.

Reconciliation (cont....)

The research in early childhood reconciliation behavior is limited but at least one early childhood study reveals important information about children and post-conflict interactions. The study involved controlled observation of children in Russia, the US, Sweden, and Italy. They ranged in size from 20 participants to 120 participants, split nearly evenly between boys and girls, and all aged three to seven years old. Although the research was limited in scope and did not involve cross-cultural conflicts, it produced three results that I find of value to this project: (1.) through controlled observation they “consistently demonstrated a tendency in young children to make peace with their peers following a conflict-induced separation.” (Butovskaya et al. 248) and (2.) Within the Russian and US findings a conclusion was drawn that “Perhaps the simplest way of explaining these results is to suggest that both interactions and relationships matter to young children and that young children’s peacemaking reflects children’s motivation to repair damage to both” (Butovskaya et al. 252). And finally, a very interesting thesis in this study finds that the children’s tendency to make peace increases as they get older and may have roots in cultural expectations. This age related result counters the theory that the behavior is only innate and adds to the complexity of the discussion. It may also be that this age related result correlates to normal childhood physiological developments. If humans are born with some ability to reconcile post-conflict, and environmental influences can change our use of this inherent talent, won’t some cultures build upon this talent and learn to get better at post-conflict management while others lose (perhaps un-learn) the ability and find themselves with fewer ways to manage conflict after it has started?

The importance of the relationship between the suggested innate capacity we have to reconcile and the potential for that capacity to be enhanced or diminished through societal learning is significant. To a certain extent this single childhood study puts us on notice that even if we can rely on our parties having the capacity to reconcile, we must also concern ourselves with the varying levels of ability to access that capacity in each of them. The evidence explored so far strongly suggests that we are going down the right path in expecting people we work with in conflict to have the ability to reconcile their differences, and perhaps the desire as well.

Next time we'll dive into cooperation....

Possessing The Desire For Reconciliation

Douglas Fry, in his studies of the Semai and Zapotec peoples and in his reviews of related literature, concludes that all of the sources and case studies “emphasize that the goal of conflict resolution is to reestablish normal, harmonious relationships among the disputants” (Fry 345). Reconciliation behavior can be found in all peoples and emerges in various forms. Reconciliation behavior may include: stretching out a hand, smiling, joking, kissing, and embracing, special reconciliation meals, social gatherings of all the affected parties, rituals of drinking and smoking, and third party involvement to bring the parties together. All cultures and many animal species have in common this desire, need, and ability to reconcile their differences. In some cases, the post-conflict resolution needs to happen simply to stop the violence and to ensure the survival of the group and the individuals in the group, while in other conflicts a deeper recognition of the benefits of reconciliation by the community allows for some kind of reconciliation process to be entered into. Is it the anxiety of conflict that triggers this desire to move away from conflict and “make-up” with the other side or is it more complex than that, involving survival and productiveness of the species in general and cooperation among individuals to advance themselves in particular? The idea of reconciling differences with an adversary is complex, yet we see the behavior manifest itself in humans as well as in other animals.

The major school of thought on reconciliation suggests that this behavior is related to relationship re-building, while an opposing smaller school of thought presented by Silk (180) says that the post-conflict behavior, at least in primates, is mainly meant to signal that there is no longer an intent to be aggressive or create harm. The behavior is simply an easing of tensions and has no underlying connection to relationships or group survival. The subtlety of these differences seem trivial at first glance, yet they go to the heart of what is being studied and talked about around reconciliation, anxiety relief, relationships and conflict resolution.

Frans De Waal, from his studies of primates and humans writes,

The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates. The alternate explanation, that this behavior appeared independently in each species, is highly “uneconomical,” for it requires as many theories as there are species. Scientists normally dismiss uneconomical explanations unless there is strong evidence against a more elegant unified theory. Because no such evidence exists in this instance, reconciliation behavior must be seen as a shared heritage of the primate order. (De Waal, Peacemaking 270)

Does this mean that we are all born with the ability and desire to reconcile our differences? It is probably not as simple as that. The complexities of our cognitive abilities to learn how to survive coupled with our abilities to innately know how to survive, muddy the waters of the nature vs. nurture arguments. We can, however, infer from the extensive studies in non-human primates and the limited studies in humans that the existence of and desire for reconciliation behavior is something that we can count on to be present in most humans.

The Five Core Capacities

The next several posts will explore five major areas of human core capacities and will focus attention on answering the question as to whether these capacities are a result of “nature or nurture.”

Those core capacities are:

• Possessing the desire for reconciliation
• Understanding the benefits of cooperation
• Having the cognitive capacity to forgive
• Understanding the reciprocal nature of relationships
• Having the capacity for empathy

(Aureli et al. 2000; Raviv 60; Bonta 1993; Batson 413).

Nature vs Nurture and Game Theory

Areas of thought and research that naturally collide with this project include nature vs. nurture and natural selection and evolution. A great deal of research and debate has been pursued in the area of nature vs. nurture, both on very specific human behaviors and in general terms as it relates to instincts and genetic pre-dispositions. Darwinian theories of natural selection and evolution are another area of study rich in research and directly related to the subject at hand in this review. Although this paper will naturally touch on some aspects of these ideas and theories, an overall review of the literature will not be made here.

Research on negotiating techniques has been studied at length over many years by many people, and recently there has been a great deal of thought put into “Game Theory.” Negotiating decisions may rely on the actions of others or they may be based on one side’s understanding of the situation, with little or no understanding of the other party’s input. The idea of possible cooperation within negotiation adds a complex layer to the mathematical construct some theories are based upon. Game Theory started as a mathematical calculation that allowed for a determination of an optimal outcome given a set of circumstances. “In basic form, game theory is a “rational-choice” model of analysis that posits certain assumptions about the parties’ rationality and common knowledge. Game theory provides a model for understanding and predicting what a “rational” party “ought to do” based on that party’s self-interest, assuming complete or partial knowledge of other parties’ “choices” (Siegfried 69; Dickey 2). Cooperative bargaining theory is a form of game theory in which the players share common concerns (Dickey 3).

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classical matrix showing the motivations of two people in conflict and how a structure can be placed on a negotiation and how cooperation affects outcomes. Tit for Tat (cooperation followed by mimicking moves of the opponent), can be layered within game theory scenarios as a model that could determine behavior. In an effort to predict outcomes and understand negotiator differences, Neale and Bazerman explore the areas of how and why negotiators with a clear and positive negotiating zone can still fail to reach agreement (Neale 49).

Lewicki, in his book on negotiation essentials and theory concludes; “…it appears that several aspects of negotiator cognition are significantly influenced by culture and that negotiators should not assume that findings on negotiator cognition from Western negotiators are universally applicable to other cultures” (246).

The scope of this blog will not include these types of conflict resolution and negotiating analyses, yet it is important to underscore the existence of these theories, behavior strategies, and ways of thinking about conflict resolution, as we move toward looking at the core capacities that may underlie them.

Current Literature Around Natural Abilities to Resolve Conflicts

All of the literature reviewed and life works studied here add up to an emerging view that humans have natural abilities that help them resolve conflict. Aureli, De Waal and others call this idea “Natural Conflict Resolution”. “According to evolutionary theory, it is logical to expect conflict management mechanisms as natural phenomena that function in maintaining the integrity of groups and the associated benefits to each group member” (Aureli 4). Aureli concludes that his analyses “highlight once more the similarities across species, cultures, and disciplines and strengthen the perspective of conflict resolution as a natural phenomenon” (Aureli 9 ). This paper will examine five constructs of universal behavior that fit in directly with conflict management systems and resolution. These five behaviors have naturally emerged during my review of the literature and have consistently surfaced throughout my studies of mediation and conflict resolution. In very broad terms, the behaviors are: reconciliation, cooperation, forgiveness, relationship value awareness, and empathy.

“Natural Conflict Resolution” is a term for a theoretical trend in peacemaking today. This theory states that not only do the fittest survive when the going gets tough in conflict situations, but that cooperation among individuals, groups, and entire societies is a natural ability and a natural reaction that works to promote long-term survival of the parties and the species in conflict (Yarn 68). In a broad sense, the natural resolution of conflicts in both humans and non-human primates has similar roots.

The importance of the nature vs. nurture (born with vs. learned) aspect of this research cannot be understated! If humans are born with one or more common capacities that help them resolve conflict, then it could follow that resolving cross-cultural conflicts should focus on and leverage this/these common capacities as a foundation for the process. Cultural differences make human existence rich and vibrant and these differences cannot be ignored, yet these differences are also what make some conflicts inevitable. Conflict resolution processes that understand the cultural differences, and rigorously use the human commonalities as a foundation for the process will, in many cases, serve parties best.

I have limited my research to Western and English language literature. I have so far found no literature reviews that focus on the idea of identifying all of the common abilities described in this paper. I have found various literature reviews and compilations of works that focus on single abilities. Frans De Waal and Filippo Aureli, for instance, focus a great deal of energy on reconciliation and relationship abilities in human and non-human primates in their book “Natural Conflict Resolution” (Aureli 3-9). Morton Deutsch, a pioneer in social psychology, has done extensive research and reviews on the idea of cooperation and the human capacity to understand the value of cooperation. Bruce Bonta has done extensive literature reviews on the subject of peaceful (non-violent) societies and what the potential commonalities might be. I will be interested to explore beyond the Western view, as I believe that exploration will lead to additional studies which will reinforce the commonalities found so far.

Stay tuned for ideas around nature vs. nurture and negotiating techniques in the next post....

Research Design and Blog Set-up

This overall project has been broken down into three phases. This paper and blog represent the first phase. The focus of this first-phase research is to explore the potential existence of innate universal conflict resolution abilities in humans. Through a comprehensive review of Western literature, coupled with a structured survey of selected cross-cultural peacemakers, a preliminary conclusion has been developed that shows that further, more extensive research would be valuable and should be considered. That further research and implementation of more extensive interviews/surveys makes up the phase two and three work. The methodology and approach used for this first phase is sufficient given the relevance of the information that has been explored. The collected information provides a foundation to move toward more comprehensive research.

The following list describes in some detail the three proposed research phases:

Phase 1: Explore the research question via a literature review; build research study design; preliminary survey on a very limited scale; synthesize information and report as “Woodbury Institute Capstone” paper.

Phase 2: Re-evaluate the survey design; implement comprehensive survey/interviews; extend literature review and synthesize with collected data; produce complete paper.

Phase 3: Develop a world-wide research strategy; build funding; conduct a broad, multi-cultural literature review; design a multi-cultural research study; implement study; report in paper; build potential next steps.

I feel it is important to combine the learning and ideas gathered from today’s literature with the actual experiences of as many peacemakers as possible. The survey that makes up a large portion of this research was constructed to be taken by Western mediators. The reason for this architecture was the ideal fit this group’s experience represents for the scope of this project. A detailed summary of the survey for Phase 1 can be found later in this paper and will be revealed later in this blog following a voyage into the current literature.

Natural Conflict Management

Welcome!

We are right smack in the middle of an amazing evolution of human capacities to resolve conflicts non-violently. Let's explore...

This blog will explore the question: What are the universal human core capacities(1) , desires, and innate abilities people in conflict possess that cross-cultural peacemakers can always count on to help parties resolve conflicts? The purpose of answering this question is to help peacemakers develop a clear idea of how parties from different cultures can be guided through conflict resolution processes. I believe that conflict intervention strategies and processes must largely center on the parties’ common core abilities to resolve conflict. Although several categories of human universals will be explored here, the focus of this literature review and research is to examine the current theories that surround the human ability to resolve conflict. Some questions have naturally emerged from this study: Do we know how to resolve conflicts at birth or is it a learned skill? Are there aspects of our innate abilities that predispose us to resolve conflicts without violence? What are those innate abilities and how can we as conflict managers use them to help keep the peace? Building a foundation for non-violent conflict resolution in humans must focus, I believe, on our commonalities first and our differences last. Over a vast amount of time, humans have developed a tremendous natural capacity to resolve conflicts. Ignoring those abilities may slow the conflict resolution process at best, and at worse it may impede the entire process.

As various cultures around the world interact at a quicker pace, and a more entrenched level than ever before, there will be an ever-increasing demand for cross-cultural conflict management and resolution systems to deal with the inherent conflicts.(1A) There are many books, papers, and classes that focus on the differences in cultures, especially when considering how to deal with two or more cultures in conflict. Those cultural differences are important to be aware of and work with as even the best designed conflict resolution strategy can be undermined when the differences are not tended to. I believe, however, that the commonalities humans possess are also critical and when those common-ground natural capacities are ignored or marginalized, the strategy for helping people move beyond conflict is compromised.

The final product of this paper and research will be a useful, basic exploration for cross-cultural peacemakers looking for reliable and predictable commonalities in their clients. The goal is to engage today’s peacemakers in diverse thinking, so they can enhance their conflict resolution strategies.

1 “Capacity” is a word used throughout this blog. The dictionary definition that works well for this paper is: “Innate potential for growth, development, or accomplishment; faculty. See synonyms at ability.” (American Heritage 275)

1A Meaning that a mixing of cultures may cause more conflicts than one would expect in intra-culture settings.