09/11 Psychological Barriers to Conflict Resolution I
Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman (1990) – Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Conflict
Study design
Participants: 63 undergraduates.
Task: Described two incidents (one where THEY were angered; one where THEY angered someone else) in counterbalanced order; descriptions coded on multiple dimensions.
Purpose: Compare accounts from victim perspective vs perpetrator perspective.
Victim accounts (when the participant was the target of the offense)
More likely to mention the pre-offense past, negative consequences, relationship damage, continuing anger, and recurring provocations.
Perceived the offense as incomprehensible or arbitrary.
Portrayed the perpetrator’s motives as unjustified, inconsistent, immoral, and deliberately cruel.
Perpetrator accounts (when the participant was the actor in the offense)
More likely to mention a happy ending, denial of lasting negative consequences, an apology, and regret.
Portrayed their motives as impulsive, out of their control, due to external circumstances, or justifiable.
Portrayed the victim’s anger as an overreaction and unjustified.
Blame the self; blame the victim; mention a provocation.
Conclusions
The same people see things differently based on the role they occupy (perpetrator vs victim) – bias resides in the roles (the experience of offense vs victimization), not in the individuals themselves.
Perpetrators tend to see the event as more “closed” than victims do.
Discussion questions (prompts for reflection or class discussion)
Why do perpetrators feel the need to defend their actions?
What consequences might arise if perpetrators view an event as “closed” while victims view it as “continuing”? How would this affect conflict resolution?
The researchers categorized people as perpetrators and victims. Does this reflect real-life dynamics?
If perpetrators and victims have competing motives and biased perceptions, how can we separate bias from truth in evaluating events?
Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen (2007) – Angry Opposition to Government Redress ***Complex**
Research question(s)
Why are members of a structurally advantaged group willing to engage in political action against government redress for an ethnic minority’s structural disadvantage?
Example focus: Why do advantaged groups oppose government apologies for historical injustice?
Key constructs
Symbolic racism: Hold negative beliefs about racial minority groups that validate their social position.
Inverted relative deprivation: Advantaged groups still see themselves as relatively disadvantaged (even compared to the actually disadvantaged group).
Hypotheses
Symbolic racism will be associated with higher levels of inverted relative deprivation.
Inverted relative deprivation will lead to anger, and consequently greater willingness to act against redress.
Methods
Sample: n = 122 racial majority group members in Western Australia.
Demographics: Avg. age ar{x} ext{ approx } 49 years; educated.
Measures:
Symbolic racism
Relative deprivation (inverted)
Anger and guilt
Willingness to engage in political action (e.g., protesting) against government redress
Results (key correlations, study a)
Symbolic racism and inverted relative deprivation: r ext{(Symbolic racism, Relative deprivation)} = 0.59 (p < .05)
Symbolic racism and guilt: r = -0.15 (p < .05)
Relative deprivation and anger: r = 0.57 (p < .05)
Anger and willingness to take political action: r = 0.56 ext{ or } 0.57 (p < .05)
The table also indicated a positive association between relative deprivation and willingness to engage in political action: r ext{(Relative deprivation, Willingness)} rac{}{} (significance indicated; exact value in the table was reported as significant).
Overall pattern: symbolic racism is linked to feeling relatively deprived, which is linked to anger, which in turn relates to willingness to act against redress.
Discussion points
How does advantaged-group relative deprivation relate to the Baumeister study (role-based bias vs. perceived injustice)?
Why might advantaged groups feel relatively deprived, and how could this hinder equity efforts?
Examples in contemporary social issues where this psychology is observable.
Discussion questions
How might awareness of attributional bias reduce bias and aid reconciliation? What other strategies might help reduce bias in intergroup conflict?
Waytz, Young, & Ginges (2014) – Motive Attribution Asymmetry for Love vs. Hate Drives Intractable Conflict **Complex**
Research question
Why are many conflicts seemingly intractable even when compromise could benefit both sides?
Core concept
MOTIVE ATTRIBUTION ASYMMETRY: People tend to attribute their own ingroup’s engagement in conflict to love (positive motives) more than to hate, while attributing the outgroup’s engagement to hate more than love.
Hypotheses
People will attribute their ingroup’s conflict engagement to love more than hate, but attribute the outgroup’s conflict engagement to hate more than love.
Study 1 (Method)
Participants: n = 225 US residents (205 male, 68 female, 12 unreported).
Procedure: Think about the political party you belong to and members of the opposing party.
Random assignment to conditions:
Own party condition: When your party engages in conflict with the opposing party, rate how much your party is motivated by each factor (love vs hate).
Opposing party condition: When the opposing party engages in conflict, rate how much the opposing party is motivated by each factor (love vs hate).
Love items: empathy/compassion/kindness for people in your party.
Hate items: dislike/indifference/hatred toward people in the opposing party.
Study 1 results
Evidence that participants attributed more love to their own party and more hate to the opposing party when considering motives for conflict.
(Reported means indicated a pattern consistent with the hypothesis; exact numeric values reported in the study’s table were shown in the figure on the slide.)
Studies 2 & 3 (Method)
Sample 2: n = 497 Israeli residents; demographics: 92.5 ext{%} = ext{Jewish}.
Data collection: Computer-assisted telephone interviews.
Sample 3: 1,266 Palestinian residents; demographics: 98.7 ext{%} = ext{Muslim}.
Data collection: Face-to-face interviews.
Questions paralleled Study 2 (about why people support actions such as bombing in the conflict between Israel and Palestine) and added questions on personal/demographic info.
Study 2 results
Israelis and Palestinians reported that love toward their own side and hate toward the other side better explained actions than love toward the outgroup.
(Numerical results reported as means; the slide shows indicators for love vs hate, e.g., higher endorsement of hate explanations for the outgroup and greater love explanations for the in-group, across both groups.)
Study 3 results
Replication of study 2 pattern in another sample (Israelis vs Palestinians), confirming the attribution bias across groups.
Study 4 method & results
Recruited a new representative sample of n = 498 Israelis.
Found the same love-vs-hate attribution bias, and linked this bias to:
Reduced willingness to negotiate
Reduced perceived likelihood of a win-win outcome
Reduced optimism about peace prospects
Reduced willingness to vote for a peace deal
Reduced expectations that Palestinians would vote for a peace deal
Increased essentialist beliefs about Palestinians (i.e., beliefs that Palestinians would never change)
Discussion and implications
Awareness of attributional bias as a potential intervention point for reducing conflict and enhancing reconciliation.
Open questions: Are findings generalizable to interpersonal conflicts beyond high-stakes political conflicts? How might interventions target attributional biases to improve negotiation outcomes?
Cross-cutting connections and implications
Across all three bodies of work, biases in perception and attribution are central to how conflicts escalate and persist:
Role-based biases in Baumeister et al. show how victim vs perpetrator perspectives shape interpretations and willingness to resolve.
Leach et al. demonstrate how symbolic racism and inverted relative deprivation feed anger and political action against redress for minority groups.
Waytz et al. reveal a systematic bias in how people assign motives (love vs hate) to in-group vs out-group actions, which undermines willingness to negotiate and support peace.
Practical implications:
Conflict resolution efforts should explicitly address attribution biases and the framing of motives.
Interventions could include perspective-taking, prompts to consider alternative motivations, and information that challenges the default love/hate attributions.
Ethical/philosophical implications:
Recognizing bias does not absolve individuals of responsibility; it highlights systemic mechanisms that perpetuate conflict.
Interventions should be designed to reduce harm without oversimplifying complex social processes.
Key numerical references to remember
Baumeister et al. sample size: n = 63 undergraduates.
Leach et al. sample size: n = 122; average age ≈ 49; measured constructs including symbolic racism, relative deprivation, anger, guilt, and willingness to engage in political action.
Waytz et al. sample sizes: Study 1: n = 225 (US); Study 2: n = 497 (Israeli residents); Study 3: Palestinian sample with n 90^ ext{?} (1,266 reported in slides); Study 4: n = 498 Israelis.
Reported correlations (example values):
Symbolic racism and inverted relative deprivation: r ext{ = } 0.59 (p < .05)
Inverted relative deprivation and anger: r ext{ = } 0.57 (p < .05)
Anger and willingness to engage in political action: r ext{ = } 0.56 ext{–}0.57 (p < .05)
Symbolic racism and guilt: r ext{ = } -0.15 (p < .05)
Final takeaway
Biases in attribution are powerful drivers of conflict dynamics and can operate at both interpersonal and intergroup levels. Effective conflict resolution may require deliberate attention to how motives are interpreted and how different perspectives shape the perceived legitimacy and inevitability of conflict.