Political and Psychological Correlates of Conflict Management

A Cross-Cultural Study

Bibliographic Data

ID4986090
AuthorsKlaus-Friedrich Koch, John A Sodergren, Stephen Campbell (0000-0002-2328-4136), Susan Campbell (0000-0002-3013-0936)
Year1976
Volume10
Issue3
Pages443-466
Publication date1976-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw & Society Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3053143
OpenAlexW2332130665
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited47

Conflict between individuals and between groups is a normal part of social life. The necessity of coping with disputes and emnity is universal, but societies differ in the ways they deal with conflict. Six basic modes of procedure of conflict management that fall into two major classes can be distinguished: triadic procedures; i.e., those in which the settlement of a dispute depends on the intervention of a third party (adjudication, arbitration, mediation) and dyadic procedures (negotiation, coercion, avoidance.). In the dyadic modes one or both principal parties must necessarily rely on self-help in processing a dispute, though possibly with the help of partisan supporters or representatives. Avoidance occurs when one principal withdraws from the conflict situation ["exit" in Hirschman's (1970) terminology]. By coercion, the threat or use of force, one principal imposes the outcome of a dispute and alone determines his concesssion, if any, to the opponent. Negotiation, once initiated by one of the principals, requires the cooperation of both parties and, if successful, leads to the settlement of a dispute by bilateral agreement

Conflict management · Criminology · Cross-cultural · Cultural conflict · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Anthropology · Dutch Social and Cultural Studies · Law · Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies · Psychology · Social Issues and Policies · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub