After the last few days, we feel devastated. The attacks in Paris have been so brutal that we are all in shock and hurt. Feeling the dozens of deaths, today we are millions of victims of the pain caused by the events. Our greatest solidarity to France, Paris, victims, families and all those wounded in their souls.

Right now, we’re sailing channel after channel for someone to explain why these things happen . As a tribute to all of us who are victims, we will try to bring together some theories that from psychology explain the nature of conflicts; trying to leave aside prejudices to offer the most objective information.

Sherif’s realistic conflict theory

Muzafer Sherif (1967, 1967) analyzes conflict from social psychology with a perspective of inter-group relations. He explains that the conflict arises from the relationship that two groups establish to obtain resources . According to the type of resources, they develop different strategies.

  • Compatible resources : they are obtained independently for each group, i.e. each group can achieve its objectives without influencing those of the other.
  • Incompatible resources : they are obtained at the expense of the other group; one group getting its resources prevents the other from obtaining them.

Also, depending on the type of resources that the groups want to access, different strategies are developed to relate them to each other:

  • Competition : in case of incompatible appeals.
  • Independence : in the face of compatible resources.
  • Cooperation : in the face of resources that require a joint effort (supra-ordered goal).

From this perspective, conflict translates into “how to get the resources I need”. Therefore, the strategy to follow depends on how the resources are. If they are unlimited, there is no relationship between the groups, as they can get them regardless of what the other does without contact. However, if the resources are scarce, the groups enter into competition. The fact that one of them reaches its objectives, implies that the others cannot, so by inertia they try to be the only ones who accede.

A theory that takes into account the concept of competition

We could understand it as two people facing a job interview. If there are several positions on offer, the applicants do not have to relate to each other: they focus on their individual development. On the other hand, if only one position is offered, both persons tend to take into account each other . They have become competitors and it is important to know the rival in order to develop the appropriate strategy and be selected

However, there is also a third option: the cooperation . In this case, the type of resource is not specified, because it doesn’t matter how many resources there are. The importance lies in the nature of the resource, if the joint participation of both groups is required to obtain it. This is how the supra-ordered goal is defined, a final objective that is subordinated to the individual interests of each one, and that requires the contribution of both groups to achieve it.

Galtung’s conflict for peace

A complementary perspective to Sherif is that of Johan Galtung , from social evolutionism . In this case, to understand the conflict it is necessary to understand its existence from the beginning of humanity. In this sense, the conflict is inherent to society, there will always be conflicts, so the focus is on its resolution and on how they will bring about changes in society. Thus, conflict is not an end but a necessary means to peace.

Following Galtung’s direction (cited in Calderón, 2009) in every conflict there are several participants. Each of them has their own thoughts and emotions, behaves in a specific way and has their own interpretation of the nature of the conflict. On these three vertices, the logic of the conflict for the author is structured.

  • Attitudes : thoughts and emotions of each person involved.
  • Contradiction : differences in the interpretations of the nature of the conflict.
  • Behavior : manifestation of those involved, how they deal with each other.

These points help to explain the conflict as something normal. It is normal that, being different people, different emotions and thoughts -attitude-, different interpretations of events -contradiction- and different actions -behavior- are developed.

Now, if everything is so natural, why do conflicts occur? It seems that understanding that we are all different is simple, but the problem arises when we do not let it be seen that we are different. For Galtung, the above factors can exist in two different plans: they can be manifest, expressing themselves to the other; or they can be latent, remaining hidden in each person involved.

  • Manifest plane : the factors of the conflict are expressed.
  • Latent plane : the factors of the conflict are not expressed.

The key is in the interpretation of the acts of the other

Therefore, when what we think, feel and interpret from reality we keep quiet about it and start to relate to the other without letting them know our position, the most likely thing is to come into conflict. A simple fact such as cancelling an appointment can awaken different ways of understanding it; and if we don’t let ourselves be understood that’s when misunderstanding can appear.

It is at this point that the processes for their resolution come into play: the transcendence and the transformation . Transcendence refers to a change in the perception of the conflict as an individual event, to see it as a process that includes different participants; the conflict does not only affect us. Once with this perspective the transformation is developed, a change in the resolution strategy, including the perspectives of others. That is, understanding that the conflict is something that belongs to everyone and integrating them in its resolution .

Conflict resolution processes according to Galtung

Galtung proposes these processes that lead to the resolution of conflicts:

  • Transcendence : global perspective of the conflict
  • Transformation : integration in the solution of the rest of the stakeholders

Once we see that the conflict does not only affect us and we act with others in mind, we can develop strategies towards peace. After the processes of transcendence and transformation, the road to peace passes through three characteristics that overcome the barriers of the previous factors:

  • Empathy to understand the attitudes of others.
  • Non-violence to manage behavior.
  • Creativity to solve the contradictions.

Selman’s negotiations

The third approach we present focuses directly on conflict resolution strategies. Roger Selman (1988) proposes that the parties involved with every action they develop show their resolution strategy. That is to say, the exchange of actions taken by those involved is transformed into a process of conflict negotiation . In this sense, not only does it lead to peace, but negotiation can also be the cause or aggravation of the conflict.

These actions that those involved develop are based on three components very similar to those proposed by Galtung: own perspective, objectives and control of the conflict. Based on these three components, two positions can be taken when resolving a conflict.

Negotiation strategies, according to Selman

Roger Selman proposes the different negotiation strategies:

  • Self-transforming : trying to change one’s attitudes.
  • Heterotransformer : trying to change the attitudes of the other.

In other words, we can be self-transforming, deciding to change our way of thinking or acting in order to solve the conflict . On the other hand, with the heterotransformer we influence the other person to change and impose our perspective. However, the conflict will remain latent if neither of the two strategies takes the other into account; obeying without complaining or imposing oneself authoritatively does not deal with the problem and sooner or later it will reappear in some other form.

Therefore, in order to reach a satisfactory solution it is necessary to take into account both participants. This is precisely the factor that measures the degree of their effectiveness; the capacity for empathy and taking the other’s perspective in order to find the solution together. Based on this, Selman establishes four levels of coordination of the points of view of those involved.

  • Level 0 – Egocentric Indifference : each member has impulsive and unreflective reactions to the other. While the heterotransformer uses force to impose itself, the self-transformer submits impulsively out of fear or protection.
  • Level 1 – Subjective Difference : actions are not impulsive, but still do not involve the other. Both continue with the strategies of imposition/submission, but without being actions of force and reactions of fear.
  • Level 2 – Self-critical reflection : there is a tendency to the nature of the strategy of each party, but one is aware of its use. In this case, the heterotransformer tries to consciously influence and persuade the other. In turn, the self-transformer is aware of his own submission and of letting go first of the other’s desires.
  • Level 3 – Mutual Decentration : it is a shared reflection of oneself, of the other and of the conflict, which extinguishes the different positions. The aim is no longer to change or influence oneself, but to obtain together a solution for the shared objectives.

Therefore, the heterotransforming nature leads to imposition and the self-transforming nature to submission. At lower levels, these behaviours are impulsive and at higher levels they are increasingly reflected upon. Finally, the solution ends up by sharing and coordinating; by leaving aside the auto-hetero tendency to include the other and jointly developing the adequate strategy to solve the conflict.

From the Psychology of Conflict to the Psychology of Peace

The above theories are just a few of the many that explain the processes of conflict. But just as they explain the problems, they also explain the solutions. Moreover, the study of conflict does not arise from the question “How is conflict generated” but from “How is conflict resolved”.

To this end, Sherif proposes shared objectives between the parties, Galtung a process of empathy to see that the conflict is not only ours and Selman the dialogue to develop a joint negotiation. In all cases, a key issue is that of “sharing”, co-creating the solution because, if the conflict does not arise from only one of the parties, neither will its solution arise from only one of them.

For the same reason it is important what to do when the conflict occurs; its management . From this perspective and because of the events in Paris, we do not want to urge dialogue with terrorists. But we do want to take into account the actions that will be carried out and the prejudices that they may arouse. Because the existence of a conflict with a terrorist section may be true, but it does not exist with a religion or a people. Even if some people have taken up arms in the name of a god, the conflict is not against that god, because no god gives arms to his believers.

Conflict is natural to humanity, has always existed and will always exist. This is not to trivialize events, not at all. Rather, to emphasize the importance of consequences, that every conflict changes the course of humanity and that the current one does not lead us towards dehumanity. As a great professional and friend says, “There is no change without conflict1”. Today it is time to think about what change we want.

1 María Palacín Lois, Professor of Groups in the Department of Social Psychology (UB) Dtra. Master in Group Leadership. President of SEPTG.

Bibliographic references:

  • Calderón, P. (2009). Johan Galtung’s theory of conflict. Magazine peace and conflicts , 2, 60-81.
  • Selman, R. (1988). Using interpersonal negotiation strategies and communication skills: a clinical longitudinal exploration of two disturbed adolescents. In R. Hinde, Relations interpersonnelles et developpment dessauciva .
  • Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Co-operation. Their Social Psychology , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
  • Sherif, M. (1967). Conflict and cooperation, in J. R. Torregrosa and E. Crespo (comps.): Estudios básicos de Psicología Social, Barcelona: Hora, 1984.