Psychology of conflict: theories explaining wars and violence

Different authors reflected on the causes and effects of social conflicts.

After the last few days, we feel desolate. The The attacks in Paris have been of such brutality that we are all shocked and wounded. and wounded. Sorry for the dozens of dead, today we are millions of victims of the Pain that the events have caused us. Our greatest solidarity to France, Paris, victims, families and all those wounded in the soul.

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

Sherif's realistic theory of conflict

Muzafer Sherif (1967, 1967) analyzes conflict from social psychology with a perspective of intergroup relations. He states that conflict arises from the relationship established by two groups for the obtaining of resources.. Depending on the type of resources, they develop different strategies.

• Compatible resourcesThe obtaining of resources is independent for each group, i.e., each group can achieve its objectives without influencing those of the other group.
• Incompatible resourcesresources: they are obtained at the expense of the other group; if one group obtains its resources, this prevents the other group from obtaining them.

Likewise, depending on the type of resources to which the groups want to have access, different relationship strategies are developed between them in order to obtain them:

• CompetitionIn the face of incompatible resources.
• Independence: in the face of compatible resources.
• Cooperation: in the face of resources that require a joint effort (superordinate goal).

From this perspective, the conflict translates into "how to get the resources I need". Therefore, the strategy to follow depends on what the resources are like. If they are unlimited, there is no relationship between the groups, since they can obtain them independently of what the other does without the need to contact each other. However, if resources are scarce, the groups enter into competition. The fact that one of them achieves its objectives implies that the others cannot, so by inertia they try to be the only ones to gain access.

A theory that takes into account the concept of competition

We could understand it as two people in front of a job interview. If there are several vacancies on offer, the applicants have no reason to relate to each other: they focus on their individual development. On the other hand, if only one position is on offer, both people tend to take each other into account, both people tend to take each other into account.. They have become competitors and it is important to know the rival in order to develop the right strategy and be selected.

However, there is also a third option: cooperation. cooperation. In this case, the type of resources is not specified, because their quantity is indifferent. The importance lies in the nature of the resource, if the joint participation of both groups is necessary to obtain it. This is how the superordinate goal is defined, a final objective that is subordinate to the individual interests of each and needs the contribution of both to achieve it.

Galtung's conflict for peace

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

Following Galtung's direction (cited in Calderón, 2009), in every conflict there are several participants. Each of them has its own thoughts and emotions, behaves in a particular way and has its own interpretation of the nature of the conflict. For the author, the logic of conflict is based on these three vertexes.

• AttitudesAttitudes: thoughts and emotions of each of the parties involved.
• ContradictionDifferences in the interpretations of the nature of the conflict.
• Behaviormanifestation of the parties involved, how they deal with each other.

These points allow to explain the conflict as something normal. It is normal that, being different people, different emotions and thoughts -attitudes-, different interpretations of events -contradiction- and different actions -behavior- develop.

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

• Manifest planeThe conflict factors are expressed.
• Latent level: the conflict factors are not expressed.

The key is in the interpretation of the other's actions.

Therefore, when what we think, feel and interpret of reality we keep silent and begin to relate to the other without letting them know our position, the most likely thing is to enter into conflict. A simple fact such as cancelling an appointment can awaken different ways of understanding it; and if we do not let ourselves be understood is when disengagement can appear.

It is at this point that the processes for resolution come into play: the transcendence and transformation. Transcendence refers to a change in the perception of the conflict as an individual event, to see it as a process that involves different participants; the conflict does not only affect us. Once with this perspective, transformation develops, a change in the resolution strategy, including the perspectives of others. In other words, understanding that the conflict is everyone's business and integrating them in its resolution..

Conflict resolution processes according to Galtung

Galtung proposes these processes that lead to conflict resolution:

• TranscendenceGlobal perspective of the conflict.
• TransformationIntegration: integration into the solution of the other parties involved.

Once we see that the conflict does not only affect us and we act taking into account the others, 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 behaviors.
• Creativity to resolve contradictions.

Selman's negotiations

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

The actions taken by those involved are based on three components very similar to those proposed by Galtung: self-perspective, objectives and control of the conflict. Based on these three components, there are two possible positions when resolving a conflict.

Negotiation strategies, according to Selman

Roger Selman proposes different negotiation strategies:

• Self-transforming: trying to change one's own attitudes.
• Heterotransforming: trying to change the attitudes of the other.

In other words, we can be self-transforming by deciding to change our way of thinking or acting to resolve the conflict.. On the other hand, with heterotransformation we try to make the other person change and impose our perspective on him/her. 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 resurface 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 mediates the degree of its effectiveness; the ability to empathize and take the other's perspective in order to jointly find the solution. Based on this, Selman establishes four levels of coordination of the points of view of those involved.

• Level 0 - Egocentric IndifferenceEach member has impulsive and unreflective reactions that are not related to the other. While the heterotransformer uses force to assert himself, the self-transformer submits impulsively out of fear or protection.

• Level 1 - Subjective DifferenceThe actions are not impulsive, but still do not involve the other. Both continue with imposition/submission strategies, but without being forceful actions and fearful reactions.

• Level 2 - Self-critical reflectionSelf-criticism: there is a tendency to the nature of each party's strategy, but there is awareness 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 submissiveness and of letting the desires of others pass first.

• Level 3 - Mutual DecentrationThis 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 oneself, nor to influence, but to jointly obtain a solution for shared objectives.

Thus, the heterotransforming nature leads to imposing and the self-transforming nature to submitting. At lower levels, these behaviors are impulsive and at higher levels they are increasingly reflected upon. Finally, the solution ends up by sharing and coordinating; by leaving aside the self-hetero tendency to include the other and jointly develop the appropriate strategy to solve the conflict.

From Conflict Psychology to Peace Psychology

The above theories are only 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 solved?".

To this end, Sherif proposes shared objectives between the parties, Galtung proposes a process of empathy to see that the conflict is not only ours, and Selman proposes 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 only from one of the parties, its solution will not come from only one of them.

For this same reason it is important what to do when the conflict arises; 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 are carried out and the prejudices that they may arouse. Because it may be true that a conflict may exist with a terrorist section, but it does not exist with a religion or a people. Although some people have taken out weapons in the name of a god, the conflict is not against that god, because no god gives weapons to his believers.

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

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

Bibliographical references:

• Calderón, P. (2009). Johan Galtung's conflict theory. Revista paz y conflictos, 2, 60-81.
• Selman, R. (1988). Use of interpersonal negotiation strategies and communication skills: a longitudinal clinical exploration of two disturbed adolescents. In R. Hinde, Relations interpersonnelles et developpment dessauciva..
• Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Co-operation. Their Social PsychologyLondon: 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.