A Conflict Resolution Model

Author(s): John Davidson and Christine Wood

Source: Theory into Practice, Vol. 43, No. 1, Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation (Winter,
2004), pp. 6-13
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3701559 .
Accessed: 28/03/2011 07:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory into
Practice.

http://www.jstor.org
John Davidson
ChristineWood

A Conflict Resolution Model

The Conflict Resolution Model was formulated by based on the concept of distributive bargaining,
a group of Australian psychologists who set about where the best joint outcome that could be achieved
integrating the literature on achieving mutually was a fair division of benefits in which one per-
beneficial outcomes in a conflict situation in order son's gains were another's losses. This approach
to create a best-practice prescriptive process for engages competitive ratherthan cooperative process-
conflict resolution. A number of experimental stud- es (Deutsch, 1973) and leads, at best, to compromise.
ies conducted at the University of Tasmania with On the other hand, a win-win solution arrived at
students and school-aged children have found sig- by integrative bargaining may be close to optimal
nificantly improved outcomes in resolving conflict for both parties.
following training in listening, assertiveness, and An example of a win-win solution may be
problem-solving skills identified in the model. These provided by a long-running family conflict between
skills are also core elements of the theory of healthy a father and his 14-year-old daughter regarding
relationships formulated in 1970 by Thomas Gordon feeding her pet guinea pigs. There were frequent
and implemented in Parent Effectiveness Training family arguments, typically involving several re-
(PET). Research on both programs is presented here. minders from the father that the guinea pigs had
not yet been fed, and the daughter responding with
procrastinationand complaints about being nagged.
The daughter wanted to assert her independence
he Conflict Resolution Model (Littlefield, and felt that her father was being obsessive. Her
Love, Peck, & Wertheim, 1993; Sanson & father, on the other hand, had strong moral convic-
Bretherton, 2001; Wertheim, Love, Peck, & Little- tions about the timely feeding of domestic pets; he
field, 1998) was formulatedby a group of Australian was also concerned about his deteriorating rela-
psychologists who set about integratingthe literature tionship with his daughter. The final solution in-
to create a best-practiceprescriptiveprocess for con- volved placing a brick on the cage that was labelled
flict resolution. "fed morning" and "fed evening" on opposite sides
One of the key concepts in conflict resolu- and turned when the guinea pigs were fed. If the
tion is the win-win solution. Older approaches were guinea pigs had not been fed, the father had the
John Davidson is a senior lecturer, and Christine Wood option of simply feeding them himself and turning
is an honorary research associate, both in the School the brick. This was a satisfactory solution to both
of Psychology at the University of Tasmania. parties and eliminated the argumentsbetween them.

THEORYINTO PRACTICE, Volume 43, Number 1, Winter 2004

Copyright ? 2004 College of Education, The Ohio State University
 Davidson and Wood
Conflict Resolution Model

The Conflict Resolution Model interests (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1997). Explain
In many conflicts, the underlying issues are your own concerns, needs, and interests clearly but
not clearly recognized by either party. Optimal so- not provocatively. To keep the cooperative frame
lutions can only be found by going beyond the it is importantto avoid criticism, blaming, or threat-
initial bargaining positions of the participants to ening. The likelihood of a satisfactory outcome is
explore these underlying needs and concerns with improved when each person feels listened to and
the expectation of being able to generate creative valued. Listening skills such as empathy, summa-
alternativesthat more adequately address them. One rizing, and attentive body language facilitate this
method of achieving this is provided by the Con- communication (Egan, 1986).
flict Resolution Model. I have designated the Con-
flict Resolution Model discussed here as CRM-A Brainstorming creative options
(A for Australian) to acknowledge that it is only The next stage is to brainstormcreative options
one of a variety of possible prescriptive models that address the concerns of both participants.Buyer
for resolving conflict. Although there is generally (1988) indicates that instructionsencouraging quan-
a high degree of overlap among such models, it tity, variety, and deferment of judgment generate a
would be premature to assign a particularly privi- greater number of higher quality solutions than no
leged status to any one formulation. instructionsor alternativeapproaches.
The CRM-A has four main stages: develop-
ing expectations for win-win solutions, defining Combining options into win-win solutions
each party's interests, brainstorming creative op- Select the best ideas from the brainstormed
tions, and combining options into win-win solu- list and combine them in order to address as much
tions. A schematic form of the model is presented as possible all the needs, concerns, and interests of
in Figure 1. In this schematic, I have placed the the participants. Among the strategies that may be
stage of developing expectations for win-win out- considered are increasing overall resources, reduc-
comes at the head of the model because it relates ing the cost of the agreement to a disadvantaged
not only to individual experiences in conflict situ- party, and conceding on lesser-valued issues in
ations, but also more generally to the prevailing multi-issue disputes. If agreement is not reached,
culture and relationship context. I also prefer us- the area of disagreementis identified and the process
ing the term concerns rather than the more legal or is repeated.
rights-based concept of interests, but it should be
treated as simply a generic term to encompass the Developing a best alternative to a negotiated
motivational spectrum of needs, hopes, wishes, in- agreement (BATNA)
terests, concerns, and fears. A BATNA differs from a bottom line, which
is the least acceptablenegotiated compromise. As an
Developing expectations for win-win solutions alternative, it reduces dependence on a negotiated
Often, people in a conflict situation assume solution, therebypotentiallygiving a partymore pow-
thattheresultof a negotiation
is thatone will win erin thenegotiation
process. toomuch
However,
and the other will lose. In such a case, it is neces- focus on BATNAs may undermine the cooperative

sary to reframe the process in terms of cooperative process of searching for a win-win solution.
problem solving with a view to arriving at a mutu-
ally satisfactory conclusion. Other approaches
The CRM-A differs from the approach of
Defining the issue in terms of underlying Fisher et al. (1997) in avoiding explicit reference
concerns, needs, or interests to objective criteria or principles of fairness. Little-
To arrive at a win-win solution, it is usually field et al. (1993) do not explicitly incorporate this
counterproductive to focus on positions. This gen- approach as they see it as a form of rights-based
erally leads to arguments based on rights. It is eas- negotiation that is less likely to achieve a win-win
ier to reconcile underlying concerns, needs, or solution. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that more

7
THEORYINTO PRACTICE/ Winter 2004
Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation

Handle emotions
yours and theirs

Figure 1. The Conflict Resolution Model. Adapted from Littlefield et al. (1993, p. 81).

8
 Davidson and Wood
Conflict Resolution Model

theoretical work is necessary to clarify the potential was rated on its success in arriving at a win-win
value of objective criteria.The skills in the CRM-A solution to the conflict resolution task.
all overlap with those of another prominentAustra- In the initial study conducted by Feeney and
lian model, the 12 Skills Model of the Conflict Reso- Davidson (1996), 48 volunteer students were ran-
lution Network (Hollier, Murray,& Cornelius, 1993). domly allocated to a trained or an untrained condi-
tion. Training consisted of three 3-hour sessions
Tasmanian Research on the held over 3 weeks. In the test phase, there were 6
Conflict Resolution Model pairs with both participants trained, 12 pairs with
The efficacy of the CRM-A as a model for one trained and one untrained participants, and 6
training in the skills and process of conflict reso- pairs where neither of the participantshad received
lution has been the focus of four experimental stud- training. Four skills were assessed for each indi-
ies at the University of Tasmania, three with vidual based on the videotape of the conflict reso-
university students (Davidson & Versluys, 1999; lution: cooperation, appropriate assertiveness,
Dinelli & Davidson, 2000; Feeney & Davidson, active listening, and brainstorming options.
1996) and one with secondary school students In each case the trained participants showed
(Davidson & Versluys, 2000). The co-authors of significantly higher skill levels than those who were
the various studies were students undertakingHon- untrained.In brainstormingonly, participating with
ors or Masters Programs in Psychology. These in- a trained partner also improved performance over
vestigations share a number of common features. being paired with an untrained partner. When the
Each had two phases: a training phase, in which overall performances of the pairs were assessed,
experimental participants were trained in the com- pairs where both participants were trained outper-
munication skills and process of conflict resolu- formed those with only one trained participant.The
tion according to the CRM-A, and a test phase. To average performance of pairs where only one par-
assure the quality of the training in communica- ticipant was trained was also significantly better
tion skills, the student researchers undertook prior than pairs where neither was trained. It was nota-
training at local mediation or voluntary counsel- ble that there was much greater variability in the
ling centers. Primary training materials used were outcome where only one of the pair was trained.
overheads illustrating the CRM-A, materials from
the Conflict Resolution Network Manual (Hollier, Attempts to isolate specific training components
Murray, & Cornelius, 1993), and illustrations pro- One of the issues of concern to participants
vided by the experimenter conducting the training. was whether conflict resolution training would be
In the test phase, trained participants were helpful in achieving beneficial outcomes if the other
paired with other participants, some of whom were person was untrained. The favorable results of the
untrained. Prior to the test phase participants com- first experimentreassuredus on this point. The spe-
pleted a questionnaire in which they expressed their cific effects of training, however, remained unclear.
views about a numbers of topics of social interest The next experiment conducted by Davidson and
(e.g., compulsory student union fees, duck shoot- Versluys (1999) set out to determine the separate
ing, smoking in public places). They were then effects of training in cooperation (expectations for a
paired on the basis of having opposing views on win-win solution, active listening, appropriateasser-
one of the topics, and were required to discuss the tiveness) and problem solving (identifying interests
issue and arrive at a joint recommendation on how and brainstorming).Forty participantswere random-
the issue should be handled. The interaction in the ly allocated to training or no training on each of the
test phase was either videotaped or audiotaped with two componentsin a 2 x 2 factorialdesign. The train-
the consent of the participants. The participants ing sessions were only 1 hour. The remaining 40
were rated individually by independent raters on participantsfrom the initial pool served as untrained
the communication skills that had been part of the partnersin the test phase. The final discussions were
training. The raters were unaware of which partic- videotaped and ratedblind by two independentraters
ipants had received training. In addition each pair on the 5 skill measures and the outcome measure.

9
THEORYINTO PRACTICE/ Winter 2004
Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation

Analysis of the results showed significant Further light will be shed on the skills versus mo-
improvements on all skills following cooperation tivation issue by a complementary series of exper-
training. Following training in problem solving, iments to be discussed shortly.
there was significant improvement in developing
expectations of win-win solutions, active listen- Conflict resolution training within
ing, and brainstorming, although further analysis a school setting
showed brainstormingimprovedsignificantlyonly for Because the preceding studies were conduct-
the group receiving both cooperation and problem- ed with university students, it seemed appropriate
solving training. Both training conditions produced to assess whether similar results could be obtained
a significant improvement in the final outcome with secondary school students. In a second study
measure. Davidson and Versluys (2000) recruited 48 par-
While the preceding experiment demonstrat- ticipants from a secondary school, though random-
ed that the effects of even brief training in the ization was not possible within timetable
CRM-A were surprisingly robust, the experiment constraints. Intact classes received 12 hours of con-
failed to demonstrate specific effects of particular flict resolution training over a 3-week period or
types of training. One possibility that could not be acted as controls. Students were tested in pairs in
eliminated was that the effect of the training had three conditions: trained-trained, trained-untrained
been primarily motivational, encouraging trained and untrained-untrained. The trained participants
participants to use existing skills more effectively, obtained significantly higher scores on active lis-
rather than providing them with new skills. In an tening, appropriateassertiveness, mapping the con-
ambitious attempt to resolve this issue, Dinelli and flict, and designing options. In addition, interacting
Davidson (2000) engaged 152 first-year students with a trained partner produced significantly ele-
in a randomized experiment with four groups: the vated scores in active listening, mapping the con-
primary experimental group with 2 hours of con- flict, and designing options. On the outcome
flict resolution training as in the previous study, a measure the trained-trainedpairs obtained the high-
group who received a 2-hour program that focused est mean scores, though not significantly higher
on motivational enhancement but provided no skills than pairs in which only one participant was
training, a group in which each pair was assisted trained. Both these groups obtained significantly
by the presence of a trained mediator but were higher mean outcome scores than the pairs with
themselves untrained, and an untrained control both participantsuntrained.It may be concluded that
group. In the test session each participant was there are at least short-termgains from conflict reso-
paired with an untrained partner. The discussion lution trainingwith secondary school students.
between each pair was videotaped and rated blind
by independent raters. Conflict Resolution in the Context
Those trained in conflict resolution skills per- of Relationships
formed significantly better than all other groups It has already been noted that the first step in
on the process measures of developing expecta- the Conflict Resolution Model is to create expec-
tions of win-win solutions, appropriate assertive- tations of achieving a win-win solution. Such ex-
ness, and brainstorming. In addition, the conflict pectations are clearly influenced by the nature of
resolution group performed significantly better on the relationship and the culture of the family,
the outcome measure than did the untrained group, school, or social unit. Cooperative relationships
but no other differences were statistically signifi- characterized by mutual respect are conducive to a
cant. The possibility that the final outcome was problem-solving approach to achieve mutually sat-
due to differences in the effect of motivation rath- isfactory outcomes. There is a substantial body of
er than the acquisition of particular skills could evidence in support of the dual concern model de-
not be definitely excluded, and the findings were scribed by Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994). This
presented in a conference paper of which only the model hypothesizes that problem-solvingapproaches
abstractwas published (Dinelli & Davidson, 2000). are most likely to occur when there is high concern

10
 Davidson and Wood
Conflict Resolution Model

for both self and other. On the other hand, exclu- Appropriate assertiveness
sive concern for self favors contention; exclusive The effective parent is assertive, and the key
concern for the other is consistent with yielding; to appropriate assertiveness in PET is self-disclo-
and low concern for both is related to avoidance. sure (Jourard, 1971; Salter, 1949; Zener, 1988).
One of the first theorists to locate conflict Self-disclosure helps both personal self-awareness
resolution processes within a theory of healthy re- and the understanding of others. It enables a par-
lationships is Thomas Gordon, who developed Par- ent to be honest and clear with her children, and
ent Effectiveness Training (PET) (Gordon, 1970), incidentally to model these desirable attributes. It
Teacher Effectiveness Training (TET) (Gordon, also joins with empathic listening to model open-
1974), as well as other forms of Effectiveness ness, which in turn, is part of constructing a cli-
Training for leadership, youth, and others. Gordon mate of trust. Parental assertiveness is the skill
studied counselling psychology under Carl Rogers, needed to confront a child's unacceptable behav-
who exerted a profound influence, but he came to ior. The first tool for confrontation is assertion, in
believe that education rather than remediation was this case the "I-Message," in which the parent first
necessary for the development of relationship skills. describes the unacceptable behavior without blame,
then the parent's honest feelings about it, and the
Communication Skills in PET consequences to the parent in terms of cost (e.g.,
The PET course consists of eight weekly ses- time or money).
sions of 3 hours each. The three major groups of
skills taught are concerned with empathic listen- Conflict resolution and problem solving
ing, (Active Listening), assertiveness skills (pre- In 1962 Gordon adapted Dewey's method of
sented as "I-Messages"), and skills for Conflict problem solving (Dewey, 1933, 1938) to create a
Resolution and family problem solving. Basic to "no-lose" method of conflict resolution with six
the course is the insistence on its presentation by sequential steps. A pioneer of so-called win-win
trained instructors, who provide detailed skill prac- methods, it combines the attempt to meet people's
tice in a group setting, offering additional support legitimate needs (Maslow, 1970) with "brainstorm-
for participants. ing" (Maier, 1960; Osborn, 1963) and the consid-
eration of all possible solutions as put forward by
Active listening Dewey.
Active listening is based on Rogers' listen- The six steps used for conflict resolution in
ing skills, which have profoundly influenced clini- PET are:
cal practice. Active listening is a foundation skill
in PET, taught intensively over two sessions and 1. Defining the problem in terms of needs
reinforced throughout the course. It is not a skill 2. Generating possible solutions
that is generally acquired without training. Parents 3. Evaluating the solutions
are also taught that when they are communicating 4. Deciding on a mutually acceptable solution
with a child who is emotionally disturbed by a 5. Implementing the solution
6. Evaluating the solution at a later date
problem, they should avoid 12 typical responses
(designated as roadblocks to communication).
These responses include ordering, warning, moral- The CRM-A and PET
izing, arguing, blaming, judging, name-calling, an- It is clear that there is a high degree of over-
alyzing, probing, sarcasm, and even reassuring and lap between the process of conflict resolution pro-
praising. There are, of course, situations where most posed in the CRM-A and the process proposed in
of these are perfectly legitimate (generally when PET, in particular the concept of a win-win or no-
the other is not upset over a personal problem). It lose solution, problem solving based on needs, and
is pointed out, however, that name-calling and sar- active listening to understand the needs and con-
casm are almost always destructive and best avoid- cerns of the other party. Both recognize the neces-
ed in personal relationships. sity of appropriate assertiveness, although this is

11
THEORYINTO PRACTICE/ Winter 2004
Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation

more specifically defined in PET by means of "I- 1993) used 13 parent-teenager pairs who received,
messages." PET also addresses a wider spectrum respectively, PET or Youth Effectiveness Training.
of communication and relationship issues. Never- There was also a control group consisting of 11
theless the overlap in the skills and processes re- parent-teenager pairs who did not receive training.
lated to conflict resolution is so substantial that PET skills were evaluated by independent raters
the PET model of conflict resolution may be from a videotaped interaction of a conflict resolu-
thought of as a particular implementation of the tion scenario entitled "Going to Grandma's." Ex-
CRM-A. Accordingly, research on skills acquisi- perimental participants again obtained significantly
tion and conflict resolution in PET is also relevant higher scores on measures of active listening, ap-
to this model of conflict resolution. propriate assertiveness, and conflict resolution.

Research in Skills Training Using PET Conclusion

There is a considerable body of evaluation The focus of this article has been on the de-
studies of PET, although there appears to be a velopment of individual orientations to a win-win
dearth of recent research. Studies prior to 1990 approach to conflict resolution and the result of
have been integrated by Cedar and Levant (1990) training in relevant skills that are thought to opti-
in a meta-analysis that found that PET had an over- mize the outcomes for the persons involved. We
all mean effect size of .328, which although mod- have recognized, but not addressed, the existence
erate, is significantly larger than that of the of systemic and cultural factors that determine the
alternative treatments to which it has been com- social context within which conflict resolution takes
pared (.138). This translates to a finding that the place, and which predispose participants to coop-
average person participating in PET is better off erative or contentious resolution strategies. The
than 63% of those who do not. Three PET evalua- major findings that emerged from these studies are
tion studies at the University of Tasmania have summarized as follows:
particular relevance to the CRM-A. * Even short periods of training in the conflict res-
Wood and Davidson (1987) conducted a small
olution model have been found to produce sig-
training study in which a free-response paper and
nificantly better mutual outcomes in conflict
pencil test was used to assess skills of active lis- resolution test interactions. The initial benefit is
tening, appropriate assertiveness, and conflict res-
olution of 9 parents in a PET group and 10 control probably due to the change of orientation towards
achieving a win-win solution, having an effec-
parents. Differences between the PET and control tive strategy to achieve this goal, and the in-
parents prior to the course were negligible. The creased motivation this brings.
parents engaged in PET showed significantly bet- * Substantial periods of training and practice, such
ter performances on all three skills at posttest and
as those typical of PET programs, produce long-
also at a 3-month follow-up. This study is of par-
er-term changes in the acquisition and utilization
ticular interest because it was possible to locate
of skills appropriate to conflict resolution.
and re-test 8 of the 9 PET parents and 9 of the 10
* Gains in achieving better mutual outcomes are
control parents after a time lapse of 7 years (Wood
not dependent on both participants being trained;
& Davidson, 1994/1995). After this period there
were still significant differences between the groups they also occur in interactions between a trained
and an untrainedparticipant.Training of both par-
on all three measures. The gains achieved by the
PET parents and retained after 7 years were about ticipants, however, produces better and more con-
sistent results.
half the gains they had achieved immediately after
training. This study suggests that PET training re- Most of the studies have found some diffusion of
sults in changes in skills and behaviors rather than skills and attitudes, with untrained participants ex-
simply in motivation. hibiting higher levels of some skills or behavior
To replicate the findings using a behavioral appropriate to conflict resolution when they inter-
measure, a subsequent study (Wood & Davidson, act with a trained partner.

12
 Davidson and Wood
Conflict Resolution Model

It is fitting to conclude with a remark by Mary Gordon, T. (with Burch, N.). (1974). Teacher Effec-
Parker Follett, a pioneer of integrative negotiation tiveness Training. New York: Wyden.
in the 1920s and 1930s: "Perhaps the greatest ob- Hollier, F., Murray, K., & Cornelius, H. (1993). Con-
stacle to [using] integration [to resolve conflict] is flict resolution trainers' manual: 12 skills. Chats-
wood, NSW: The Conflict Resolution Network.
our lack of training for it" (Davis, 1989, p. 227). Jourard, S.M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental
analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley.
References Littlefield, L., Love, A., Peck, C., & Wertheim, E.H.
Buyer, L.S. (1988). Creative problem solving: A (1993). A model for resolving conflict: Some the-
comparison of performance under different instruc- oretical, empirical and practical implications. Aus-
tions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 55-61. tralian Psychologist, 28, 80-85.
Cedar, R.B., & Levant, R.F. (1990). A meta-analysis Maier, N.R.F. (1960). Screening solutions to upgrade
of the effects of Parent Effectiveness Training. quality: A new approach to problem solving under
American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 373-384. conditions of uncertainty. Journal of Psychology,
Davidson, J.A., & Versluys, M. (1999). Effects of brief 49, 217-231.
training in cooperation and problem solving on Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd
success in conflict resolution. Peace and Conflict: ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Journal of Peace Psychology, 5, 137-148. Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles
Davidson, J.A., & Versluys, M. (2000). Conflict resolu- and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd
tion training within a school setting. AustralianEdu- ed.). New York: Scribner's.
cational and DevelopmentalPsychologist, 17, 117-134. Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D.G., & Kim, S.H. (1994). Social
Davis, A.M. (1989). An interview with Mary Parker conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement (2nd
Follett. Negotiation Journal, 5, 223-234. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Con- Salter, A. (1949). Conditioned reflex therapy. New
structive and destructive processes. New Haven, York: Farrar Straus.
CT: Yale University Press.
Sanson, A., & Bretherton, D. (2001). Conflict resolu-
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think:A restatementof the rela- tion: Theoretical and practical issues. In D.J.
tion of effectivethinkingto the educativeprocess. Lex-
Christie, R.V. Wagner, & D.D. Winter (Eds.),
ington, MA: Heath. Peace, conflict and violence (pp. 193-209). New
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New
York: Holt. Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wertheim, E.H., Love, A., Peck, C., & Littlefield, L.
Dinelli, A.M., & Davidson, J.A. (2000). Effects of par-
(1998). Skills for resolving conflict: A co-opera-
ticipant training and mediation on success in con- tive problem solving approach. Melbourne: Erudi-
flict resolution [Abstract]. Australian Journal of
tions.
Psychology, 52 (Suppl.), 78-79.
Egan, G. (1986). The skilled helper: A systematic ap- Wood, C.D., & Davidson, J.A. (1987). PET: An out-
come study. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage
proach to effective helping (3rd ed.). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole. and Family, 8, 131-141.
Feeney, M.C., & Davidson, J.A. (1996). Bridging the Wood, C.D., & Davidson, J.A. (1993). Conflict resolu-
gap between the practical and the theoretical: An tion in the family: A PET evaluation study. Aus-
evaluation of a conflict resolution model. Peace and tralian Psychologist, 28, 100-104.
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2, 255-269. Wood, C.D., & Davidson, J.A. (1994/1995). Parenting
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1997). Getting to for peace seven years on. Peace Psychology Re-
yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in (2nd view, 1, 123-129.
ed.). London: Arrow. Zener, A.E. (1988). Effective self-disclosure. In A.E.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training: The Zener (Ed.), Parent Effectiveness Part 1: Work-
tested new way to raise responsible children. New book (pp. 00-00). Solana Beach, CA: Effective-
York: Plume Books. ness Training Inc.

ip

13