WORKING

THROUGH
CONFLICT
This fully updated ninth edition provides an introduction to conflict and conflict
management that is firmly grounded in current theory, research, and practice.
Covering a range of conflict settings, including interpersonal, group, and organizational
conflicts, it includes an abundance of real-life case studies that encompass a spectrum
of theoretical perspectives. Its emphasis on application makes it highly accessible to
students, while expanding their comprehension of conflict theory and practical skills.
This new edition features a new chapter presenting key principles students can practice
to become more skillful at managing conflict, a wealth of up-to-date research and case
examples, suggested readings and video resources, and integrated questions for review
and discussion.
This textbook can be used in undergraduate or graduate courses on conflict in
communication, business and management, political science, and counseling programs.
Online resources for instructors, including PowerPoint slides and an instructor’s
manual, can be found at www.routledge.com/cw/folger.

Joseph P. Folger is Professor of Adult and Organizational Development at Temple

University. He is Co-founder and current President of the Institute for the Study of
Conflict Transformation.

Marshall Scott Poole is the David L. Swanson Professor of Communication, Senior

Research Scientist at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, and Director
of I-CHASS: The Institute for Computing in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Randall K. Stutman is the Managing Partner of CRA Inc., a global leadership and
communication consulting firm headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania. He is also the
founder of the Admired Leadership Institute.
WORKING
THROUGH
CONFLICT
Strategies for Relationships,
Groups, and Organizations
Ninth Edition

J O S E P H P. F O L G E R ,
MARSHALL SCOTT POOLE,
AND RANDALL K. STUTMAN
Ninth edition published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Joseph P. Folger, Marshall Scott Poole, and Randall K. Stutman to be
identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
First edition published by Pearson Education, Inc. 2001
Eighth edition published by Routledge 2018
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Folger, Joseph P., 1951– author. | Poole, Marshall Scott, 1951–
author. | Stutman, Randall K., 1957– author.
Title: Working through conflict : strategies for relationships, groups, and
organizations / Joseph P. Folger, Marshall Scott Poole, Randall K. Stutman.
Description: 9th edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020046207 (print) | LCCN 2020046208 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367461485 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367461478 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003027232 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Social conflict. | Conflict (Psychology) | Conflict
management. | Social interaction. | Interpersonal conflict.
Classification: LCC HM1121 .F65 2021 (print) | LCC HM1121 (ebook) |
DDC 303.6—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046207
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046208
ISBN: 978-0-367-46148-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-46147-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-02723-2 (ebk)
Typeset in ITC Giovanni
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Access the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/folger
To our parents:
Ed and Virginia
Ed and Helen
Bernie and Marge
CONTENTS

List of Casesxiii
Prefacexv
Acknowledgmentsxviii

INTRODUCTION 1
Case Study I.1A The Women’s Hotline Case 2
Case Study I.1B The Women’s Hotline Case (Continued) 3
I.1 Conflict Defined 4
I.2 Arenas for Conflict 6
I.3 Communication Media and Conflict Interaction 8
I.4 Productive and Destructive Conflict Interaction 9
I.5 Judgments About Conflict Outcomes 11
I.6 Plan of the Book 12
I.7 Summary and Review 13
I.8 Activities 14

Chapter 1 COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT 15

1.1 A Model of Effective Conflict Management 15
1.1.1 Moving Through Differentiation and Integration 16
1.1.2 Taking the Middle Path: Moving Toward Integration 19
1.1.3 Recognizing Destructive Cycles 21
1.1.4 Tacking Against the Wind 22
1.2 Properties of Conflict Interaction 23
1.2.1 Property 1: Conflict Is Constituted and Sustained
by Moves and Countermoves During Interaction 24
1.2.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflicts Tend to
Perpetuate Themselves 26
1.2.3 Property 3: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by and in
Turn Affects Relationships 28
Exhibit 1.1 Confrontation Episodes Theory 29
1.2.4 Property 4: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by Context 33
Case Study 1.1 The Columnist’s Brown Bag 35
1.2.5 Property 5: Conflict Interaction Is Always Punctuated 36
1.3 Summary and Review 38
1.4 Activities 40
1.5 Conclusion 40
viii Contents

Chapter 2 THE INNER EXPERIENCE OF CONFLICT 42

Case Study 2.1 The Parking Lot Scuffle 43
2.1 The Psychodynamic Perspective 44
Exhibit 2.1 Collusion and Intractable Conflict 46
Case Study 2.2 Psychodynamic Theory and the Parking Lot
Scuffle 48
2.2 Emotion and Conflict 49
Exhibit 2.2 Verbal Aggressiveness 50
Case Study 2.3 Emotion in the Parking Lot Scuffle 56
2.3 Social Cognition and Conflict 56
2.3.1 Social Knowledge About Conflict and Conflict
Interaction 56
2.3.2 Social Cognitive Processes and Conflict 62
Case Study 2.4 Social Knowledge About Conflict and the Parking
Lot Scuffle 62
Case Study 2.5 Expectancy Violations and the Parking Lot
Scuffle 64
Case Study 2.6 The Role of Attributions in the Parking Lot
Scuffle 67
2.4 The Interaction of Psychodynamics, Emotion, and Social
Cognition in Conflict 69
2.5 Summary and Review 71
2.6 Activities 73
2.7 Conclusion 74

Chapter 3 CONFLICT INTERACTION 75

3.1 Stages of Conflict 76
3.1.1 Rummel’s Five-Stage Model 76
3.1.2 Pondy’s Model 77
3.1.3 Stage Models of Negotiation 78
3.1.4 Insights of Stage Models of Conflict 78
Case Study 3.1 Stage Models and the Parking Lot Scuffle 80
3.2 Interdependence 81
Case Study 3.2 Interdependence and the Parking Lot Scuffle 82
3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation 83
Exhibit 3.1 Can Conflict Competence Be Assessed? 85
Case Study 3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation in the Parking
Lot Scuffle 87
Exhibit 3.2 The Tit-for-Tat Strategy 88
3.4 Framing Issues in Conflict Interaction 89
Case Study 3.4 Issue Framing and the Parking Lot Scuffle 90
3.5 Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict 93
Case Study 3.5 Intergroup Conflict Dynamics and the Parking
Lot Scuffle 98
Exhibit 3.3 Counteracting the Negative Impacts of Social Identity
and Intergroup Conflict 100
3.6 Summary and Review 102
3.7 Activities 103
3.8 Conclusion 104
 Contents ix

Chapter 4 CONFLICT STYLES AND STRATEGIC CONFLICT INTERACTION 106

4.1 Origins of Conflict Styles 107
Case Study 4.1 Conflict Styles in the Parking Lot Scuffle 108
4.2 What Is a Conflict Style? 110
4.3 An Expanded View of Conflict Styles 112
4.3.1 Competing 113
4.3.2 Avoiding 115
4.3.3 Accommodating 116
4.3.4 Compromising 117
4.3.5 Collaborating 119
4.4 Determining the Styles of Others 121
Exhibit 4.1 The Dysfunction of the Passive Aggressive Style 122
4.5 Pairings of Conflict Styles 123
4.6 Shifting Styles During Conflict Episodes 124
Case Study 4.2 College Roommates 125
4.7 Selecting Conflict Styles 128
Exhibit 4.2 A Procedure for Selecting Conflict Styles 128
4.8 Cultural, Gender, and Racial Influences on Conflict Styles 132
4.8.1 Cultural Influences 132
4.8.2 Gender Influences 134
4.8.3 Racial and Ethnic Influences 135
4.9 Styles and Tactics in Practice 135
Case Study 4.3 The Would-Be Borrower 136
4.10 Summary and Review 138
4.11 Activities 140
4.12 Conclusion 141

Chapter 5 POWER: THE ARCHITECTURE OF CONFLICT 142

5.1 Power and the Emergence of Conflict 142
Case Study 5.1A A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund 143
Case Study 5.1B A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund 144
5.2 A Relational View of Power 146
5.2.1 Forms of Power 146
Case Study 5.2 The Amazing Hacker 149
5.2.2 Social Categorization 151
5.2.3 The Mystique of Power 152
5.2.4 Interaction 153
5.2.5 Legitimacy 154
5.2.6 Endorsement and Power 154
5.3 Power and Conflict Interaction 155
Case Study 5.3 The Creativity Development Committee 155
5.4 The Use of Power in Conflict Tactics 160
5.4.1 Threats and Promises 160
5.4.2 Relational Control 162
5.4.3 Issue Control 163
5.5 The Balance of Power in Conflict 164
5.5.1 The Dilemmas of Strength 165
Case Study 5.4 The Copywriters’ Committee 166
Case Study 5.5 Unbalanced Intimacy 167
x Contents

Case Study 5.6 Job Resignation at a Social Service Agency 168

5.5.2 The Dangers of Weakness 170
5.5.3 Cultural Differences in Values Concerning Power 172
5.6 Working With Power 172
5.6.1 Diagnosing the Role of Power in Conflict 172
5.6.2 Fostering Shared Power in Conflicts 173
5.6.3 Bolstering the Position of Those Not Typically
in Power 175
5.7 Summary and Review 176
5.8 Activities 178
5.9 Conclusion 178

Chapter 6 FACE-SAVING 180

6.1 The Dimensions of Face 181
6.2 Face-Loss as It Relates to Face-Saving 182
6.3 A Threat to Flexibility in Conflict Interaction 182
Case Study 6.1 The Professor’s Decision 183
Case Study 6.2 The Outspoken Member 184
Case Study 6.3 The Controversial Team Member 185
6.4 Conflict Interaction as a Face-Saving Arena 189
6.5 Face-Saving Frames in Conflict Interaction 193
6.5.1 Resisting Unjust Intimidation 194
6.5.2 Refusing to Give on a Position 196
6.5.3 Suppressing Conflict Issues 196
6.6 Face-Saving in Other Cultures 197
6.7 Face-Giving Strategies 198
Exhibit 6.1 Why Do Meteorologists Never Apologize? 198
Exhibit 6.2 Disagreeing Agreeably 201
Exhibit 6.3 Using Questions to Carry Criticism 204
6.8 Working With Face-Saving Issues 205
Exhibit 6.4 When Honor Can Kill 207
Case Study 6.4 The Productivity and Performance Report 209
6.9 Summary and Review 211
6.10 Activities 212
6.11 Conclusion 212

Chapter 7 CLIMATE AND CONFLICT INTERACTION 213

7.1 Climate and Conflict 214
Case Study 7.1 Riverdale Halfway House 216
7.1.1 More Precisely Defining Climate 218
7.1.2 Climate and Conflict Interaction 219
Exhibit 7.1 Identifying Climates 221
7.2 Working With Climate 223
Case Study 7.2 Breakup at the Bakery 224
Exhibit 7.2 Climate and Predicting What Marriages Survive 226
Case Study 7.3 The Expanding Printing Company 228
7.3 The Leader’s Impact on Climate 230
Case Study 7.4 The Start-Up 231
7.4 Summary and Review 233
7.5 Activities 235
7.6 Conclusion 235
 Contents xi

Chapter 8 MANAGING CONFLICT 236

8.1 Review of the Normative Model for Conflict
Management 236
8.2 Navigating Differentiation 237
8.2.1 Framing Problems or Issues 238
8.2.2 Rethinking How Problems Are Defined 240
Case Study 8.1 The Psychological Evaluation Unit 243
8.2.3 Cultivating a Collaborative Attitude 246
8.2.4 Moving From Differentiation to Integration 247
8.3 A Procedure for Managing Conflicts 249
Exhibit 8.1 A Procedure for Moving Through Differentiation and
Integration 249
8.4 Addressing Severe Challenges to Conflict Integration 251
8.4.1 Challenging Belief Systems That Escalate Conflict
Responses 251
8.4.2 Moving Beyond Deep Transgressions Through
Forgiveness 253
8.5 Dispute Systems: Managing Conflicts Within
Organizations 254
Exhibit 8.2 What Type of a Dispute Resolution System Does an
Organization Have? 255
8.5.1 Working With Organizational Dispute Resolution
Systems 257
8.6 Summary and Review 257
8.7 Activities 259
8.8 Conclusion 259

Chapter 9 THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION 261

9.1 Property 1: Conflict Interaction Is Constituted and
Sustained by Moves and Countermoves During Interaction 262
9.1.1 Third Party Mandate 262
9.1.2 Responsiveness to Emerging Interaction 266
Case Study 9.1 Organizational Co-Heads 268
Case Study 9.2 The Family Conflict 270
Case Study 9.3 Mediator Pressure and the Intransigent
Negotiator 273
9.2 Property 2: Patterns of Behavior in Conflict Tend to
Perpetuate Themselves 274
9.2.1 Third Parties and Conflict Cycles 274
Case Study 9.4 Party Process Control 275
Case Study 9.5 Neighbor Noise Problems 277
9.2.2 Third Parties and the Overall Shape of Conflict
Behavior 279
Exhibit 9.1 Third Parties, Differentiation, and Integration 279
9.3 Property 3: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by, and in
Turn Affects, Relationships 285
9.4 Property 4: Conflict Interaction Is Influenced by the
Context in Which It Occurs 287
9.4.1 Third Party Roles and Ideologies 287
Exhibit 9.2 Transformative Mediation: A Relational Approach to
Conflict Intervention 289
xii Contents

9.4.2 Third Party Roles and Climate 290

Exhibit 9.3 Testing Your Own Ability to Intervene
Transformatively 291
9.5 Summary and Review 293
9.6 Activities 296
9.7 Conclusion 296

Chapter 10 WORKING THROUGH CONFLICT 298

10.1 Fourteen Practical Strategies for Working Through
Conflict 299
Case Study 10.1 Surprised by the News 311
10.2 Summary and Review 312
10.3 Activities 314
10.4 Conclusion 315

References316
Index341
CASES CASES

   I.1A The Women’s Hotline Case  2

   I.1B The Women’s Hotline Case (Continued)  3
1.1 The Columnist’s Brown Bag  35
2.1 The Parking Lot Scuffle  43
2.2 Psychodynamic Theory and the Parking Lot Scuffle  48
2.3 Emotion in the Parking Lot Scuffle  56
2.4 Social Knowledge About Conflict and the Parking Lot Scuffle 62
2.5 Expectancy Violations and the Parking Lot Scuffle 64
2.6 The Role of Attributions in the Parking Lot Scuffle  67
3.1 Stage Models and the Parking Lot Scuffle  80
3.2 Interdependence and the Parking Lot Scuffle  82
3.3 Reciprocity and Compensation in the Parking Lot Scuffle  87
3.4 Issue Framing and the Parking Lot Scuffle  90
3.5 Intergroup Conflict Dynamics and the Parking Lot Scuffle  98
4.1 Conflict Styles in the Parking Lot Scuffle  108
4.2 College Roommates  125
4.3 The Would-Be Borrower  136
5.1A A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund  143
5.1B A Raid on the Student Activity Fees Fund  144
5.2 The Amazing Hacker  149
5.3 The Creativity Development Committee  155
5.4 The Copywriters’ Committee  166
5.5 Unbalanced Intimacy  167
5.6 Job Resignation at a Social Service Agency  168
6.1 The Professor’s Decision  183
6.2 The Outspoken Member  184
6.3 The Controversial Team Member  185
6.4 The Productivity and Performance Report  209
7.1 Riverdale Halfway House  216
7.2 Breakup at the Bakery  224
7.3 The Expanding Printing Company  228
7.4 The Start-Up  231
8.1 The Psychological Evaluation Unit  243
xiv Cases

9.1 Organizational Co-Heads  268

9.2 The Family Conflict 270
9.3 Mediator Pressure and the Intransigent Negotiator  273
9.4 Party Process Control  275
9.5 Neighbor Noise Problems  277
10.1 Surprised by the News  311
PREFACE

THE STUDY OF CONFLICT

The main objective of Working Through Conflict is to provide a summary and synthesis
of social science research and theory on conflict. It offers students of conflict a review of
the core concepts and theoretical frameworks that enhance an understanding of human
behavior in a wide range of conflict situations. The research and theory covered in this
book reflect the many social science disciplines that have contributed to the study of
conflict.
Although it takes an interdisciplinary view of conflict, this book emphasizes under-
standing conflict as a communication phenomenon. It assumes that conflict is some-
thing that people create and shape as they interact with each other. Sometimes conflict
interaction is immediate and face-to-face. In other instances, it is played out in a series
of moves, actions, and responses that occur over time and in different places. This book
highlights the interactive nature of conflict, no matter what form it takes. This focus
on communication means that readers gain an appreciation for how mutual influence
occurs, how language and message choices shape conflict, and how patterns of behavior
and the structure of human discourse create important dimensions of any unfolding
conflict.
In addition, Working Through Conflict offers a road map for how theory and
research can be used to understand and influence conflict dynamics in everyday life.
The field of conflict management is supported by a long history of useful research
and theory that forms a basis for a wide variety of conflict management work. This
book demonstrates how conflicts across settings can be understood by seeing them
through a range of theoretical lenses. It illustrates how students of conflict can begin
thinking and acting in ways that can have profound effects on the dynamics of dif-
ficult conflicts.

NEW TO THIS EDITION

We have revised this ninth edition of Working Through Conflict to reflect new develop-
ments in theory and research on conflict and conflict management. We also clarified
and expanded certain discussions to make this the most user-friendly edition to date,
xvi Preface

with special emphasis on applying theory to practical, contemporary topics. Here are the
highlights of the changes in this ninth edition:

• Updated citations have been added throughout the book.

• In Chapter 1, we added a fifth property of conflict which highlights how we situate
conflict in time. The metaphor of “punctuation” is used to make the point that how
we view conflict depends heavily on when we believe it begins and ends.
• A new exhibit and table has been added to Chapter 4 describing issues related with
the passive aggressive style. The dysfunctions of this style and the reasons many peo-
ple employ it are discussed and illustrated.
• In Chapter 6, we offer a new exhibit for protecting face identity by using questions
to carry criticism. This practical idea highlights the need to avoid unintentionally
threatening face by being too direct when we offer criticism and feedback to others.
• A brand new chapter on practical strategies for working through conflict has been
added and is now Chapter 10. Whereas Chapter 8 offers a process for managing con-
flict, the new chapter highlights fourteen strategies students of conflict can practice
every day to make conflict more productive.

While we capture the most current thinking about the topics covered in this book, we
have also retained older references because they point to classic, core work that has served
as the foundation for more recent studies. New, contemporary scholarship is important,
but we believe that students should also be aware of the field’s conceptual roots as rep-
resented in classic conflict literature.
We consider conflicts occurring in a wide range of arenas, from intimate relation-
ships, marriages, and friendships to group, intergroup, organizational, and negotiation
settings. This added breadth makes the book suitable as a primary text for courses in
conflict and conflict management, as well as a useful supplement to courses that devote
substantial attention to conflict or third party work.
The title of this book is an intentional double entendre. Because its major emphasis
is on communication patterns people use when attempting to manage conflict, we hope
that the book will help people successfully work through difficult conflicts. The book is
also built on the assumption that effective work is often promoted by the emergence and
productive use of conflict. It is our hope that this book will encourage people to confront
their conflicts and to work through them creatively rather than suppressing or superficially
“resolving” conflicts.

DEVELOPING THEORY-BASED INTUITION

It is often said that people who are good at their work have excellent intuition. Usually
this means that they instinctively make good decisions and employ effective strategies
to create change or accomplish productive objectives. Intuition is often assumed to be
innate—it is seen as a gift that some people have. But in most cases effective professional
intuition comes from a broad background of knowledge, study, and experience gained
over time. Working Through Conflict is written for those who want to develop their intu-
ition about how to react, interact, and intervene in conflict situations. Conflict is usually
complex—it is often multilayered, steeped in a history of events, and shaped by diverse
perspectives and understandings. As a result, having good intuition about conflict starts
by mastering a broad repertoire of ideas—ideas that create different explanations for why
conflict interaction moves in destructive or constructive directions.
 Preface xvii

Working Through Conflict covers a wide range of essential concepts and theories that
clarify the practical implications for managing conflicts in relationships, groups, teams,
and organizations. It is a primer for those who might want to pursue professional work
in the conflict management field as mediators, ombudspersons, facilitators, or concili-
ators. It can also help build a strong intuition in those who deal with conflict daily in
work and professional settings and in those who want to have an impact on conflicts in
their personal lives within families, romantic relationships, marriages, and friendships.
Joseph P. Folger
Marshall Scott Poole
Randall K. Stutman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Ann Bryan and David Roache for assistance and ideas related to this revision.
Once again, we owe our greatest debt to our colleagues at the Center for Conflict Res-
olution in Madison, Wisconsin. We are very grateful to Lonnie Weiss for her insight
and help with our analyses. We also thank Syd Bernard, Jim Carrilon, Betsy Densmore,
Robert Everett, Jay Herman, Jan Shubert, Rick Sloan, Dennis Smith, Tommy Vines, and
Kathy Zoppi for their responses to parts or all of the initial manuscript of the first edi-
tion of this book. We also thank Linda Klug, Jean Kebis, and Wayne Beach for supplying
the transcript of interaction in Chapter 6. Subsequent editions were greatly improved
by comments from Charley Conrad, Melissa Dobosh, Mistee Freeman, Tricia Jones,
Leanne Knobloch, Phoebe Kruger, Kevin Real, Bethany Sills, Cynthia Stohl, Shirley A.
Van Hoeven, and Elizabeth Vegso.
We appreciate the feedback reviewers provided for this revision: Stuart Allen, Corey
Young, Michael Comos, and Kathy Krone. We also want to express our continued grat-
itude to reviewers of previous editions, whose wisdom persists still: Wayne Beach, Tom
Biesecker, Lori Carrell, Steven Colmbs, Charles R. Conrad, Alice Crume, Robert J. Doolit-
tle, David A. Frank, Dennis Gouran, Bruce Gronbeck, Dale Hample, Thomas Harris, Gary
Hartzell, Tricia Jones, Keven E. McCleary, Laura L. Jansma, Sara E. Newell, Linda Putnam,
Susan Rice, Gale Richards, Tracy Routsong, Dale L. Shannon, Cynthia Stohl, Michael
Sunnafrank, Stella Ting-Toomey, Shirley Van Hoeven, Hal R. Witteman, and Paul Yelsma.
A special thanks to Shannon James for tirelessly reading and editing this new edi-
tion. The excellent editorial and production staff at Routledge, Brian Eschrich, Grant
Schatzman, and Jenny Guildford have greatly assisted with the production of this volume.
Joseph P. Folger
Marshall Scott Poole
Randall K. Stutman
INTRODUCTION

C
onflict offers a mixture of the good, the bad, and the uncertain. On the positive
side, conflicts allow us to air important issues; they produce new and creative
ideas; they release built-up tensions. Handled properly, conflicts can strengthen
relationships; they can help groups and organizations to reevaluate and clarify goals and
missions; and they can also initiate social change to eliminate inequities and injustice.
These advantages suggest that conflict is normal and healthy, and they underscore the
importance of understanding and handling conflict properly.
But perhaps more familiar is the negative side of conflict. Heated exchanges spiral
out of control, resulting in frustration, tension, hard feelings, and, ultimately, more
conflict. Low-grade family conflicts, perpetuated through criticism, arguments, nag-
ging, and verbal abuse, not only distance parents from children and spouses from
one another but also lower self-esteem and create problems that can follow people
throughout their entire lives. Additionally, conflicts are sometimes violent, not only
between strangers but also in the workplace and within the family. Sometimes the
source of frustration is not being able to get someone else to engage a conflict. If one
friend persistently denies that a problem exists or changes the subject when it comes
up, the other cannot discuss the things that are bothering her or him, and the friend-
ship suffers. The various negative experiences we all have with conflict are reinforced
in the media, where it often seems that the only effective way to solve problems is to
shoot somebody.
Conflicts also bring uncertainty. As we will see, the great “unpredictables” in life
often arise in interactions we have with others. Conversations, meetings, and conflicts
all have in common the fact that they may suddenly move in unexpected directions.
Indeed, the uncertainties that arise during conflicts often cause them to move in neg-
ative directions.
The twists and turns of the following case—in this instance a conflict in a small
office—offer a good illustration of the positive, negative, and uncertain sides of conflict.
The conflict in Case 1.1 at the women’s hotline initially exhibits several negative features
and might easily move in a destructive direction.
2 Introduction

CASE STUDY I.1A THE WOMEN’S HOTLINE CASE

Imagine yourself as a staff member in this organization. How would you react as
this conflict unfolded? What is it about this particular conflict that makes it seem
difficult to face—let alone solve?
Women’s Hotline is a rape and domestic crisis center in a medium-sized
city. The center employed seven full- and part-time workers. The workers, all
women, formed a cohesive unit and made all important decisions as a group.
There were no formal supervisors. The hotline started as a voluntary organiza-
tion and had grown by capturing local and federal funds. The group remained
proud of its roots in a democratic, feminist tradition.
The atmosphere at the hotline was rather informal. The staff members
saw each other as friends, but there was an implicit understanding that peo-
ple should not have to take responsibility for each other’s cases. Because the
hotline’s work was draining, having to handle each other’s worries could create
an unbearable strain. This norm encouraged workers to work on their own and
keep problems to themselves.
The conflict arose when Diane, a new counselor who had only six months of
experience, was involved in a very disturbing incident. One of her clients was
killed by a man who had previously raped her. Diane had trouble dealing with
this incident. She felt guilty about it; she questioned her own ability and asked
herself whether she might have been able to prevent this tragedy. In the months
following, Diane had increasing difficulty in coping with her feelings and began
to feel that her co-workers were not giving her the support she needed. Diane
had no supervisor to turn to, and, although her friends outside the hotline were
helpful, she did not believe they could understand the pressure as well as her
co-workers could.
Since the murder, Diane had not been able to work to full capacity, and
she began to notice some resentment from the other counselors. She felt the
other staff members were more concerned about whether she was adding to
their workloads than whether she was recovering from the traumatic incident.
Although Diane did not realize it at the time, most of the staff members felt she
had been slow to take on responsibilities even before her client was killed. They
thought Diane had generally asked for more help than other staff members and
that these requests were adding to their own responsibilities. No one was willing
to tell Diane about these feelings after the incident because they realized she was
very disturbed. After six months, Diane believed she could no longer continue to
work effectively. She felt pressure from the others at the center, and she was still
shaken by the tragedy. She requested two weeks off with pay to get away from
the work situation for a while, to reduce the stress she felt, and to come back
with renewed energy. The staff, feeling that Diane was slacking off, denied this
request. They responded by outlining, in writing, what they saw as the responsi-
bilities of a full-time staff worker. Diane was angry when she realized her request
had been denied, and she decided to file a formal work grievance.
Diane and the staff felt bad about having to resort to such a formal, adversar-
ial procedure. No staff member had ever filed a work grievance, and the group
was embarrassed by its inability to deal with the problem on a more informal
basis. These feelings created additional tension between Diane and the staff.
 Introduction 3

Discussion Questions

• Can you foresee any benefits to this conflict?

• Is it possible to foresee whether a conflict will move in a constructive or
destructive direction?
• What clues would lead you to believe that this conflict is going to be
productive?

Several elements of this case suggest a move in a negative direction. First, the situation
at the hotline was tense and threatening. This was a difficult time for the workers. Even for
“old hands” at negotiation, conflicts are often unpleasant and frightening. Second, the
parties experienced a great deal of uncertainty. They were unable to understand what was
going on and how their behavior affected the conflict. Conflicts are confusing; actions
can have consequences quite different from what is intended because the situation is
more complicated than we had assumed. Diane did not know her co-workers thought
she was slacking even before the tragedy. When she asked for time off she was surprised
at their refusal, and her angry reaction nearly started a major battle. Third, the situation
was fragile. A conflict may evolve in very different ways depending on the behavior of just
a single worker. If, for example, the staff chose to fire Diane, the conflict may have been
squelched, or it may have festered and undermined relationships among the remaining
staff. If, on the other hand, Diane won allies, the others might split over the issue and
ultimately dissolve the hotline. As the case continues, observe staff members’ behavior
and their method of dealing with this tense and unfamiliar situation.

CASE STUDY I.1B THE WOMEN’S HOTLINE CASE (CONTINUED)

Imagine yourself in the midst of this conflict. What would you recommend this
group do to promote a constructive outcome to this conflict?
The committee who received Diane’s grievance suggested that they could han-
dle the problem in a less formal way if both Diane and the staff agreed to accept a
neutral, third party mediator. Everyone agreed that this suggestion had promise, and
a third party was invited to a meeting where the entire staff could address the issue.
At this meeting, the group faced a difficult task. Each member offered reac-
tions they had been previously unwilling to express. The staff made several
pointed criticisms of Diane’s overall performance. Diane expressed doubts
about the staff’s willingness to help new workers or to give support when it
was requested. Although this discussion was often tense, it was well directed.
At the outset of the meeting, Diane withdrew her formal complaint. This action
changed the definition of the problem from the immediate work grievance to
the question of what levels of support were required for various people to work
effectively in this difficult and emotionally draining setting.
Staff members shared doubts and fears about their own inadequacies as coun-
selors and agreed that something less than perfection was acceptable. The group
recognized that a collective inertia had developed and that they had consistently
avoided giving others the support needed to deal with difficult rape cases. They
acknowledged, however, the constraints on each woman’s time; each worker
4 Introduction

could handle only a limited amount of stress. The group recognized that some level
of mutual support was essential and felt that they had fallen below an acceptable
level over the past year and a half. One member suggested that any staff person
should be able to ask for a “debriefing contract” whenever she felt in need of
help or support. These contracts would allow someone to ask for ten minutes of
another person’s time to hear about a particularly disturbing issue or case.
The group adopted this suggestion because they saw that it could allow
members to seek help without overburdening one other. The person who was
asked to listen could assist and give needed support without feeling that she
had to “fix” another worker’s problem. Diane continued to work at the center
and found that her abilities and confidence increased as the group provided the
support she needed.

Discussion Questions

• In what ways did the parties in this conflict show “good faith”?
• Is “good faith” participation a necessary prerequisite to constructive con-
flict resolution?

This is a textbook case in effective conflict management because it led to a solution

that all parties accepted. The members of this group walked a tightrope throughout the
conflict, yet they managed to avoid a fall. The tension, unpleasantness, uncertainty, and
fragility of conflict situations makes them hard to face. Because these problems make it
difficult to deal with issues constructively and creatively, conflicts are often terminated by
force, by uncomfortable suppression of issues, or simply by exhaustion after a prolonged
fight—all outcomes that leave at least one party dissatisfied. Engaging a conflict is often
like making a bet against the odds: You can win big if it turns out well, but so many
things can go wrong that many are unwilling to chance it.
The key to working through conflict is not to minimize its disadvantages, or even to
emphasize its positive functions, but to accept both and to try to understand how con-
flicts move in destructive or productive directions. This calls for a careful analysis of both
the specific behaviors and the interaction patterns involved in conflict and the forces that
influence these patterns.
This chapter introduces you to conflict as an interaction system. We first define conflict
and then introduce the four arenas for interpersonal conflict that this book explores. Fol-
lowing this, we discuss an important reference point—the distinction between productive
and destructive conflict interaction—and the behavioral cycles that move conflict in pos-
itive and negative directions. Finally, we lay out the plan of this book, which is written
to examine the key dynamics of conflict interaction and the forces that influence them.

I.1 CONFLICT DEFINED

Conflict is the interaction of interdependent parties who perceive incompatibility and

the possibility of interference from others as a result of this incompatibility. Several fea-
tures of this definition warrant further discussion.
 Introduction 5

The most important feature of conflict is that it is a type of human interaction. Con-
flicts are constituted and sustained by the behaviors of the parties involved and their
reactions to one another, particularly verbal and nonverbal communication. Conflict
interaction takes many forms, and each form presents special problems and requires
special handling. The most familiar type of conflict interaction is marked by shouting
matches or open competition in which each party tries to defeat the other. But conflicts
can also be more subtle. People may react to conflict by suppressing it. A husband and
wife may communicate in ways that allow them to avoid confrontation, either because
they are afraid the conflict may damage a fragile relationship or because they convince
themselves that the issue “isn’t worth fighting over.” This response is as much a part of
the conflict process as fights and shouting matches. This book deals with the whole range
of responses to conflict and how those responses affect the development of conflicts.
People in conflict perceive that there is some existing incompatibility with others and
that this incompatibility may prompt others to interfere with their own desires, goals,
personal comforts, or communication preferences. The key word here is perceive. Regard-
less of whether incompatibility actually exists, if the parties believe incompatibility exists
then conditions are ripe for conflict. Whether one employee really stands in the way
of a co-worker’s promotion, or if the co-worker interprets the employee’s behavior as
interfering with his promotion, then a conflict is likely to ensue. Communication is
important because it is the key to shaping and maintaining the perceptions that guide
conflict behavior.
Communication problems can be an important source of incompatibility. You may have
experienced times when you got into a disagreement with someone else, only to realize it
was due to a misunderstanding rather than a real conflict of interest. However, although
communication problems may contribute to conflicts, most conflicts cannot be reduced
to communication. Rather, real conflicts of interest underlie most serious conflicts.
Conflict interaction is influenced by the interdependence of the parties. Interdepen-
dence determines parties’ incentives in the conflict. There is an incentive to cooperate
when parties perceive that gains by one will promote gains by the other or losses for
one party will result in corresponding losses for the other. There is an incentive to com-
pete when parties believe that one’s gain will be the other’s loss. Resentment of Diane
built up among the other workers at the hotline because they felt that if she got what
she needed—time off—it would result in more work and pressure for them. This set
up a competitive situation that resulted in conflict escalation. However, purely com-
petitive (or cooperative) situations rarely occur. In most real situations there is a mix-
ture of incentives to cooperate and to compete. The other staff members at the hotline
wanted to maintain a cordial atmosphere, and several liked Diane. This compensated, to
some degree, for their resentment of Diane and set the stage for a successful third party
intervention.
The greater the interdependence among parties, the more significant the conse-
quences of their behaviors are for each other. The conflict at the hotline would not have
occurred if Diane’s behavior had not irritated the other workers and if their response had
not threatened Diane’s position. Furthermore, any action taken in response to a conflict
affects both sides. The decision to institute a “debriefing contract” required considerable
change by everyone. If Diane had been fired, that, too, would have affected the other
workers; they would have had to cover Diane’s cases and come to terms with themselves
as co-workers who could be accused of being unresponsive or insensitive.
There is one final wrinkle to interdependence: When parties are interdependent
they can potentially aid or interfere with each other. Parties know at least something
about their respective abilities to cooperate or to compete, and their interpretations of
6 Introduction

one another’s communication and actions shape how the conflict develops. In some
instances, one party may believe that having his or her point accepted is more important,
at least for the moment, than proposing a mutually beneficial outcome. When Diane
asked for two weeks off she was probably thinking not of the group’s best interest, but
of her own needs. In other cases, someone may advance a proposal designed to benefit
everyone, as when the staff member suggested the debriefing contract. In other instances,
a comment may be offered with cooperative intent, but others may interpret it as one
that advances an individual interest. Regardless of whether the competitive motive is
intended by the speaker or assigned by others, the interaction unfolds from that point
under the assumption that the speaker is competitive. As we will see, subsequent inter-
action is colored by this negative interpretation, and parties’ experiences may further
undermine their willingness to cooperate in a self-reinforcing cycle. The same cyclical
process also can occur with cooperation, creating positive momentum.

I.2 ARENAS FOR CONFLICT

This book examines a broad range of conflicts in four general settings. One import-
ant conflict arena is the interpersonal relationship. Interpersonal conflicts include those
between spouses, siblings, friends, and roommates. But interpersonal relationships are
broader than this, encompassing those among co-workers, supervisors and employees,
landlords and tenants, and neighbors. Interpersonal conflicts tell us a great deal about
styles of conflict interaction, emotional and irrational impulses, and the diversity of
resources people exchange in short- or long-term relationships.
A second important genre of conflicts are those that occur in groups or teams. This
arena includes families, work teams, small businesses, classes, clubs, juries, and even
therapy or consciousness-raising groups. Because much work is done in groups, this
arena has been studied extensively and offers a wide range of conflict situations for anal-
ysis. Conflicts in this arena offer insights about group cohesion; the influence of cli-
mates, coalitions, and working habits; and the distribution of power.
A third important arena for conflict is the organization. Many relationships and groups
are embedded in organizations. Organizations often engender conflict when they create
issues for parties, such as struggles over promotions, battles over which projects should
be funded, and debates over strategic directions. Sometimes conflicts in organizations are
displaced; parties angry due to perceived personal slights may express their frustration
in ways that are more legitimate to the organization, such as attacking a plan the trans-
gressor is presenting in a meeting. By cloaking their personal grievance in formal terms,
they are able to exercise their anger. Organizations also constrain conflict behavior. In an
organization that is comfortable with disagreement, expressing conflict is acceptable. In
one that is uncomfortable, conflicts may be suppressed.
Finally, the book examines conflicts that occur in intergroup settings. In this case, the
focus is on individuals as representatives of social groups rather than as unique individ-
uals. This arena includes conflicts among people who represent different gender, ethnic,
or cultural groups. Intergroup conflicts can also arise among parties who are viewed
as representatives of different teams, organizations, or political action groups. In these
conflicts, the individual’s identity is supplanted by issues of group identity. Prejudice,
stereotyping, and ideologies often come into play (Putnam & Poole, 1987).
The four arenas differ in several respects. One obvious difference is in the number of
parties typically involved in a conflict. Interpersonal conflicts are characterized by face-
to-face exchanges among a small number of people. The parties may belong to a larger
 Introduction 7

group or organization (e.g., siblings are part of the same family), but the divisive issues
are personally “owned” by the parties. The conflict plays out between them and does not
involve the group as a whole. Group conflicts are focused on issues related to a group
as a unit. The parties generally interact with each other in meetings or work settings
and attempt to reach decisions for the group. The divisive issues in these conflicts are
centered on the group itself. Organizational conflicts have implications for the organiza-
tion beyond specific individuals or groups. They include conflicts between parties from
different departments or levels of the organization and may draw in other people such
as managers or human resource professionals. The conflicts may be complex and open-
ended in terms of the number of people involved. Intergroup conflicts involve parties
representing two or more large groups such as organizations, cultural groups, or genders.
Issues in intergroup disputes are often carried over from long-standing grievances and
conflicts between the “parent” units.
As the number of parties involved in a conflict increases, important features of the
interaction change as well. For example, in interpersonal conflicts, people usually speak
for themselves. In group, organizational, or intergroup conflicts, spokespersons, represen-
tatives, or various counselors such as attorneys, union representatives, and presidents of
organizations, are more likely to speak for the collective. In addition, the group, team, or
organizational climate becomes important as the number of people in a conflict increases.
These arenas of conflict also differ in the type of interdependence that typically exists
among the parties. The resources available to parties shift across these contexts. In inter-
personal relationships, parties depend on each other for a wide range of emotional,
psychological, and material resources (Cahn, 1990; Levinger, 1976; Roloff, 1981). The
resources involved in interpersonal relationships include emotional support; images one
holds of oneself as a talented, generous, loving, sensuous, or loyal person; financial secu-
rity; and the ability to meet physical needs. In group, organizational, and intergroup con-
flicts, the range of interdependence is generally narrower. In task-oriented units, people
are dependent on each other for achieving the goals the group has set for itself, for finan-
cial security (if the group provides income for members), and for a person’s professional
or public identity (e.g., images parties hold of themselves as competent, fair-minded, or
cooperative). In intergroup relationships, individuals are dependent on each other for
the advancement and continuation of the group vis-à-vis other groups (e.g., some Shiites
in Iraq worked to achieve control by attacking other groups such as the Sunnis), and also
for their identities as members of a well-defined social unit (e.g., the sense of self one
has as a human being, a Christian, a Hispanic American, a Republican). The different
types of interdependence in each arena make the use of power different in each of them.
Although these arenas differ in important ways, they are similar in one important
sense: In all of them interaction is central to conflict (Roloff, 1987a). Regardless of the
number of parties involved or the type of interdependence among them, conflict unfolds
as a series of moves and countermoves premised on people’s perceptions, expectations,
and strategies. Because of this fundamental similarity, many of the principles of conflict
examined apply across the arenas. As Putnam and Folger (1988, p. 350) put it:

Theoretical principles apply across (conflict) contexts because interaction processes form the
foundation of conflict management. Fundamental to all conflicts are the series of actions
and reactions, moves and countermoves, planning of communication strategies, percep-
tions, and interpretations of messages that directly affect substantive outcomes.

The centrality of interaction to all four arenas creates commonalities across them as
well. For example, violent exchanges can occur in interpersonal, group, organizational,
8 Introduction

or intergroup conflicts. So too, can parties engage in negotiation in any of these settings.
Because labor-management or political negotiations are the most commonly reported
examples in the media, people often think of negotiation or bargaining as a separate
arena. However, husbands and wives can negotiate divorce agreements, a professor and
student can negotiate a grade, environmental groups can negotiate a land-use policy, or
neighborhood groups can negotiate historical preservation standards. Another aspect
of conflict common to all four arenas is power, because power is integral to all forms of
interdependence. These and other commonalities are explored throughout this book.

I.3 COMMUNICATION MEDIA AND CONFLICT

INTERACTION

Conflict is also shaped by the communication media parties utilize in all four are-
nas. Conflict interaction differs in face-to-face, telephone, email, and social media con-
texts because each medium offers different capabilities. Scholars have been working
to sort out the impacts media have on conflict. One influential theory—media rich-
ness theory—argues that media vary in terms of their ability to transmit information
that will change understanding in others (Rice & Leonardi, 2014). The richness of a
medium depends on four factors: (1) its ability to handle multiple information cues
simultaneously; (2) its ability to facilitate rapid feedback; (3) its ability to personalize
the message; and (4) its ability to utilize natural language. Commonly used media can
be ranked in terms of richness, with a ranking being (from richest to poorest): face-to-
face communication, telephone call, text message, electronic mail, paper memo, and a
numerical table. The basic premise of media richness theory is that media choice should
depend on the ambiguity there is in a task or situation. Rich media are more effective
for highly ambiguous situations, and in less ambiguous situations “leaner” media are
workable and more efficient.
Conflicts are highly ambiguous, so richer media would be expected to promote more
effective conflict interaction. Based on media richness theory, we would expect face-to-
face communication to be more effective for managing conflict than email or social
media because it allows multiple cues (verbal, visual, and aural), personalization, rapid
feedback, and natural language. Electronic mail and social media allow fewer cues, and
email may also have slower feedback if not checked constantly. Readers who have inad-
vertently sparked a conflict because of a poorly worded email or text message know
firsthand the limitations of text-based media compared to face-to-face communication.
Studies of virtual relationships and groups—those whose members are distributed
across different locations (and often time zones) and who use information and com-
munication technologies for most of their communication—indicate that they are more
likely to experience conflict than collocated relationships and groups (Garner & Poole,
2013). Conflicts in virtual relationships and groups are worsened by the absence of a
common physical context, which makes it difficult to establish mutual understand-
ing and gives rise to misinterpretations and mistaken conclusions about other parties’
motives. Consider, for example, a case in which one party is teleconferencing from home
and is distracted by his children’s interruptions. He may come across as confused and
disinterested to the other party (who is not aware of the distracting children), and the
other may conclude with irritation that the first party is not committed to their common
task, setting the stage for a conflict. If more than one person is at each location in a dis-
tributed group, then distance can also foster a “we” versus “they” orientation between
the sites, which increases the likelihood of conflict.
 Introduction 9

While it does give some important insights into the impact of media on conflict,
the media richness perspective is overly simplistic. As everyone knows, information and
communication technologies (ICT) also give us capabilities that traditional face-to-face,
telephone, and written modes of communication do not. Communicating via email is
slower, but it also gives the sender time to reflect and compose a message more thought-
fully than he or she may in face-to-face conversation. Hence, when used properly, email
may facilitate conflict management (Caughlin, Basinger, & Sharabi, 2016). The lack of
nonverbal cues in text and email also may enable parties to focus more on the content of
the conflict, as opposed to negative emotions conveyed by eye contact, facial expression,
and tone of voice. Perry and Werner-Wilson (2011) report that some relational partners
utilize ICTs in conflicts because these media allow them to get their emotions under
control and communicate more clearly. Emojis, pictures, and links inserted into emails
and text messages add additional meaning and can be used to move the discussion in a
positive direction.
Experience with a medium can also increase our skill in using it. Carlson and Zmud
(1999) argued that greater experience with a medium causes this channel to “expand” in
the information it can carry. Email may seem low in richness to a novice user, but more
experienced users learn that they can make email messages richer by using emoticons,
emojis, pictures, attachments, etc. A channel can also expand between two people or a
group who use a common medium. They can develop understanding of one another’s
styles and work out common code words to stand in for complex ideas. People who
often text or tweet one another are well aware of this.
Of course, not all capabilities afforded by ICTs are beneficial. Twitter and other social
media also enable “mobs” to level online attacks. Online bullying, stalking, and troll
attacks operate at a level and intensity unthinkable in most face-to-face interactions. The
relative anonymity provided by the internet facilitates—and some argue encourages—
such negative conflict behaviors (Lowry, Zhang, Wang, & Siponen, 2016).

I.4 PRODUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICT

INTERACTION

As previously noted, people often associate conflict with negative outcomes. However,
there are times when conflicts must be addressed regardless of the apprehension they
create. When parties have differences and the issues are important, suppressing conflict
is often more dangerous than facing it. The psychologist Irving Janis points to a number
of famous political disasters, such as the failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor, where poor decisions can be traced to the repression of conflict by key
decision-making groups (Janis, 1972). The critical question is this: what forms of conflict
interaction will yield obvious benefits without tearing a relationship, a group, a team, or
an organization apart?
The sociologist Lewis Coser (1956) distinguished realistic from nonrealistic conflicts.
Realistic conflicts are based on disagreements over the means to an end or over the ends
themselves. In realistic conflicts, the interaction focuses on the substantive issues the par-
ticipants must address to resolve their underlying incompatibilities. Nonrealistic conflicts
are expressions of aggression in which the sole end is to defeat or hurt the other. Partici-
pants in nonrealistic conflicts serve their own interests by undercutting those of the other
party involved. Coser argues that because nonrealistic conflicts are oriented toward the
expression of aggression, force and coercion are the means for resolving these disputes.
Realistic conflicts, on the other hand, foster a wide range of resolution techniques—force,
10 Introduction

negotiation, persuasion, even voting—because they are oriented toward the resolution
of some substantive problem. Although Coser’s analysis is somewhat oversimplified, it is
insightful and suggests important contrasts between productive and destructive conflict
interaction.
What criteria can be used to decide whether a conflict is productive? In large part,
productive conflict interaction depends on flexibility. In constructive conflicts, members
engage in a wide variety of behaviors ranging from coercion and threat to negotiation,
joking, and relaxation to reach an acceptable solution. In contrast, parties in destructive
conflicts are likely to be much less flexible because their goal is more narrowly defined:
They are trying to defeat each other. Destructive conflict interaction is likely to result in
uncontrolled escalation or prolonged attempts to avoid issues. In productive conflict, on
the other hand, the interaction changes direction often. Short cycles of escalation, de-es-
calation, avoidance, and constructive work on an issue are likely to occur as participants
attempt to manage conflict.
Consider the Women’s Hotline case. The workers exhibited a wide range of interac-
tion styles, from the threat of a grievance to the cooperative attempt to reach a mutually
satisfactory solution. Even though Diane and others engaged in hostile or threatening
interactions, they did not persist in this mode, and when the conflict threatened to esca-
late, they called in a third party. The conflict showed all of the hallmarks of produc-
tive interaction. In a destructive conflict, the members might have responded to Diane’s
grievance by suspending her, and Diane might have retaliated by suing or by attempting
to discredit the center in the local newspaper. Her retaliation would have hardened oth-
ers’ positions, and they might have fired her, leading to further retaliation.
In an alternative scenario, the Hotline conflict might have ended in destructive avoid-
ance. Diane might have hidden her problem, and the other workers might have con-
sciously or unconsciously abetted her by changing the subject when the murder came
up or by avoiding talking to her at all. Diane’s problem would probably have grown
worse, and she might have had to quit. The center then would have reverted back to “nor-
mal” until the same problem surfaced again. Although the damage caused by destructive
avoidance is much less serious in this case than that caused by destructive escalation,
it is still considerable: The Hotline loses a good worker, and the seeds for future losses
remain. In both cases, it is not the behaviors themselves that are destructive—neither
avoidance nor hostile arguments are harmful in themselves—but rather the inflexibility
of the parties that locks them into escalation or avoidance cycles.
In productive conflicts, all parties believe they can work together to attain important
goals and meet their needs (Deutsch, 1973). Productive conflict interaction exhibits a
sustained effort to bridge the apparent incompatibility of positions. This is in marked
contrast to destructive conflicts, where the interaction is premised on participants’ beliefs
that one side must win and the other must lose. Productive conflict interaction results in
a solution satisfactory to all and produces a general feeling that the parties have gained
something (e.g., a new idea, greater clarity of others’ positions, or a stronger sense of soli-
darity). In some cases, the win-lose orientation of destructive conflict stems from the fear
of losing. Parties attempt to defeat alternative proposals because they believe that if their
positions are not accepted they will lose resources, self-esteem, or the respect of others.
In other cases, win-lose interaction is sparked not by competitive motives, but by the
parties’ fear of working through a difficult conflict. Groups that rely on voting to reach
decisions often call for a vote when discussion becomes heated and the members do
not see any other immediate way out of a hostile and threatening situation. Any further
attempt to discuss the alternatives or to pursue the reasons behind people’s positions
seems risky. A vote can put a quick end to threatening interaction, but it also induces
 Introduction 11

a win-lose orientation that can easily trigger destructive cycles. Group members whose
proposals are rejected must resist a natural tendency to be less committed to the chosen
solutions and avoid trying to “even the score” in future conflicts.
Productive conflict interaction is sometimes competitive. Both parties must stand up
for their own positions and strive for understanding if a representative outcome is to be
attained. This may result in tension and hostility as they work through the issues, but it
should be regarded as a difficult path to a higher goal. Although parties in productive con-
flicts adhere strongly to their positions, they are also open to movement when convinced
that such movement will result in the best decision. The need to preserve power, to save
face, or to make their opponent look bad does not stand in the way of change. In contrast,
during destructive conflicts parties may become polarized, and the defense of a “noble,”
nonnegotiable position often becomes more important than working out a viable solution.
Of course, this description of productive and destructive conflict interaction is an
idealization. It is rare that a conflict exhibits all the constructive or destructive quali-
ties just mentioned. Most conflicts exhibit both productive and destructive interactions.
However, better conflict management will result if parties can sustain productive conflict
interaction patterns, and it is to this end that this book is dedicated.

I.5 JUDGMENTS ABOUT CONFLICT OUTCOMES

To this point we have focused on assessing conflict interaction. This is because we believe
it is important to know where a conflict is heading while we are in the midst of it.
But the outcomes of conflicts are also important. Parties must live with the outcomes,
and whether they accept and are satisfied with them determines whether the conflict is
resolved or continues to smolder, waiting for some future spark to set it off again.
The most obvious and most desirable outcome measure would give an objective
account of the gains and losses that result for each party. If these can be assessed in an
objective way for each party they can then be compared to determine how fair the out-
come of the conflict was and whether a better outcome was possible. We can determine
relative gains and losses in more or less objective terms if the outcome can be stated in
numerical terms. Some numerical measures use values that correspond to real things
(e.g., money or the number of hours in a day someone agrees to work), whereas others
simply measure value on an arbitrary scale such as the “utility” of an outcome to a party.
As desirable as it is, determining gains and losses is more difficult for outcomes that
cannot be reduced to numerical terms. For example, the outcome of a conflict between
a brother and sister over who gets the corner bedroom is difficult to quantify, though a
winner and loser can be identified immediately afterward—who got the bedroom? How-
ever, over the longer term, the “winner” may discover that he or she finds the room too
hot because the sun beats through the windows in the afternoon and too noisy because
it is right over the game room. Outcomes, such as bedrooms, are complicated to mea-
sure, and while there might be gains on some dimensions, there may be losses on other
dimensions. Whether there is an overall gain or loss depends as much on what aspects
parties choose to emphasize the actual values of the items. If the winner chooses to regard
the sun as cheerful (but hot!) and instead focuses on the nice furniture in the room, out-
comes are more favorable than if heat is the main emphasis. Moreover, as our example
illustrates, outcomes can change over time. What appears to be a fine outcome right after
the conflict is settled may turn out to be negative over the long run, and vice versa.
A second way to evaluate conflicts is in terms of the level of satisfaction people feel about
the resolution. One definition of an integrative resolution is that solution which all parties
12 Introduction

are most satisfied with. This criterion avoids some of the limitations of objective outcome
measures because we can always determine parties’ perceptions and evaluations, even when
there is no direct measure of outcomes. The satisfaction criterion also enables us to compare
outcomes—at least in relative terms—because parties may be more or less satisfied.
Two other judgments that can be made about conflict outcomes concern their fair-
ness. Two types of fairness, or social justice, have a bearing on evaluation of conflict out-
comes. Distributive justice refers to the fair allocation of resources among two or more
recipients. Procedural justice is concerned with the fairness of the process by which deci-
sions are made to resolve the conflict.
The answer to the key question regarding distributive justice—have outcomes been
allocated fairly?—depends on the value system we apply. Thompson (1998, p. 194) dis-
tinguished three value systems: (1) “The equality rule, or blind justice, prescribes equal
shares for all.” The U.S. legal system is an example of this value system. (2) “The equity
rule, or proportionality of contributions principle, prescribes that distribution should be
proportional to a person’s contribution.” A case in which it was decided that workers
who put in more hours on a project should get a greater share of the bonus earned
than should those who put in relatively little effort would be following the equity rule.
(3) “The needs-based rule, or welfare-based allocation, states that benefits should be pro-
portional to need.” Universities give out much of their financial aid based on this prin-
ciple. Exactly what is regarded as a just outcome will differ depending on which of these
three systems applies.
Judgments about procedural justice focus on the process by which outcomes are deter-
mined and concern whether this process is legitimate and fair. Consider the example of
grade appeals. Most colleges have specific procedures in place to handle student grade
appeals. In one college, there is a three-step process. The student must first talk to the
instructor. If this does not result in a satisfactory resolution, the student can then appeal
to the department chair. The next step is to take the appeal to a committee consisting
of three professors and four students. There are detailed rules specifying what types of
evidence are required and how the committee hearing will be held. The procedure allows
each appeal to be thoroughly considered. The final step involves judgment by the stu-
dent’s peers, who are in the majority on the committee that makes the final determina-
tion. The process is set up the way it is so that both students and faculty will agree that
there has been a fair hearing. Regardless of the outcome, if students and faculty believe
they have participated in a legitimate process, they are more likely to accept the outcome,
and they are also likely to have their faith in the “system” renewed. So, procedural justice
can be just as important as the actual outcome.
In evaluating the outcomes of conflict, it is important not to overemphasize one
of these four criteria—gains and losses, satisfaction, distributive justice, or procedural
justice—so much that we forget about the others. Each of the outcomes may cloud the
others. For example, an objectively good outcome for both parties may also be perceived
as unfair because the proper procedures were not followed. And an outcome that satisfies
both parties may be grossly unfair from the viewpoint of distributive justice. Ideally all
four criteria will be considered in evaluating the outcomes of a conflict.

I.6 PLAN OF THE BOOK

The key question this book addresses is: How does conflict interaction develop destruc-
tive patterns—radical escalation, prolonged or inappropriate avoidance of conflict
issues, inflexibility—rather than constructive patterns leading to productive conflict
 Introduction 13

management? A good way to understand conflict interaction is to think of parties in a

conflict as poised on a precipice. The crest represents productive conflict management
and the chasm below the downward spiral into destructive conflict. Maintaining a pro-
ductive approach to a conflict requires diligence and the ability to strike a careful bal-
ance among all of the forces that influence interpersonal conflict interaction. Managed
properly, these forces can be used to maintain a proper balance and to keep the conflict
on a constructive path. However, lack of attention to powerful dynamics surrounding
conflicts can propel them into developing a momentum that pushes the parties over the
edge.
This book considers several major forces that direct conflicts and examines the prob-
lems people encounter in trying to control these forces to regulate their own conflict
interactions. To sort out the most influential forces in moving conflicts in destructive
or constructive directions, we examine the major theoretical perspectives on commu-
nication and conflict. Chapter 1 offers an introduction to communication in conflict
centered on four properties of conflict interaction, each of which highlights key influ-
ences on conflict. Chapter 2 focuses on the inner experience of conflict—psychological
dynamics that influence conflict interaction, specifically emotion and social cognitive
processes that affect conflict. Chapter 3 then considers conflict interaction and explores
several processes that affect conflict.
Building on this theoretical foundation, we devote the next four chapters to under-
standing important forces that influence conflict interaction—styles, power, face-saving,
and climate—and how to work with each of them to encourage productive conflict man-
agement. Chapter 8 discusses conflict management. Chapter 9 turns to third party inter-
vention in conflicts and examines how third parties can facilitate constructive conflict
interaction.

I.7 SUMMARY AND REVIEW

What Is Conflict?
Conflict is interaction among parties who are interdependent and perceive incompat-
ibility with one another. It is important to recognize that conflicts can be driven by
perceptions, not merely by the objective situation. Interdependence plays a critical role
in conflict because it sets up tendencies to compete or cooperate that drive conflict
interaction.

What Are Important Arenas for Conflict?

Interpersonal conflicts occur in interpersonal relationships, small groups, organizations,
and intergroup settings. Each of these arenas differs in terms of the number of people
potentially involved in the conflict and in the type of interdependence among parties.
They have in common the fact that conflict in all four arenas is first and foremost a type
of interaction.

What Is the Role of Communication Media in Conflict?

Communication media influence how parties in the conflict can interact. Some media
carry more information than others and this can shape parties’ perceptions of one another,
sometimes in productive ways and sometimes in destructive ways. The impacts of media
on conflict depend on parties’ experience and skill at using them to communicate.
14 Introduction

What Is the Role of Interaction in Conflict?

Conflicts are constituted by interaction among parties in that conflicts only exist in the
moves and countermoves of parties. Conflicts unfold as parties act them out. This means
that conflict is never wholly under the control of any single party; all parties involved
have at least some degree of control over how the conflict is to be pursued over time. One
particularly strong force in conflict interaction is the tendency of behavioral cycles to
be self-reinforcing, such that competitive behavior begets competition in response, and
cooperative behavior prompts cooperative responses, and so on, in a repeating spiral.

Can Different Types of Conflict Be Distinguished?

Scholars have distinguished productive from destructive modes of conflict. In productive
conflicts, parties take flexible approaches and believe a mutually acceptable solution can
be developed. Destructive conflicts are characterized by inflexible behavior and attempts
to defeat the other party. In destructive conflicts, parties’ goals often shift from achieving
an acceptable outcome to defeating the other party, regardless of other considerations.
It is worth noting, however, that destructiveness and competitiveness are not synonyms.
Competition can occur in constructive conflicts; it just never leads parties to excesses.

What Are the Standards by Which Conflict Outcomes

Can Be Evaluated?
We can distinguish four different criteria that can be used to evaluate conflict outcomes—
objective gains/losses, participant satisfaction, distributive justice, and procedural jus-
tice. Because most conflicts are complex, it is desirable to use more than one of these
criteria to judge the quality of outcomes for participants.

What Are the Major Factors Influencing Conflict

Interaction?
As we will see in the remainder of this book, particularly important factors are conflict
styles and strategies, power, face-saving, and climate. Several other psychological and
social dynamics also play a role in conflicts, and we will consider them as well. One
moral of this book is that conflict is a complex phenomenon, and that no single factor is
the key to effective conflict management. Like all communication skills, conflict man-
agement requires us to be aware of the forces that influence conflict and to be capable of
working with those forces to channel conflicts in productive directions.

I.8 ACTIVITIES

1. Free associate conflict: Write down twenty words that describe conflict as you see it.
Now look over your list. What are the main themes in your list? What does it tell you
about how you view conflict? Have a friend look over the list and tell you how they
think you see conflict. What themes do they see in your list?
2. Think of a conflict you participated in. It can be one that was resolved sometime ago
or one you are currently involved in. What types of interdependence do you and the
other party have? Did media play a role in your conflict, and if so, how did media
affect your conflict? Was your interaction with the other party primarily productive
or destructive? What were the outcomes of the conflict?
REFERENCES

Abrams, D., Hogg, M. D., Hinkle, S., & Otten, S. (2005). The social identity perspective
on small groups. In M. S. Poole & A. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 99–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alberts, J. (1990). The use of humor in managing couples’ conflict interactions. In
D. Kahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 105–120). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Anchor.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and perfor-
mance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.
Antes, J., Folger, J. P., & DellaNoce, D. (2001). Transforming conflict interaction in the
workplace: Documented effects of the USPS REDRESS program. Hofstra Labor and
Employment Law Journal, 18, 385–398.
Apfelbaum, E. (1974). On conflicts and bargaining. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 103–156). New York: Academic Press.
Applegate, J. L., & Delia, J. G. (1980). Person-centered speech, psychological develop-
ment, and contexts of language use. In R. N. St. Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and
psychological contexts of language (pp. 245–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Johnson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence:
The relationship between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domes-
tic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50.
Bachman, G. E., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). An expectancy violations analysis of factors
affecting relational outcomes and communicative responses to hurtful events in dat-
ing relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 943–963.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Barash, D. P., & Webel, C. P. (2009). Peace and conflict studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barbuto, J. E., Phipps, K. A., & Xu, Y. (2010). Testing relationships between personality,
conflict styles and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(4),
434–447.
Bartos, O. J. (1970). Determinants and consequences of toughness. In P. Swingle (Ed.),
The structure of conflict (pp. 45–68). New York: Academic Press.
Bartunek, J. M., & Reid, R. D. (1992). The role of conflict in a second order change attempt.
In D. M. Kolb & J. M. Bartunek (Ed.), Hidden conflict in organizations (pp. 116–143).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Shepard, T. (1978). Sex-role identity, sex of other, and affective rela-
tionship as determinants of interpersonal conflict management styles. Sex Roles, 4,
813–824.
Baxter, L. A., Wilmot, W. W., Simmons, C. A., & Swartz, A. (1993). Ways of doing conflict:
A folk taxonomy of conflict events in personal relationships. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.),
Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 89–107). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazarova, N. N., Walther, J. B., & McLeod, P. L. (2011). Minority influence in virtual
groups: A comparison of four theories of minority influence. Communication Research,
39, 295–316.
Bazerman, M. H. (1983). A critical look at the rationality of negotiator judgement. Amer-
ican Behavioral Scientist, 27, 211–228.
Bazerman, M. H., Magliozzi, T., & Neale, M. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a com-
petitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 294–313.
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1983). Heuristics in negotiation: Limitations to dis-
pute resolution effectiveness. In M. H. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in
organizations (pp. 51–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Beer, J. E. (1986). Peacemaking and your neighborhood. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Behfar, K. J., & Thompson, L. L. (2007). Conflict within and between organizational
groups: Functional, dysfunctional, and quasifunctional perspectives. In K. J. Behar &
L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups (pp. 3–35). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Bercovitch, J. (2005). Mediation and the most resistant cases. In C. Crocker, F. O.
Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the nettle: Analyzing cases of intractable conflict
(pp. 99–122). Washington, DC: USIP.
Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.
Miller (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 450–507). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Bernard, S., Folger, J. P., Weingarten, H. R., & Zumeta, Z. (1984). The neutral mediator:
Value dilemmas in divorce mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 4, 61–74.
Berryman-Fink, C., & Brunner, C. C. (1987). The effects of sex of source and target on
interpersonal conflict management styles. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53,
38–48.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and the manage-
ment of organizational conflict. Communication Research, 15, 381–399.
Billig, M. (1976). The social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
Billikoff, G. (2004). Helping others resolve differences. Modesto: University of California.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., Shepard, H., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing intergroup conflict in industry.
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blomgren Bingham, L. (2010). Mediation at work: Transforming workplace conflict at
the U.S. postal service. In J. P. Folger, R. A. B. Bush, & D. DellaNoce (Eds.), Transfor-
mative mediation: A sourcebook (pp. 321–340). New York: Institute for the Study of
Conflict Transformation.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Jour-
nal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on
negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808–818.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task
and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311–344.
Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social
reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396–407.
Boulding, K. (1990). The three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The
role of the “strength” of HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.
Bower, B. (2007). Past impressions: Prior relationships cast a long shadow over our social
lives. Science News, 171, 363–365.
Bowers, J. W. (1974). Beyond threats and promises. Communication Monographs, 41, ix–xi.
Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in
negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410–424.
Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. (2003). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup con-
tact and social categorization. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Intergroup processes
(pp. 451–473). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Gender role, organizational status, and
conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 78–94.
Brown, B. R. (1977). Face-saving and face-restoration in negotiation. In D. Druckman
(Ed.), Negotiations (pp. 275–300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brummans, B. H., Putnam, L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2008).
Making sense of intractable multi-party conflict: A study of framing in four environ-
mental disputes. Communication Monographs, 75(1), 25–51.
Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Spatial relationships in small groups. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S.
Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory
and practice (pp. 85–96). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 240–299). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, A. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interac-
tion patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burrell, N. A., Buzzanell, P. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1992). Feminine tensions in conflict
management as revealed by metaphoric analysis. Management Communication Quar-
terly, 6, 115–149.
Bush, R. B. (2002). Substituting mediation for arbitration: The growing market for eval-
uative mediation, and what it means for the ADR field. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution
Law Journal, 3, 111–131.
Bush, R. B., & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through
empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bush, R. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to
conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butt, N. A., & Choi, J. N. (2010). Does power matter? Negotiator status as a moderator
of the relationship between negotiator emotion and behavior. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 21(2), 124–146.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Burrell, N. A. (1997). Family and workplace conflict: Examining met-
aphorical conflict schemas and expressions across conflict and sex. Human Communi-
cation Research, 24, 109–146.
Cahn, D. (1990). Confrontation behaviors, perceived understanding and relationship
growth. In D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 153–
166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and
collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69, 67–87.
Cai, D. I., & Drake, L. E. (1998). The business of business negotiation: Intercultural
perspectives. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 21 (pp. 153–189). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Canary, D. J. (2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to stra-
tegic choices. In J. Greene & B. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social
interaction skills (pp. 515–549). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach to
examining interpersonal conflict: Test of a longitudinal model. Communication
Research, 28, 79–104.
Canary, D. J., & Lakey, S. G. (2006). Managing conflict in a competent manner: A mind-
ful look at events that matter. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage hand-
book of conflict communication (pp. 185–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Canary, D. J., Lakey, S. G., & Sillars, A. L. (2013). Managing conflict in a competent man-
ner: A mindful look at events that matter. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 263–290). Los Angeles: Sage.
Canary, D. J., Spitzberg, B. H., & Semic, B. A. (1998). The experience and expression of
anger in interpersonal settings. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 189–213).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of
media richness explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.
Carnevale, P. J. (1986). Strategic choice in mediation. Negotiation Journal, 2, 41–56.
Carnevale, P. J., Conlon, C. E., Hanisch, K. A., & Harris, K. L. (1989). Experimental
research on the strategic-choice model of mediation. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, &
Associates (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third-party interven-
tion (pp. 344–367). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnevale, P. J., & Pegnetter, R. (1985). The selection of mediation tactics in public sector
disputes: A contingency analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 65–81.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. (1997). Good news about competitive people. In C. DeDreu &
E. Van DeViest (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 129–146). London: Sage.
Carnevale, P. J., Putnam, L. L., Conlon, D. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1991). Mediator behav-
ior and effectiveness in community mediation. In K. Grover Duffy, J. W. Grosch, &
P. V. Olczak (Eds.), Community mediation: A handbook for practitioners and researchers
(pp. 119–136). New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, M. (2010). Diversity by design: Creating cognitive conflict to enhance group
performance. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups
(pp. 95–111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caughlin, J. P., Basinger, E. D., & Sharabi, L. L. (2016). The connections between com-
munication technologies and relational conflict: A multiple goals and communica-
tion interdependence perspective. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal
conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 57–72). New
York: Routledge.
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and marital relationships.
In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication
(pp. 129–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caughlin, J. P., Vangelisti, A. L., & Mikucki-Enyart, S. (2013). Conflict in dating and mar-
ital relationships. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict
communication (2nd ed., pp. 161–186). Los Angeles: Sage.
Chertkoff, J. M., & Esser, J. K. (1976). A review of experiments in explicit bargaining.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 464–486.
Chigas, D. (2005). Negotiating intractable conflicts: The contributors of the unofficial
intermediaries. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. R. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the nettle:
Analyzing cases of intractable conflict. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.
Christensen, A., & Pasch, L. (1993). The sequence of marital conflict: An analysis of
seven phases of marital conflict in distressed and nondistressed couples. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 13, 3–14.
Chung-Yan, G. A., & Moeller, C. (2010). The psychosocial costs of conflict management
styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(4), 382–399.
Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Clegg, S. R. (2010). Organizational climate. In S. R. Clegg & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Interna-
tional encyclopedia of organizational studies (Vol. 3, pp. 1028–1030). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict:
Communication cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication,
55, 134–158.
Coleman, P. T., Goldman, J. S., & Kugler, K. (2009). Emotional intractability: Gender,
aggression and rumination in conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management,
29(2), 113–131.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct vali-
dation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 386–400.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus relationships in small claims dis-
putes. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 178–196). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Conrad, C. (1991). Communication in conflict: Style-strategy relationships. Communica-
tion Monographs, 58, 135–155.
Conrad, C., & Poole, M. S. (2012). Strategic organizational communication (7th ed.). Mal-
den, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Conrad, C., & Ryan, M. (1985). Power, praxis, and self in organizational communication
theory. In P. K. Tompkins & R. McPhee (Eds.), Organizational communication: Tradi-
tional themes and new directions (pp. 211–234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. (1979). The formation and persistence of attitudes that support
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-
group relations (pp. 149–159). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Cosier, R. A., & Ruble, T. L. (1981). Research on conflict handling behavior: An experi-
mental approach. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 816–831.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u:)!”:
A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family
Relations, 60, 150–162.
Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a
politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437–468.
Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. R. (2004). Taming intractable conflicts: Mediation
in the hardest cases. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.
Crocker, J., & Nuer, N. (2004). Do people need self-esteem? Psychological Bulletin, 130(3),
469–472.
Crockett, L. J., & Randall, B. A. (2006). Linking adolescent family and peer relationships
to the quality of young adult romantic relationships: The mediating role of conflict
tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 761–780.
Crohan, S. E. (1992). Marital happiness and spousal consensus on beliefs about marital
conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 89–102.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). The differential effects of trust and respect on
team conflict. In K. J. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups
(pp. 205–228). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Cupach, W. R., Canary, D., & Spitzberg, B. (2010). Competence in interpersonal conflict
(2nd ed.). Long View, IL: Waveland.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: Wiley.
Davidheiser, M. (2006). Conflict, mediation and culture: Lessons from the Gambia.
Peace and Conflict Studies, 33, 21–43.
De Dreu, C. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions,
and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In C. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand
(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 3–44).
New York: Laurence Erlbaum.
De Dreu, C. W., & Van Vianen, A. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309–328.
De Dreu, C. W., Weingart, L., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integra-
tive negotiations: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.
DellaNoce, D., Folger, J., & Antes, J. (2002). Assimilative, autonomous or synergistic
visions: How mediation programs in Florida address the dilemma of court connec-
tion. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 3, 11–38.
Deschamps, J. C., & Brown, R. (1983). Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict. Brit-
ish Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 189–195.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1962). Studies of interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Con-
flict Resolution, 6, 52–76.
Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., & van Woerkum, C.
(2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research:
A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62, 195–233.
Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knoblach, L. K. (2002). Interpersonal influence. In
M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.,
pp. 423–474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Distefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global
management. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 45–63.
Domenici, K. (1996). Mediation: Empowerment in conflict management. Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. W. (2001). Mediation: Empowerment in conflict management.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Donohue, W. A. (1989). Criteria for developing communication theory in mediation.
In M. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 71–91). New
York: Praeger.
Donohue, W. A. (1991). Communication, marital dispute and divorce mediation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Donohue, W. A. (2006). Managing interpersonal conflict: The mediation promise. In
J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication
(pp. 211–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donohue, W. A., Diez, M. E., & Hamilton, M. (1984). Coding naturalistic negotiation
interaction. Human Communication Research, 10, 403–425.
Donohue, W. A., Diez, M. E., & Stahle, R. B. (1983). New directions in negotiation
research. In R. W. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 249–279). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Donohue, W. A., & Kolt, R. (1992). Managing interpersonal conflict. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Douglas, A. (1962). Industrial peacemaking. New York: Columbia University Press.
Douglas, A. (2017, October 12). What’s more important to you: Being effective or being
right? Forbes, On-line post.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. R. (2003). Implicit and explicit attitudes:
Examination of the relationship between measures of intergroup bias. In R. Brown &
S. Gaertner (Eds.), Intergroup processes (pp. 175–197). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Duane, M. J. (1989). Sex differences in styles of conflict management. Psychological
Reports, 65, 1033–1034.
Ebert, R. J., & Wall, J. A. (1983). Voluntary adoption of negotiation processes. In M. Bazer-
man & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 91–113). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Edwards, R., Honeycutt, J. M., & Zagacki, K. S. (1988). Imagined interaction as an ele-
ment of social cognition. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 23–45.
Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel people
toward conflict. American Psychologist, 58, 182–192.
Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving con-
flicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.
Ellingson, T., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Promises, threats, and fairness. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/acb6/9e6955f82375e29c880f3489e58ac89ec360.
pdf
Ellis, D., & Fisher, B. A. (1975). Phases of conflict in small group development. Human
Communication Research, 1, 195–212.
Ellis, D., & Maoz, I. (2002). Cross-cultural argument interactions between Israeli-Jews
and Palestinians. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 181–194.
Elsayed-Ekhouly, S. M., & Buda, R. (1996). Organizational conflict: A comparative analy-
sis of conflict across cultures. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 71–81.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 24,
31–41.
Epstein, S. (1962). The measurement of drive and conflict in humans: Theory and exper-
iment. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 172–206). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.
Etzioni, A. (1967). The Kennedy experiment. Western Political Quarterly, 20, 361–380.
Fehr, B., Baldwin, M., Collins, L., Patterson, S., & Benditt, R. (1999). Anger in close
relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Personality and Social Psychology, 25,
299–312.
Feuille, P. (1979). Selected benefits and costs of compulsory arbitration. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 33, 64–76.
Fiedler, K., & Schmid, J. (2003). How language contributes to persistence of stereotypes
as well as other, more general, intergroup issues. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 261–280). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Filley, A. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Fink, E. L., & Chen, S. (1995). A Galileo analysis of organizational climate. Human Com-
munication Research, 21, 494–522.
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York: Portfolio.
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity con-
flicts. Academy of Management Review, 34, 32–55.
Fisher, R. (1969). International conflict resolution for beginners. New York: Harper and Row.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). Interpersonal communication in family rela-
tionships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication
(3rd ed., pp. 726–778). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fletcher, J. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Folberg, J., & Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: A comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts with-
out litigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Folger, J. P. (1991). Assessing community dispute resolution needs. In K. Grover Duffy,
J. W. Grosch, & P. V. Olczak (Eds.), Community mediation: A handbook for practitioners
and researchers (pp. 53–69). New York: Guilford Press.
Folger, J. P. (2001). Who owns what in mediation? In J. P. Folger & R. B. Bush (Eds.),
Designing mediation (pp. 55–60). New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict
Transformation.
Folger, J. P. (2008). Harmony and transformative mediation practice: Sustaining ideo-
logical differences in purpose and practice. North Dakota Law Review, 84(3), 823–860.
Folger, J. P. (2010). Transformative mediation and the courts: A glimpse at programs
and practice. In J. P. Folger, R. B. Bush, & D. DellaNoce (Eds.), Transformative medi-
ation: A sourcebook (pp. 165–180). New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict
Transformation.
Folger, J. P. (2016). Transformative team interventions: Using the transformative media-
tion framework for team building. In J. H. Waldeck & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Consulting
that matters: A handbook for scholars and practitioners (pp. 171–195). New York: Peter
Lang Publishers.
Folger, J. P., & Bernard, S. E. (1985). Divorce mediation: When mediators challenge the
divorcing parties. Mediation Quarterly, 10, 5–23.
Folger, J. P., & Bush, R. B. (2014). Transformative mediation: A self-assessment. Interna-
tional Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, 2, 20–34.
Folger, J. P., Bush, R. B., & DellaNoce, D. (Eds.). (2010). Transformative mediation: A source-
book. New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Green-
berg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine. New York:
Moulton Publishers.
French, R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Stud-
ies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Freud, S. (1949). An outline of psychoanalysis (J. Strackey, trans.). New York: Norton.
Frisby, B. N., & Westerman, D. (2010). Rational actors: Channel selection and rational
choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,
970–981.
Frost, J. H., & Wilmot, W. (1978). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Fry, D. P., & Fry, C. B. (1997). Culture and conflict-resolution models: Exploring alterna-
tives to violence. In D. P. Fry & K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolu-
tion: Alternative to violence (pp. 9–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gaelick, L., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. (1985). Emotional communication in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1246–1265.
Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003). Experiencing diversity, conflict,
and emotions in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 413–440.
Garner, J., & Poole, M. S. (2013). Perspectives on workgroup conflict and communica-
tion. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communica-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 321–347). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (1998). Assessing emotionality in organizational conflicts.
Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 280–302.
Gaylin, W. (2003). Hatred: The psychological descent into violence. New York: Public Affairs.
Geist, P. (1995). Negotiating whose order? Communicating to negotiate identities and
revise organizational structures. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations
(pp. 45–64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukomo, M. (2001).
Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict
episodes in the U.S. and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1059–1074.
Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 2, 141–148.
Gibbons, P. A., Bradac, J. J., & Busch, J. D. (1992). The role of language in negotiations:
Threats and promises. In L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negoti-
ation (pp. 156–175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Giles, D., & Wiemann, J. (1987). Language, social comparison and power. In C. R.
Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 350–384).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glen, E. S. (1981). Man and mankind: Conflict and communication between cultures. Nor-
wich, NJ: Ablex.
Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.
Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Goffman, E. (1957). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Goldman, B. M., Cropanzano, R., Stein, J. H., Shapiro, D., Thatcher, S., & Ko, J. (2008).
The role of ideology in mediated disputes at work: A justice perspective. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 210–233.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2000). Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigat-
ing face threat. Communication Monographs, 67(1), 1–19.
Gonzalez-Romi, V., & Hernandez, A. (2014). Climate uniformity: Its influence on team
communication quality, task conflict, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 99, 1042–1058.
Goodwin, M. H. (1982). Processes of dispute resolution among urban black children.
American Ethnologist, 9, 76–96.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden.
Gormly, J., Gormly, A., & Johnson, C. (1972). Consistency of sociobehavioral responses
to interpersonal disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 221–224.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigation. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and
marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gottman, J. M, Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness
and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(1), 5–22.
Gottman, J. M., Driver, J., Yoshimoto, D., & Rushe, R. (2002). Approaches to the study of
power in violent and nonviolent marriages, and in gay male and lesbian cohabiting
relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments
in the study of couple interaction (pp. 323–347). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottman, J. M., & LeClair, J. (2006). The ten lessons to transform your marriage: America’s
love lab experts share their strategies for strengthening your relationship. New York: Random
House.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a
couple will divorce: Exploratory analyses using a 14-year longitudinal data. Family
Processes, 41(1), 83–96.
Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2013). What makes love last? New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Wildcat strike. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
Goulston, M. (2010). Just listen. New York: American Management Association.
Gouran, D. S. (2010). Overcoming sources of irrationality that complicate working in
decision-making groups. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult
groups (pp. 137–152). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (2003). Effective decision-making and problem solving
in groups: A functional perspective. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, &
L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory and practice (pp. 27–38). Los
Angeles: Roxbury.
Gowan, D. E. (2010). The bible on forgiveness. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
Greatbatch, D., & Dingwall, R. (1989). Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observa-
tions on a strategy used by divorce mediators. Law and Society Review, 23, 613–641.
Greenberg, L. (2016, July 31). Meet Moxie Marlinspike, the anarchist bringing encryption
to all of us. Wired, 85–91, 104–105.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Gross, J. A., & Greenfield, P. A. (1986). Arbitral value judgements in health and safety
disputes: Management rights over worker’s rights. Buffalo Law Review, 34, 645–691.
Gross, M. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Alberts, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and
communication competence in task-oriented dyads. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 32, 249–270.
Guerrero, L. K. (2013). Emotion and communication in conflict interaction. In J. G. Oet-
zel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 105–132).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups.
Human Relations, 7, 367–381.
Hall, J. (1969). Conflict management survey: A survey on one’s characteristic reaction to and
handling of conflicts between himself and others. Monroe, TX: Teleometrics International.
Hall, J., & Watson, W. H. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group deci-
sion-making performance. Human Relations, 23, 299–317.
Halperin, E. (2013). Emotion, emotion regulation and conflict resolution. International
Society for Research on Emotion, 6(1), 68–76.
Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hawk, G. (2001). Transcending transgression: Forgiveness and reconciliation. In W. Wil-
mot & J. Hocker (Eds.), Interpersonal conflict (pp. 293–317). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hebert, C., Sfarlea, A., & Blumenthal, T. (2013). Your emotion or mine: Labelling feel-
ings alters emotional face perception—an ERP study on automatic and intentional
affect. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 378–389.
Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preferences as a function of conflict inten-
sity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710.
Hewitt, J. P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review, 40, 1–11.
Hilgard, E., & Bower, G. (1966). Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hiltrop, J. M. (1985). Mediator behavior and the settlement of collective bargaining
disputes in Britain. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 83–99.
Hiltrop, J. M. (1989). Factors associated with successful labor mediation. In K. Kressel,
D. G. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third
party intervention (pp. 241–262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 15, 417–433.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In
M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes
(pp. 56–85). Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, M. (1992). Phase structures in negotiation. In L. Putnam & M. Roloff (Eds.),
Communication and negotiation (pp. 83–105). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holsti, O. R. (1971). Crisis, stress and decision-making. International Social Science Jour-
nal, 23, 53–67.
Holtgraves, T. (1991). Interpreting questions and replies: Effects of face threat, question
form, and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(1), 15–24.
Hornsey, M. J. (2005). Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the
face of group criticism. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 301–334.
Howard, C. (2011). The organizational ombudsman: Origins, roles and operations: A legal
guide. Washington, DC: ABA Section of Dispute Resolution.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64.
Hunger, J. D., & Stern, L. W. (1976). An assessment of the functionality of the superordi-
nate goal in reducing conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 591–605.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness
as predictors of subordinates satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117–125.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and
measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.
Ivy, D. K., & Backlund, P. (1994). Exploring genderspeak: Personal effectiveness in gender
communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jameson, J. K. (2001). Employee perceptions of the availability and use of interest-based,
rights-based, and power-based conflict management strategies. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 19, 163–196.
Janeway, E. (1980). Powers of the weak. New York: Morrow-Quill.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of group-think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making. New York: Free Press.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team development,
and contextual support variables. Personal Psychology, 50, 877–904.
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective
knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision
Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual con-
flict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,
11, 56–73.
John-Eke, E., & Akintokunbo, O. (2020). Conflict management as a tool for increasing
organizational effectiveness: A review of the literature. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(5), 299–311.
Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants
and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–343.
Johnson, N. J., & Klee, T. (2007). Passive-aggressive behavior and leadership styles in
organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(2), 130–142.
Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., & Jones, R. G. (1963). Tactics of ingratiation among leaders and
subordinates in a status hierarchy. Psychological Monographs, 77, 120–144.
Jones, R. E., & Melcher, B. H. (1982). Personality and preference for modes of conflict
resolution. Human Relations, 35, 649–658.
Jones, R. E., & White, C. S. (1985). Relationships among personality, conflict resolution
styles, and task effectiveness. Group and Organization Studies, 10, 152–167.
Jones, T. (2001). Emotional communication in conflict. In W. E. Eadie & P. E. Nelson
(Eds.), The language of conflict and resolution (pp. 81–104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kalayjian, A., & Paolutzian, R. F. (Eds.). (2009). Forgiveness and reconciliation. New York:
Springer.
Karambayya, R., & Brett, J. M. (1989). Managers handling disputes: Third party roles and
perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 687–704.
Karambayya, R., & Brett, J. M. (1994). Managerial third parties: Intervention strategies,
process, and consequences. In J. P. Folger & T. Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation:
Communication research and perspectives (pp. 175–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interac-
tion patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 18, 267–294.
Kaufman, S., & Duncan, G. T. (1989). Third party intervention: A theoretical framework.
In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 273–289).
New York: Praeger.
Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals and message production
as revealed in a sequential analysis of conflict interactions. Human Communication
Research, 33, 27–47.
Kellerman, K., & Shea, C. (1996). Threats, suggestions, hints, and promises: Gaining
compliance efficiently and politely. Communication Quarterly, 44, 145–165.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H., Cunningham, J., Grishman, J., Lefebvre, L., Sink, C., & Yablon, G. (1978).
Sex differences in comments made during conflict within close heterosexual pairs. Sex
Roles, 4, 473–492.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
Kim, M. S., & Leung, T. (2000). A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review
and critical synthesis. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 23 (pp. 227–269).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. A., & Fragale, A. L. (2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 30, 799–822.
Kim, Y. Y. (2013). The identity factor in intercultural conflict. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-
Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 639–660).
Los Angeles: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y., & Chen, D. (2010). Information, perspective, and judgements about self in
face and dignity cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 537–550.
King, D. E. (2008). The personal is patrilineal: Namus as sovereignty. Identities: Global
Studies in Culture and Power, 15, 317–342.
Kipnis, D. (1990). Technology and power. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkerson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:
Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.
Kochan, T. A., & Jick, T. A. (1978). The public sector mediation process: A theory and
empirical examination. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 209–241.
Koerner, A. (2013). Family conflict communication. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 211–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kolb, D. (1983). The mediators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kolb, D. (1986). Who are organizational third parties and what do they do? In R. J.
Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organiza-
tions (pp. 207–278). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kolb, D., & Bartunek, J. M. (Eds.). (1992). Hidden conflict in organizations. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Kolb, D., & Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Do managers mediate or even arbitrate? Negotiation
Journal, 1, 379–388.
Komorita, S. S. (1977). Negotiating from strength and the concept of bargaining strength.
Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 7, 65–79.
Korabik, K., Baril, G., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers’ conflict management style and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating effect of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 405–420.
Kozan, M. K. (1991). Interpersonal conflict management styles of Jordanian managers.
In K. Avruch, P. W. Black, & J. A. Scimecia (Eds.), Conflict resolution: Cross-cultural per-
spectives (pp. 85–105). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kozan, M. K. (1997). Culture and conflict management: A theoretical framework. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 338–360.
Kramer, R. M., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Trust and intergroup negotiation. In R. Brown &
S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes
(pp. 431–450). Oxford: Blackwell.
Krauss, E. S., Rohlen, T. P., & Steinhoff, P. G. (Eds.). (1984). Conflict in Japan. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Kraybill, R. (2004). Facilitation skills for interpersonal transformation. In A. Austin,
M. Fischer, & N. Ropers (Eds.), Transforming ethnopolitical conflict (pp. 209–226). Weis-
baden, Germany: Verlag.
Kressel, K., Pruitt, D. G., & Associates (Eds.). (1989). Mediation research: The process and
effectiveness of third party intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kritek, P. B. (1994). Negotiating at an uneven table. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group deci-
sion-making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication
Research, 26, 558–590.
Kurdeck, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent,
and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 705–722.
Kusa, D., Saltsman, A., & Gamaghelyan, P. (2010). Mediating history, making peace:
Dealing with the messy stuff in the conciliation process. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The
handbook for working with difficult groups (pp. 251–274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lakey, S. G., & Canary, D. J. (2002). Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to partner
as critical factors in understanding interpersonal communication competence and
conflict strategies. Communication Monographs, 69, 217–235.
Lam, J. A., Rifkin, J., & Townley, A. (1989). Reframing conflict: Implications for fairness
in parent-adolescent mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 7, 15–31.
Lane, C. (2009). The surprising history of passive-aggressive personality disorder. The-
ory & Psychology, 19(1), 55–70.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2010). The downside of communication:
Complaining cycles in group discussions. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for work-
ing with difficult groups (pp. 33–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lemmon, J. A. (1985). Family mediation practice. New York: Free Press.
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of
Social Issues, 32, 21–47.
Lieberman Baker, L., & Fraser, C. (2005). Facilitator core competencies as defined by the
international association of facilitators. In S. Schuman (Ed.), Handbook of group facili-
tation (pp. 459–472). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Face-work: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human
Communication Research, 17, 415–450.
Lindskold, S., Betz, B., & Walters, P. S. (1986). Transforming competitive or cooperative
climates. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 99–114.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Long, J., Long, N., & Whitson, S. (2016). The angry smile: The psychological study of passive-aggressive
behavior in families, schools and workplaces. Hagerstown, MD: The LSCI Institute.
Long, W., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict resolu-
tion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new
product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Siponen, M. (2016). Why do adults engage in cyber-
bullying on social media? Information Systems Research, 27, 962–986.
Lukasic, V. J. (2001). Predictors of the willingness to use forgiveness as a coping strategy in ado-
lescent friendships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University, Detroit,
MI.
Lukens, A. (2010). Working without rules: A team in need of a different picture. In
S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups (pp. 153–168). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mackey, R. A., & O’Brien, B. A. (1998). Marital conflict management: Gender and ethnic
differences. Social Work, 43, 128–141.
Markey, P. M., Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2003). Complementarity of interper-
sonal behaviors in dyadic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1082–1090.
Mather, L., & Yngvesson, B. (1980–1981). Language, audience and the transformation of
disputes. Law and Society Review, 15, 775–821.
McFarland, R. G., Challagalla, G. N., & Shervani, T. A. (2006). Influence tactics for effec-
tive adaptive selling. Journal of Advertising, 70, 103–117.
McGillicuddy, N. B., Pruitt, D. G., Welton, G. L., Zubek, J. M., & Peirce, R. S. (1991).
Factors affecting the outcome of mediation: Third party and disputant behavior. In K.
Grover Duffy, J. W. Grosch, & P. V. Olczak (Eds.), Community mediation: A handbook for
practitioners and researchers (pp. 137–149). New York: Guilford Press.
McLaughlin, M. L. (1984). Conversation: How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Rosenstein, N. E. (1983). Account sequences in conver-
sations between strangers. Communication Monographs, 50, 102–125.
McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. San
Francisco: Barrett-Kohler.
McRae, B. (1998). The art of creating and claiming value. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (1985). The transformation of disputes by lawyers: What the dis-
pute paradigm does and does not tell us. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2, 25–44.
Merry, S. E., & Silbey, S. S. (1984). What do plaintiffs want? Reexamining the concept of
dispute. Justice System Journal, 9, 151–178.
Messman, S. J., & Canary, D. J. (1998). Patterns of conflict in personal relationships.
In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal relationships
(pp. 121–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgression. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The
dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 217–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal.
Harvard Business Review, 43, 123–129.
Mikolic, J. M., Parker, J. C., & Pruitt, D. G. (1997). Escalation in response to persistent
annoyance: Groups versus individuals and gender effects. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 151–163.
Miles, E. W. (2010). The role of face in the decision not to negotiate. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 21(4), 400–414.
Miller, J. B. (1991). Women’s and men’s scripts for interpersonal conflict. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 15–29.
Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: Theoretical and
empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 47–68.
Montes, C., & Rodriguez, D. (2012). Affective choices of conflict management styles.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 6–18.
Morley, I. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1977). The social psychology of bargaining. London:
Allen and Unwin.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York: Academic Press.
Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. (2000). The role of honor-related
values in the elicitation, experience, and communication of pride, shame, and anger:
Spain and the Netherlands Compared. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
833–844.
Mumby, D. (2013). Critical theory and postmodernism. In L. L. Putnam & D. Mumby
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication (pp. 101–127). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mura, S. S. (1983). Licensing violations: Legitimate violations of Grice’s conversation
principle. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure and
strategy (pp. 101–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Musser, S. J. (1982). A model for predicting the choice of conflict management strategies
by subordinates in high-stakes conflicts. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 29, 257–269.
Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1986). Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Compar-
ing expert and amateur decision making on a novel task. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 38, 305–317.
Newell, S. E., & Stutman, R. K. (1988). The social confrontation episode. Communication
Monographs, 55, 266–285.
Newell, S. E., & Stutman, R. K. (1991). The episodic nature of social confrontation. In J. A.
Andersen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 359–392). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nichols, W. C. (1996). Treating people in families: An integrative perspective. New York:
Guilford.
Nicotera, A. M. (1994). The use of multiple approaches to conflict: A study of sequences.
Human Communication Research, 20, 592–621.
Nicotera, A. M., & Dorsey, L. K. (2006). Individual and interactive processes in organi-
zational conflict. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict
communication (pp. 293–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Noll, D. (2003). Peacemaking: Practicing at the intersection of law and human conflict. Tel-
ford, PA: Cascadia Publishers.
Nordin, S. M., Sivapalan, S., Bhattacharyya, E., Hashim, H., Fatimah, W., Ahmad, W., &
Abdullah, A. (2014). Organizational communication climate and conflict management
in an oil and gas company. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1046–1058.
North, R. C., Brody, R. A., & Holsti, O. (1963). Some empirical data on the conflict spiral.
Peace Research Society Papers, I, 1–14.
Northrup, T. (1989). The dynamic of identity in personal and social conflict. In L. Kreis-
berg, T. Northrup, & S. Thorson (Eds.), Intractable conflicts and their transformation
(pp. 55–82). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Oakes, P. (2003). The root of all evil in intergroup relations? Unearthing the categoriza-
tion process. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Intergroup processes (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Blackwell.
Oetzel, J. (1998). The effects of ethnicity and self-construals on self-reported conflict
styles. Communication Reports, 11, 133–144.
Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2008). An analysis of the relationships among
face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four culture
investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 382–403.
Oetzel, J., Meares, M., & Fukumoto, A. (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural work
group communication. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Hen-
man (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory and practice (pp. 239–252). Los Ange-
les: Roxbury.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R.
(2001). Face and face-work in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Ger-
many, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235–258.
Okhuysen, G., & Richardson, H. A. (2007). Group conflict as an emerging state: Tempo-
ral issues in the conceptualization and measurement of disagreement. In K. J. Beh-
far & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups (pp. 145–177). Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Olekalns, M., Putnam, L., Weingart, L. R., & Metcalf, L. (2008). Conflict processes and
conflict management. In C. K. De Dreu & L. I. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict
and conflict management in organizations (pp. 81–114). New York: Laurence Erlbaum.
Oliner, S. (2008). Altruism, intergroup apology, forgiveness and reconciliation. St. Paul, MN:
Paragon House.
Olson, L. N., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2004). “If you hit me again, I’ll hit you back:” Conflict
management strategies of individuals experiencing aggression during conflicts. Com-
munication Studies, 55, 271–285.
Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2003). Stereotypes: Content, structures, processes, and con-
text. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup
processes (pp. 22–44). Oxford: Blackwell.
Orbe, M. P., Everett, M. A., & Putman, A. L. (2013). Interracial and interethnic conflict
and communication in the United States. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 661–685). Los Angeles: Sage.
Osgood, C. E. (1959). Suggestions for winning the real war with communism. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 3, 295–325.
Osgood, C. E. (1962a). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Osgood, C. E. (1962b). Perspectives on foreign policy (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Pacific
Books.
Papa, M. J., & Natalie, E. J. (1989). Gender, strategy selection, and satisfaction in inter-
personal conflict. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 260–272.
Paul, G. (2016). A bona fide group perspective of restorative justice. In P. M. Kellett &
T. G. Matyok (Eds.), Transforming conflict through communication in personal, family and
working relationships (pp. 117–129). New York: Lexington Books.
Peachey, D. E. (1989). What people want from mediation. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, &
Associates (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party interven-
tion (pp. 300–321). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1989). Divorce mediation: Reflections on a decade of
research. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.), Mediation research: The process
and effectiveness of third party intervention (pp. 9–30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, M. S., & Werner-Wilson, R. J. (2011). Couples and computer-mediated communi-
cation: A closer look at the affordances and use of the channel. Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Journal, 40, 120–134.
Phillips, E., & Cheston, R. (1979). Conflict resolution: What works? California Manage-
ment Review, 21, 76–83.
Phillips, S. U. (1990). The judge as third party in American trial-court conflict talk. In
A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 197–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1994). Conflict frames of reference: Implications for
dispute processes and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 193–205.
Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural processes. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 12, 296–320.
Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organizational climates. In R. D. McPhee &
P. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions
(pp. 79–108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of
decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323–356.
Popejoy, B., & McManigle, B. (2002). Managing conflict with direct reports. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Pruitt, D. G. (1971). Indirect communication and the search for agreement in negotia-
tion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 205–239.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiating behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki
(Ed.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35–50). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pruitt, D. G. (2008). Conflict escalation in organizations. In C. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gel-
fand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 245–
266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Pruitt, D. G., & Johnson, D. F. (1970). Mediation as an aid to face saving in negotiation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 239–246.
Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique,
synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392.
Pruitt, D. G., McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L., & Fry, W. R. (1989). Process of medi-
ation in dispute settlement centers. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.),
Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (pp. 368–393).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict; interpersonal conflict; problem solving; psy-
chological aspects. New York: Random House.
Pruitt, D. G., Rubin, J., & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settle-
ment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Putnam, L. L. (1990). Reframing integrative and distributive bargaining: A process per-
spective. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on nego-
tiation in organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 3–30). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Putnam, L. L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In
J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication
(pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L. (2009). Exploring the role of communication in transforming conflict sit-
uations. In G. Galanes & W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Eds.), Socially constructing communication
(pp. 189–209). Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press.
Putnam, L. L. (2010). Communication as changing the negotiation game. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 325–335.
Putnam, L. L. (2013). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication.
In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication
(pp. 1–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Folger, J. P. (1988). Communication, conflict and dispute resolution:
The study of interaction and the development of conflict theory. Communication
Research, 15, 349–359.
Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. (1982a). The role of communication in bargaining. Human
Communication Research, 8, 262–280.
Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. (1982b). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining
interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 171–191.
Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam,
K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549–599).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational con-
flicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communi-
cation yearbook 6 (pp. 629–652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., Wilson, S., Waltman, M. S., & Turner, D. (1986). The evolution of case
arguments in teachers’ bargaining. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23,
63–81.
Quinn, R. W., & Dutton, J. E. (2005). Coordination as energy in conversation. Academy
of Management Review, 30, 36–57.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 369–376.
Raven, B., & Kruglanski, A. (1970). Conflict and power. In P. Swingle (Ed.), The structure
of conflict (pp. 69–109). New York: Academic Press.
Raver, J. L., & Barling, J. (2008). Workplace aggression and conflict: Constructs, com-
monalities, and challenges for the future. In C. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.),
 The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 211–244). New
York: Laurence Erlbaum.
Raver, J. L., & Chadwick, I. C. (2010). Interpersonally hostile work-groups: Precipitat-
ing factors and solutions. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult
groups (pp. 77–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, differ-
ent remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional
injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59, 31–64.
Reich, N. M., & Wood, J. T. (2003). Sex, gender and communication in small groups.
In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group
communication: Theory and practice (pp. 218–229). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Reicher, S. (2003). The psychology of crowd dynamics. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 182–208). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Rice, R. E., & Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Information and communication technologies in
organizations. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organiza-
tional communication (pp. 49–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Social status and group structure. In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 352–375). Oxford: Blackwell.
Riggs, C. J. (1983). Communication dimensions of conflict tactics in organizational
settings: A functional analysis. In R. W. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7
(pp. 517–531). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roberton, T., Daffen, M., & Bucks, R. (2012). Emotional regulation and aggression.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 72–82.
Roberts, L. J., & Krokoff, L. J. (1990). A time series analysis of withdrawal, hostility, and
displeasure in satisfied and dissatisfied marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
52, 95–105.
Rogan, R. G. (2006). Conflict framing categories revisited. Communication Quarterly, 54,
157–173.
Rogan, R. G., & LaFrance, B. H. (2003). An examination of the relationship between
verbal aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals.
Communication Quarterly, 51, 458–469.
Rogers, L. E., & Cummings, J. A. (2017). Relational communication control. In C. A. Van-
Lear & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Researching interactive communication behavior: A sourcebook
of methods and measures (pp. 93–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E. (1987a). Communication and conflict. In C. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of communication science (pp. 484–535). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E. (1987b). Communication and reciprocity within intimate relationships. In
M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communica-
tion research (pp. 11–38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E., & Berger, C. R. (Eds.). (1982). Social cognition and communication. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E., & Campion, D. E. (1985). Conversational profit-seeking: Interaction as
social exchange. In R. L. Street, Jr. & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in com-
municative behavior (pp. 161–189). London: Edward Arnold.
Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The
reluctance to speak one’s mind. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communi-
cation perspective (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. E. (2000). Conflict management through avoidance: Withholding
complaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In S. Petronio (Ed.),
Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 151–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roloff, M. E., & Miller, C. W. (2006). Social cognitive approaches to understanding inter-
personal conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. T. Toomey (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of conflict communication (pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E., & Soule, K. P. (2002). Interpersonal conflict: A review. In M. L. Knapp & J.
A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 475–428). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E., Soule, K. P., & Carey, C. M. (2001). Reasons for remaining in a relationship
and responses to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
18, 362–385.
Roloff, M. E., & Wright, C. N. (2013). Social cognition and conflict. In J. G. Oetzel &
S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 133–160).
Newbury Park: Sage.
Ross, M. H. (1993). The culture of conflict: Interests, interpretations and disputing in compar-
ative perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ross, R. G., & DeWine, S. (1988). Communication messages in conflict: A message-fo-
cused instrument to assess conflict management styles. Management Communication
Quarterly, 1, 389–413.
Roth, S. (1993). Speaking the unspoken: A work-group consultation to reopen dialogue.
In E. Imber-Balck (Eds.), Secrets in families and family therapy (pp. 268–291). New
York: Norton.
Rothbart, M. (2003). Category dynamics and the modification of outgroup stereotypes.
In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup
processes (pp. 45–64). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New
York: Academic Press.
Rubin, L. (1983). Intimate strangers. New York: Harper and Row.
Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 143–155.
Rummel, R. J. (1976). Understanding conflict and war (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. E., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interde-
pendence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenom-
ena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance
(pp. 115–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sambamurthy, V., Poole, M. S., & Kelly, J. (1992). The effects of variations in capabilities
of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups. Information Systems
Research, 3, 224–251.
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Knopf Double-
day Publishing Group.
Sarat, A. (1988). The “new formalism” in disputing and dispute processing. Law and
Society Review, 21, 695–715.
Savage, G. T., Blair, J. D., & Sorenson, R. L. (1989). Consider both relationships and sub-
stance when negotiating strategically. The Academy of Management Executive, 3, 37–48.
Sawatsky, J. (2008). Justpeace ethics. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Scarf, M. (1987). Intimate partners: Patterns in love and marriage. New York: Ballantine
Books.
Scheff, T. J. (1967). Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological
Review, 32, 32–46.
Scheffert, D. R., & Laeger-Hagemeister, M. (2010). Facilitating multi-cultural groups. In
R. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups (pp. 55–75). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scheidel, T., & Crowell, L. (1979). Discussing and deciding. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scherer, K. R., Clark-Polner, E., & Mortillaro, M. (2011). In the eye of the beholder? Uni-
versality and cultural specificity in the expression and perception of emotion. Interna-
tional Journal of Psychology, 46, 401–435.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational behavior
(9th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Schneider, C. D. (2000). What it means to be sorry: The power of apology in mediation.
Mediation Quarterly, 17, 265–280.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Mojzisch, A., & Vogelgesang, F. (2008). Dissent as a facilitator: Indi-
vidual- and group-level effects on creativity and performance. In C. W. De Dreu &
M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations
(pp. 149–177). New York: Laurence Erlbaum.
Schuman, S. (2010). The handbook for working with difficult groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, R. M. (2002). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shailor, J. G. (1994). Empowerment in dispute mediation. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shapiro, D. (2016). Negotiating the unnegotiable: How to resolve your most emotionally
charged conflicts. New York: Viking.
Shapiro, D., Drieghe, R., & Brett, J. (1985). Mediator behavior and the outcome of medi-
ation. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 101–114.
Sharkey, W. F. (1988, May). Embarrassment: A review of literature. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association Conference, New Orleans.
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse: A metaanalytic review
of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458.
Shenkar, O., & Ronen, S. (1987). The cultural context of negotiations: The implication
of Chinese interpersonal norms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 263–275.
Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework.
In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6,
pp. 141–190). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sheppard, B. H., Blumenfeld-Jones, K., & Roth, J. (1989). Informal third partyship: Stud-
ies of everyday conflict intervention. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.),
Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party intervention (pp. 166–189).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search
for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
Sheppard, B. H., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (1988). Procedural justice from the
third party perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 629–637.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup
conflict and cooperation: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book
Exchange.
Sherriff, C., & Wilson, S. (2010). The hero’s journey: Helping inflexible groups—an
inflexible facilitators—get unstuck. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for working with
difficult groups (pp. 323–338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shih, H., & Susanto, E. (2010). Conflict management styles, emotional intelligence, and
job performance in public organizations. International Journal of Conflict Management,
21(2), 147–168.
Shubert, J., & Folger, J. P. (1986). Learning from higher education. Negotiation Journal, 2,
395–406.
Silbey, S. S., & Merry, S. E. (1986). Mediator settlement strategies. Law and Policy, 8, 7–32.
Sillars, A. L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communi-
cation Monographs, 47, 180–200.
Sillars, A. L., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the qual-
ity of family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family interaction
(pp. 413–466). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tac-
tics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative”
distinction. Human Communication Research, 9, 83–95.
Sillars, A. L., & Parry, D. (1982). Stress, cognition and communication in interpersonal
conflicts. Communication Research, 9, 201–226.
Sillars, A. L., & Weisberg, J. (1987). Conflict as a social skill. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 140–171).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. New York: Free Press.
Simon, D. (2010). Transformative mediation for divorce: Rising above the law and the
settlement. In J. P. Folger, R. B. Bush, & D. DellaNoce (Eds.), Transformative medi-
ation: A sourcebook (pp. 249–270). New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict
Transformation.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 102–111.
Singer, L. R. (1990). Settling disputes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smart, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1977). Designs for crisis decision units. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 640–657.
Smith, K. K. (1989). The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of
splitting and triangulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 1–20.
Sonnenschein, N., & Bekerman, Z. (2010). Who is more humane? An ethnographic
account of power struggles in Jewish-Palestinian dialogue encounters. Peace and Con-
flict Studies, 17(2), 307–346.
Souza, T., Vizenor, N., Sherlip, D., & Raser, L. (2016). Transforming conflict in the class-
room. Best practices for facilitating difficult dialogues and creating an inclusive com-
munication climate. In P. M. Kellett & T. G. Matyok (Eds.), Transforming conflict through
communication in personal, family and working relationships (pp. 373–395). New York:
Lexington Books.
Speakman, J., & Ryals, L. (2010). A re-evaluation of conflict theory for the management
of multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes. International Journal of Conflict Manage-
ment, 21(2), 186–201.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2013). Intimate partner violence. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 187–210). Newbury Park: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D., & Cupach, W. (1994). A Competence-Based Approach to
the Study of Interpersonal Conflict. In D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships
(pp. 183–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Staw, B., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational
behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G., & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me? Separating the
people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 44(2), 362–369.
Sternberg, R. J., & Soriano, L. J. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 47, 115–126.
Stokes, R., & Hewitt, J. P. (1976). Aligning actions. American Sociological Review, 41, 838–849.
Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (2001). Restorative justice and civil society. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Street, R. L. Jr., & Cappella, J. N. (1985). Sequence and pattern in communication behav-
ior: A model and commentary. In R. L. Street & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and
pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 243–276). London: Edward Arnold.
Stulberg, J. B. (1987). Taking charge/managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Stutman, R. K. (1988). Denying persuasive intent: Transparently false disavowals of intention
to influence. Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association con-
vention, San Diego.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 321–326.
Tabassi, A., Bryde, D., Abdullah, A., & Argyropoulou, M. (2017). Conflict management
style of team leaders in a multi-cultural environment in the construction industry.
Procedia Computer Science, 121, 41–46.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. (2003). Foundations and evidence for an interaction-based
approach to conflict negotiation. International Journal for Conflict Management, 14,
213–232.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1970). Threats and promises. In P. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict
(pp. 155–191). New York: Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory
research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological
research (pp. 3–22). New York: Academic Press.
Thomas, K. W. (1975). Conflict and conflict management. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand-
book of industrial psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument.
Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an “intent” model of conflict management
among principle parties. Human Relations, 30, 1089–1102.
Thompson, L. (1998). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Tingley, J. (2001). The power of indirect influence. New York: Amazon Books.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low
marital adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306–319.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict:
An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22,
187–225.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Takai, J. (2006). Explaining intercultural conflict: Promising
approaches and directions. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 691–723). Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K. K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W., Wright, T. J., & Oetzel, J. G.
(2000). Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 47–81.
Tjosvold, D. (1995). Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness:
Learning from crisis. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness
and decision making in organizations (pp. 79–112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tjosvold, D., & Huston, T. L. (1978). Social face and resistance to compromise in bar-
gaining. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 57–68.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. E. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship,
motivations, actions, and consequences. International Journal of Conflict Management,
13(2), 142–164.
Tracy, K. (1991). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & R. Robinson (Eds.), The hand-
book of language and social psychology (pp. 209–226). Chichester: Wiley.
Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological
safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223–247.
Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Brown, K. A. (2003). Facing violence: The path of
restorative justice and dialogue. Money, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Urch Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. B. (2007). Confronting members who break norms: The
influence on team effectiveness. In K. J. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in
organizational groups (pp. 229–259). Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems
to cut the costs of conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vangelisti, A. L., Daly, J. A., & Rudnick, J. R. (1991). Making people feel guilty in conver-
sations: Techniques and correlates. Human Communication Research, 18, 3–39.
Vindelov, V. (2007). Mediation: A non-model. Copenhagen, DK: Djof Publishing.
Volkan, V. D. (1994). The need to have enemies and allies. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Volkema, R. J. (1981). An empirical investigation of problem formulation and problem-purpose
expansion (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Volkema, R. J. (1983). Problem formulation in planning and design. Management Sci-
ence, 29, 639–652.
Vuchinich, S. (1984). Sequencing and social structure in family conflict. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 47, 217–234.
Vuchinich, S. (1986). On attenuation in verbal family conflict. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 49, 281–293.
Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In A. D.
Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Intervening in intrateam conflict. In K. J. Beh-
far & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups (pp. 261–280). Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Waldron, B. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wall, J. A., & Rude, D. E. (1989). Judicial mediation of settlement negotiations. In
K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, & Associates (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effective-
ness of third party intervention (pp. 190–212). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wall, V. D., Galanes, G. J., & Love, S. B. (1987). Small, task-oriented groups, conflict, con-
flict management, satisfaction, and decision quality. Small Group Behavior, 18, 31–55.
Wall, V. D., & Nolan, L. L. (1987). Small group conflict: A look at equity, satisfaction, and
styles of conflict management. Small Group Behavior, 18, 188–211.
Wallace, J., Popp, E., & Mondore, S. (2006). Safety climate as a mediator between foun-
dation climates and occupational accidents: A group-level investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(3), 681–688.
Walton, R. (1969). Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third party consultation.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wanberg, C. R., Bruce, L. W., & Gavin, M. B. (1999). Perceived fairness of layoffs among
individuals who have been laid off: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 52,
59–84.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication.
New York: Norton.
Weingart, L. R., Hyder, E. B., & Prietula, M. J. (1996). Knowledge matters: The effect of
tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 1205–1217.
Weisinger, J. Y., & Salipante, P. E. (1995). Toward a method of exposing hidden assump-
tions in multicultural conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 6,
147–170.
Welton, G. L. (1991). Parties in conflict: Their characteristics and perceptions. In K. G.
Duffy, J. W. Grosch, & P. V. Olczak (Eds.), Community mediation: A handbook for practi-
tioners and researchers (pp. 105–118). New York: Guilford Press.
Wenzel, M., Turner, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2010). Is forgiveness an outcome or initiator
of sociocognitive process? Rumination, empathy, and cognitive appraisal following a
transgression. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 369–377.
Wenzlaff, R. M., & Luxton, D. D. (2003). The role of thought suppression in depressive
rumination. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 27, 293–308.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Developing managerial skills. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wilson, S. (1992). Face and facework in negotiation. In L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff
(Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 176–205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wohn, D. Y., & Spottswood, E. L. (2016). Reaction to other generated face threats: Reac-
tions and responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 187–194.
Worchel, S., Anderoli, V. A., & Folger, R. (1977). Intergroup cooperation and intergroup
attraction: The effect of previous interaction and outcome of combined effort. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 131–440.
Worthington, E. L. (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: CRC Press.
Yelsma, P., & Brown, C. (1985). Gender roles: Biological sex and predisposition to con-
flict management. Sex Roles, 12, 731–747.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem-solving. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 17, 229–239.
Zartman, L. W., & Faure, G. (2005). Escalation and negotiation in international conflicts.
Washington, DC: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2008). Perceived face threat of honest but hurtful evaluative
messages in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 72(1), 19–39.
Zhang, Y. B., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M. L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management
styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72, 71–91.
Zhao, X., Sosik, V. S., & Cosley, D. (2012). It’s complicated: How romantic partners use
Facebook. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX.
Zillman, D. (1990). The interplay of cognition and excitation in aggravated conflict. In
D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 187–208). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zupnik, Y. K. (2000). Conversational interruptions in Israeli-Palestinian “dialogue”
events. Discourse Studies, 2, 85–110.