Do a version of .ppt file for windows 8.Cooperation and Conflict: Taxonomy of References 2010 to 2015
This document is designed to accompany the presentation for
"An overview of the recent psychological literature on cooperation and conflict" presented at the meeting of the Conflict Research Society (University of Kent, Canterbury, September 2015) (Blumberg, Zeligman, Appel, & Tibon, 2015). Copies available on request from
The taxonomy covers about 124 records retrieved from the PsycINFO database having within the title or subject descriptors both the word cooperation and the word conflict - published from 2010 to May 2015, excluding dissertations.
Largely following the headings and subheadings from a chapter on "Cooperation, competition and conflict resolution" (Blumberg, Hare, Kent, & Davies, 2012, chapter 1 and also chapter 2), the three main sections deal with works primarily covering (a) cooperation, (b) conflict and its resolution and (c) both (a) and (b).
A note about the link with recently collected personality data, drafted by Shira Tibon, is also included below, slightly before the References list.
Possibly a main finding from this taxonomy relates to the very wide diversity of the specific topics covered, and moreover with a variety of research methods but a preponderance of field studies.
Key Works
Coleman (2011) (see PowerPoint file); Deutsch (2011) (see PowerPoint file); also: Balliet and Van Lange (2013) (a meta-analysis supporting the view that the positive link between trust and cooperation is stronger for larger degrees of conflict and also for interpersonal more than for intergroup conflict); David Johnson and Johnson (2011); Kurzban (2013) (on the evolution of altruism in humans, and interdisciplinary review covering eg kinship, reciprocity, punishment and morality); and Schlauch (2014) (reviewing Norenzayan's book on how religion transformed cooperation and conflict).
Cooperation
Laboratory study. Zhao (2012) on effects of renegotiation on conflict resolution related to pay schemes.
Field studies. Averbeck and Hermans (2010) on aspects of child protection; Azevedo (2011) on joint cross-cultural ventures between organizations; Clare (2014) on concessions in international cooperation; Herrmann (2014) on psychoanalytic institutions; Rodrigues (2012) on climate change and cross-community relationships; and Schneider (2014) on international cooperation and the European Deveopment Fund.
Theory. See previous paragraph for Rodrigues (2012) and Schneider (2014).
Cooperation v. Competition
Field studies. Donna Johnson (2013) on relations between homeschooling families and public institutions; and Chen, Qin and Vogel (2012) on a field survey finding that cooperative response increases team performance only when need for cognition resource interdependence is high. Also two quantitative field studies: by Wegner and Mohr (2010) on goal conflicts in amateur football; and Wong, Wei and Tjosvold (2014) on transformational leadership fostering cooperation between government and businesses in dealing with regulations.
Theoretical papers. De Dreu (2012) and De Dreu, Shalvi, Greer, Van Kleef and Handgraaf (2012) on neurobiological and evolutionary aspects.
Conflict and/or Conflict Resolution
Laboratory studies. Flynn (2011) on resolving conflict from parties failing to take account of each other's motives. Harinck, Shafa, Ellemers and Beersma (2013) on "homour cultures" (common in the Middle East) handling conflict (in a roleplaying study) more constructively than "dignity cultures" (eg Anglo-Americans). Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Massey and Piercy (2011) on alignment of rewards between sales and marketing managers. Stein (2013) found that the mere act of recalling majority stances [compared to recalling one's counter-majority views] is associated with weaker subjective effects, potentially leaving one cooperatively conforming even with illogical majority views. Velez, Mahood, Ewoldsen and Moyer-Gusé (2014) on the aggression-reducing effects of playing even a violent video game cooperatively with an outgroup member. And Vlah, Lonari and Vorkapi (2011) looked at vocational school student's value orientations as predictors in social conflicts.
Of general import, Nauen and Hillbrand (2015) reviewed how international cooperation can help to prevent conflict.
Field studies. Arieli, Friedman and Knyazev (2012) apply Rothman's ARIA framework (Antagonism, Resonance, Invention and Action) to an inter-communal Jewish-Arab case study. Baillergeau (2014) on conflict and rationality in treating homeless people in public spaces in Montreal. Bonanni, Valsecchi and Natoli (2010) on conflicts between groups of free-ranging dogs. Bowman aand Woods (2010) on interest groups and compacts among American states. Flynn (2011) (see under laboratory stuies, above). Füchsle-Voigt (2012) on child-related conflicts associated with separation and divorce. Gottesman and Beckerman Jaffe (2010) on conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Gournaris and Aubrecht (2013) on cross-cultural conflicts between deaf and hearing people, and competent treatment. Greenberg and Sullivan (2012) on conflicts related to shared custody. Holobinko and Waring (2010) on conflictand reconiliation among dolphins. Kappmeier, Redlich and Knyazev (2012) on ARIA approach (see Arieli et al. above) applied to eastern Europe. Lee (2013) on intra-personal conflict between selfishness and altruism.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Massey and Piercy (2011) (see above under lab studies). Linares, Rhodes and Montalto (2010) on conflict management for coparenting in foster care. Lute and Gore (2014) on the role of social identity in intergroup conflict. Maoz (2012) on planned reconciliation encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Meunier, Delaplace and Chapuisat (2010) on reproductive conflicts among ants. Miller, Rothman, Ciaravolo and Haney (2012) on ARIA (see above) and a programme for creatively engaging conflict and cultivating cooperation in multi-faith contexts. Soenen, Goethals, Spriet, D'Oosterlinck and Broekaert (2013) on crisis intervention in a thereapeutic centre for youngsters. Stump (2010) on resolution of doctor-patient disagreements. Van de Klomp, Stronks, Adang and Van den Brink (2014) on a relational perspective for conflict between Dutch police and citizens of Moluccan descent. Weiss and Hughes (2010) on cooperation and conflict across boundaries within organizations. Winsor, Manolis, Kaufmann and Kashyap (2012) on conflicts in the Meineke car-care franchise system.
Quantiative field studies: Garaigordobil (2012) found that cooperative conflict-solving among adolescents was predicted by social sensitivity, a good self-concept and strong empathetic concern. Lu, Tjosvold, Shi and Wang (2012) studied the value of cooperative goals in work-family conflicts among Chinese dual-career parents.
Case studies among field research: McLauchlin and Pearlman (2012) looked at the effects of repression on cooperation within ethnic minority movements. Porter, Lyon, Adamu and Obafemi (2010) on conflict and cooperation in an African market place.
Theory. Flynn (2011) (see under lab studies, above). Hancock (2014) considers automation in the context of human-machine conflict and cooperation. Haidt (2012) analyses "why good people are divided by politics and religion".
David Johnson and Johnson (2012) described rules of cooperation for achieving restorative justice in the classroom. Keranen and Prudencio (2014) discuss interpersonal conflict associated with teacher collaboration. For McLauchlin and Pearlman (2012), see just above under case studies; for Miller et al. (2012) see the main listings under field studies above. O'Neill, Allen, and Hastings (2013) provide meta-analyses related to team conflict building on distinctions among task, relationship and process conflicts. Rothman (2012c) elaborates on matters related to ARIA (noted in several places above). Rusch (2014) supplies a paradigm for altruistic behaviour in "ancestral human intergroup conflict". For Stump (2012) see under field studies, above. Ji, Xu and Mace (2014) model cooperation and conflict in human kinship systems. Van Kleef (2010) discusses the effects of anger on conflict and negotiation.
Misc. In addition to the above studies related to conflict & its resolution, two papers in the present sample are concerned specifically with communication. In a field experiment Koloff and Mennill (2011) studied "aggressive responses to playback of solos and duets in a Neotropical antbird". K. G. Kugler and Brodbeck (2014) looked at integrative complexity and perceptions of conflict management and justice in political and corporate contexts. Finally, with reference to guidelines and processes, Badawi, Sipes, and Sternberg (2012) discuss an ARIA perspective (see above) with regard to "methodological insights and dilemmas".
Explicit Coverage of both Cooperation and Conflict/Resolution
Laboratory studies. Puck and Pregernig (2014) looked at the effect of task conflict and (intra-team) cooperation on performance of teams. Spisak, Homan, Grabo and Van Vugt (2012) found that individuals prefer leaders whose facial cues (masculine/competitive v. feminine/cooperative) are consistent with the cooperative or competitive needs of their intergroup situation.
Of general import. Strassmanna, Quellera, Avise and Ayala (2011) explore relevant aspects of human evolution.
Field studies. Boros, Meslec, Cureu and Emons (2010) examines the effects (in 125 groups) of group composition on conflict management styles. Chalamon (2011) described consumer activism for making drugs available to patients suffering from a rare disease, thus documenting resistance combined with cooperation. Chevrier (2011) analysed cultural differences that challenge cooperation in cross-cultural projects. De Zulueta (2015) in the context of international negotiations looked at neuro-developmental and other aspects of progression from conflict to peace and cooperation. Egels-Zandén and Hyllman (2011) compared Swedish unions and NGOs in terms of conflict and cooperation. Dye (2013) studied historical trends in cooperation and conflict among native Americans. Helms, Cahan and Helms (2012) studied regional differences in cooperation and conflict in the desert ant. Heery, Williams and Abbott (2012) looked at the interaction between UK labour unions and other civil society organisations, finding "a complex pattern of cooperation, conflict and indifference". Kasymov (2011) studied the effects among states of unilateral diversions of freshwater drainage. Kneip (2013) studied productive and negative effects of conflicts between corporations and their critics involved in protest campaigns. Lawrence and Kaufmann (2011) examined successful v. combative relationships in retail franchising. Ley and Rato Barrio (2010) discussed the roles of sport in post-conflict situations. Nicholls (2013) studied cleavages and reconciliation among various immigrant groups and networks of immigrants and rights organisations.
Perry (2012) studied cooperation and conflict among capuchin monkeys. Phillips (2015) has provided a contemporary review of Rex and Moore's Community and Conflict, studying ethnic segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. Pruett and Donsky (2011) discuss interventions that facilitate coparenting (eg where separated/divorced parents take care of their children). Rat, Van Dijk, Covas and Doutrelant (2015) studied the evolution of dominance hierarchies and cooperation among passerine birds. Reimers (2012) has considered rivalry v. a joined-up approach between mental health services for children and adults. Rothman's (2012b) edited collection From identity-based conflict to identity-based cooperation covers the ARIA approach (see above) to creatively engaging with, and transforming, strife. Salzman (2012) examines ethnoconflict in Hawaii and its development into cooperation. Ståhl, Svensson and Ekberg (2011) studied inter-organizational cooperation in Sweden. Staudinger (2011) studied contemporary use of sociometry and psychodrama in schools and the relationships among practitioners, teachers and groups of children/adolescents. Svirsky (2011) looked at case examples of the difficulties and dynamics associated with intense ethnic conflict and reconciliation. Urick and Crandall (2012) applied an ARIA approach (see above) to understanding and transforming conflicts between GPs and specialists in an American medical school. Waller (2012) provides survey results related to cooperative v. confrontational coparenting (cf. Pruett and Donsky, 2011, noted above). Yang (2012) empirically evaluated transformational leadership in cooperative conflict resolution in customer service activities in Taiwan. Zhuang, Xi and Tsang (2010) looked at the positive effects of emotional closeness on noncoercive power and perceived cooperation among Chinese firms involved in marketing.
Theory (Primarily)
Axel (2011) observes "conflictual cooperation" in the control room of a district heating system among the personnel hierarchy. Gorelik, Shackelford and Salmon (2011) provide an evolutionary framework for familial conflict and cooperation citing eg fitness and parental investment. Cikara and Paluck (2013) reviewed some negative features of uncritical coordinated action and some positive outcomes of social conflict including eg social and economic benefits such as potential reduction of racial prejudice. Delton and Sell (2014) examine the evolution of motivational systems, for example as underlie cooperation and conflict in dealing with predators. Gould and Desjardins (2014) focus on the effects of passage of time in affecting the conflict/cooperation ratio in employment situations. Krupp, DeBruine and Jones look at social evolution including the value of kin recognition systems. Enosh and Ben-Ari (2010) have provided a qualitative study of knowledge production as manifest in the interaction between researchers and participants. Fuentes (2013) looks at complexity and diversity in evolutionary theory of eg cooperation and conflict in human behaviour. Galluccio and Beck (2015) focus on the importance of parties' cognitions as regards international cooperation and conflict.
Hugh-Jones and Zultan (2013) look at cooperation among international groups with regard to defence. Norenzayan (2013) studied how religion has historically (and pre-historically) transformed cooperation and conflict. Rothman (2012a) describes theory and practice of "action evaluation", a method that uses social and computer technology to define, promote, and assess success in complex social interventions. Sääksvuori (2014) delineates intergroup conflict, ostracism and the evolution of human cooperation under unrestricted migration. Schulze and Seuffert (2013) apply organisational psychology to conflicts and cooperation in science and technology. Sluzki (2010) delineates six stages between (interpersonal) conflict and reconciliation ranging from confrontation to, penultimately, collaboration. Smith, Houser, Leeson and Ostad (2014) report a lab experiment supporting a paradigm whereby conflict is less likely if its costs include a strong arms-dependent component. Tyler (2012, 2013) focuses on justice as a social judgment essentially created by groups to render conflict less likely.
Simulation
Yokota and Nakanishi (2011) have provided "a thought experiment through evolutionary simulation on ingroup cooperationand conformity in situations of intergroupconflict".
Collective Dilemmas
Kieslich and Hilbig (2014) designed an experiment supporting the view that people generally cooperate in social dilemmas unless there is an unusually strong pull to the contrary. Liu and Hao (2011) apply a dual-process approach to relevant decision making, contrasting "give some" and "take some" situations. Mulder and Nelissen (2010) studied the effect ofcooperationrules and self-sacrificing leadership on moral norms in social dilemmas. Sanna, Parks and Chang (2012) looked at "mood" as an input to competitive and cooperative goals in mixed-motive social dilemmas. And Kugler and Bornstein
(2013) designed computer-controlled experiments to study interactions between individuals and non-cooperative groups.
Negotiation
Two lab studies: Aaldering and De Dreu (2012) looked at "why hawks fly higher than doves" in intragroupconflictin representative negotiation. And Aaldering, Greer, Van Kleef and De Dreu (2013), in a social-dilemma experiment on negotiation, distinguished between situations in which representatives with a pro-social-value orientation were or were not self-sacrificing.
Two field studies: Conlon (2012) edited a special issue ofNegotiation andConflictManagement Researchon justice,conflict and negotiation, emphasising examples of restorative justice. And Pedersen (2012) analysed how construction work typically follows "conflictual cooperation" between different professions rather than workers simply following engineers and architects' drawing systematically.
A theoretical paper: as noted above in the main section on conflict resolution Van Kleef (2010) discusses the effects of anger on conflict and negotiation.
Coalitions, Bargaining and Games
Several recent papers from the ongoing substantial literature on lab studies of eg Prisoners Dilemma Games (PDG) have dealt explicitly with both cooperation and conflict. Abele, Stasser and Chartier (2010) examined "conflictand coordination in the provision of public goods". Järvelä, Kivikangas, Kätsyri and Ravaja (2014) found a strong physiological linkage (electrocardiographic and electrodermal activity signals) in 41 same-gender dyads in various gaming conditions "but the linkage scores did not differentiate betweenconflictmodes". Locey and Rachlin (2012) found that, in a PDG programmed with "tit-for-tat" responses (ie tending to lead to self-perpetuating cooperation or defection, delay in the response attenuated the reciprocation effect; conclusion, perhaps unsurprising to those familiar with reinforcement principles, is that "in real world tit for tatconflicts, the decreasing delay of reciprocation or retaliation may foster mutual cooperationas effectively as (or more effectively than) the more usual tactic of increasing magnitude of reciprocation or retaliation".
Beltrán (2012) studied the effects of contextual variables in strategic behavior in public-goods games. And Garcia and Van den Bergh (2011) used PDG and computer simulation paradigms, finding that parochialism (ie by parties who cooperate only with members of their own group) is selected for by groupconflictas well as assortment [in a genetic sense, separate genes for separate traits are passed independently of one another from parents to offspring); discrimination allows forcooperationinside groups to withstand
regular interactions with outgroup members.
One theoretical paper in particular cuts across studies of coalitions, bargaining and games. Rozen (2013) developed a multilateral game in which "myopic actions of players may lead to the break up of groups in the short run, but can ultimately bring about a situation from which a strictly self-enforcing allocation can be reached".
False Positive
Very unusually, only one retrieval from the search (ie less than 1%) seemed largely irrelevant to the present purpose. That was a paper by Barrett (2014), interesting in its own right, as to how career experiences contribute to scientific achievement.
Personality Variables (note drafted by Shira Tibon)
In general, findings from both laboratory and field studies have consistently demonstrated the importance of personality variables in negotiation processes and have explored a variety of personality factors that relate to whether participants are (or see themselves as) positively or negatively interdependent and whether their actions are likely to be effective or "bungling", thus rendering negotiations productive or nonproductive.
A wide range of empirical studies connects personality traits of decisionmakers to their patterns of negotiation (e.g., Blumberg, 1990; Tetlock, 1984a, 1984b, 1985). Most of these studies refer to the personality dispositions and effectiveness of those involved directly in the negotiation dialogue (e.g., political leaders). Nevertheless, studies that explore personality structures and processes in non-elite high functioning people, as the basic unit of observation are quite infrequent, although these people's voice is influential with respect to constructive vs. destructive conflict resolution. In this regard, individuals' different personalities are likely to affect whether they tend to perceive a situation as more episodic or continuous (Greenhalgh & Gilkey, 1993). Such differences in time perspective, which seem to result from more fundamental variance in personality structures, lead to differences in negotiating behaviours (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Likewise, the capacity to integrate external and internal experiences reflects an organizational scheme shaped by personality structure and bears implications for optimal negotiation approach.