Third party interventions designed to de-escalate intergroup conflict can be differentiated by their underlying assumptions regarding conflict. Process-oriented approaches such as third-party consultation try to de-escalate conflict by taking a subjective emphasis and focusing on the basic relationship between parties, their attitudes, and their perceptions. Traditional third-party interventions, particularly mediation, try to de-escalate conflict by focusing more on the substantive issues in dispute. This study examines how mediation and consultation operate differently within an intergroup conflict simulation. The Intergroup Conflict Simlatllion (Grant, Fisher, Hall, & Keashly, 1990) creates a moderately intense resource and value conflict which involves two equal power groups negotiating for points in a dispute over land divisions. A consultation or a mediation intervention was introduced midway through intergroup negotiations. The results showed that the two interventions did not have a differential impact on settlement of land divisions. Consultation and mediation groups achieved similar point outcomes and were equally committed to and satisfied with the settlement. In contrast, the consultation intervention changed the relationship between the groups. In particular, the groups expressed more positive attitudes and perceptions about the other group and perceived the intergroup relationship as more positive and collaborative after intervention. The implications of these results for third party intervention in intergroup conflict are discussed.
BARTUNEK, J., BENTON, A., & KEYS, C.Third party intervention and the bargaining behaviour of group representatives. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1975, 19, 532-557.
2.
BERCOVITCH, J.Social conflicts and third parties: Strategies of conflict resolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984.
3.
BIGONESS, W.The impact of initial bargaining position and alternative modes of third party intervention in resolving bargaining impasse. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1976, 17, 185-198.
4.
BLAKE, R. R., SHEPARD, H. A., & MOUTON, J. A.Managing intergroup conflict in industry. Houston, TX: Gulf, 1964.
5.
BOULDING, K. E.Conflicl and defense. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
6.
BURRELL, N. A., DONOHUE, W. A., & ALLEN, M.Gender-based perceptual biases in mediation. Communication Research, 1988, 15(4), 276-294.
7.
BURTON, J. W.Conflict and communication: The use of controlled communications in international relations. London: Macmillan, 1969.
8.
BURTON, J. W.Decision-making processes and conflict. In G. B. J. Bomers and R. B. Peterson, (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., 1982.
9.
DEUTSCH, M.The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.
10.
DOOB, L.Resolving conflict in Africa: The Fermeda workshop. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970.
11.
DOUGLAS, A.Industrial peacemaking. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.
12.
FISHER, R.Dealing with conflict among individuals and nations: Are there common principles?Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 1986, 6, 143-153.
13.
FISHER, R. J.Third party consultation: A method for the study and resolution of conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1972, 16, 67-94.
14.
FISHER, R. J.Social psychology: An applied approach. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982.
15.
FISHER, R. J.Third party consultation as a method of intergroup conflict resolution: A review of studies. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1983, 27, 301-334.
16.
FISHER, R. J., & KEASHLY, L.Third party interventions in intergroup conflict: Consultation is not mediation. Negotiation Journal, 1988, 4, 381-393.
17.
FOGG, R. W.Dealing with conflict: A repertoire of creative, peaceful approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1985, 29, 330-358.
18.
FOLBERG, J., & TAYLOR, A.Mediation: A comprehensive guide to solving conflicts without litigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1984.
19.
GLASL, F.The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers and R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing, 1982.
20.
GRANT, P. R., FISHER, R. J., HALL, D. G., & KEASHLY, L.The intergroup conflict simulation. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag Publishers, 1990.
21.
HALL, D. G. The Development of a Comprehensive Simulation of Intergroup Conflict. Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, 1986.
22.
HILL, B. J.An analysis of conflict resolution techniques: From problem-solving workshops to theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1982, 26, 109-138.
23.
HILTROP, J., & RUBIN, J. Z.Effects of intervention mode and conflict of interest in dispute resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 665-672.
24.
ISARD, W., & SMITH, C.Conflict analysis and practical conflict management procedures: An introduction to peace science. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1982.
25.
JOHNSON, D., & TULLAR, W.Style of third party intervention, face-saving and bargaining behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 8, 319-330.
26.
KEASHLY, L.Gender and conflict: What does psychological research tell us? In A. Taylor and J. B. Miller (Eds.), Gender and conflict. Virginia: Hampton Press. In press.
27.
KEASHLY, L., & FISHER, R. J.Toward a contingency approach of third party intervention in regional conflict: A Cyprus illustration. International Journal, 1990, 45, 424-453.
28.
KELMAN, H. C., & COHEN, S. P.Reduction of international conflict: An interactional approach. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing Co., 1979.
29.
KOLB, D. M.The mediators. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1983.
30.
KRESSEL, K.Labor mediation: An exploratory survey. Albany, NY: Association of Labor Mediation Agencies, 1972.
31.
LEWICKI, R. J., & SHEPPARD, B. H.Choosing how to intervene: Factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1985, 6, 49-64.
32.
LIPSHITZ, R., & SHERWOOD, J. J.The effectiveness of third party process consultation as a function of the consultant's prestige and style of intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1978, 14, 493-509.
33.
McGUIRE, W.Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. II). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1985.
34.
MERRY, S. E.Mediation in non-industrial societies. In K. Kressel, D. G. Pruitt, and Associates. Mediation research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
35.
MITCHELL, C. R.Peacemaking and the consultants role. New York: Nichols Publishing Co., 1981.
36.
PEABODY, D.Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 1967, 7(4).
37.
PREIN, H.A contingency approach for conflict intervention. Group and Organization Studies, 1984, 9(1), 81-102.
38.
PRUITT, D., & KRESSEL, K.The mediation of social conflict: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 1985, 41, 1-10.
39.
PRUITT, D., & RUBIN, J. Z.Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House, 1986.
40.
RUBIN, J. Z.Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87, 379-391.
41.
RUBIN, J. Z.Dynamics of third party intervention: Kissinger in the Middle East. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981.
42.
SHAPPARD, B. H.Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 1984, 6, 141-190.
43.
SMITH, W. P.Conflict and negotiation: Trends and emerging issues. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1987, 17(7), 641-677.
