The effectiveness of training individuals to utilize Rapoport's “region of validity” technique (1960) as well as Gibb's “supportive” types of communication (1961) in reducing cognitive conflict was examined with a sample of 122 students participating in a version of Hammond's cognitive conflict paradigm (1966). Message content analysis was employed to discern the effect of various message types on conflict reduction. Analysis indicates that training in use of the “region of validity” technique and “supportive” types of communication reduces confict and that problem-oriented messages are positively associated with conflict reduction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, E. R. (1977) “Communication resolution,” pp. 287–304 in R. C. Huseman, C. M. Logue, and D. L. Freshley (eds.) Readings in Interpersonal and Organizational Communication.Boston: Holbrook.
2.
Brehmer, B. (1971) “Effects of communication and feedback on cognitive conflict.”Scandinavian J. of Psychology12: 205–216.
3.
BREHMER, B. (1969) “The roles of policy differences in inconsistency in policy conflict” (Program on Cognitive Processes; Report No. 118). University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Sciences.
4.
Brehmer, B., H. AZUMA, K. HAMMOND, L. KOSTRON, and D. VARNOS (1970) “A cross-national comparison of cognitive conflict.”J. of Cross-Cultural Psychology1: 5–20.
5.
Brehmer, B. and K. HAMMOND (1977) “Cognitive factors in interpersonal conflict,” pp. 79–103 in D. Druckman (ed.) Negotiations.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
6.
Bresnahan, J. and M. SHAPIRO (1966) “A general equation and technique for the exact partitioning of chi-square contingency tables.”Psych. Bull.66: 252–262.
7.
DRUCKMAN, D. (1976) Personal correspondence, dated November 4, 1976.
8.
Druckman, D. (1973) Human Factors in International Negotiations: Social-Psychological Aspects of International Conflict. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
9.
Druckman, D. (1968) “Prenegotiation experience and dyadic conflict resolution in a bargaining situation.”J. of Experimental and Social Psychology4: 367–383.
10.
Druckman, D. (1967) “Dogmatism, prenegotiation experience, and simulated group representation as determinants of dyadic behavior in a bargaining situation.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology6: 279–290.
11.
Druckman, D., R. ROZELLE, and K. ZECHMEISTER (1977) “Conflict of interest and value dissensus: two perspectives,” pp. 105–131 in D. Druckman (ed.) Negotiations.Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
12.
Gibb, J. (1961) “Defensive communication.”J. of Communication11: 141–148.
13.
Hammond, K. (1977) “Facilitation of interpersonal learning and conflict reduction by on-line communication,” pp. 170–179 in J. White (ed.) The General Systems Paradigm: Science of Change and Change of Science.Washington, DC: George Washington University.
14.
Hammond, K. (1965) “New directions in research on conflict resolution.”J. of Social Issues21: 44–66.
15.
Hammond, K., F. TOOD, M. WILKINS, and T. MITCHELL (1966) “Cognitive conflict between persons: application of the ‘lens model’ paradigm.”J. of Experimental Social Psychology2: 343–369.
16.
HATFIELD, J. (1976) “The construction of categories for analyzing superior-subordinate interactions.” Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue University.
17.
Johnson, J. (1972) Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Keppel, G. (1973) Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Miller, M., B. BREHMER, and K. HAMMOND (1970) “Communication and conflict reduction: a cross-cultural study.”Int. J. of Psychology5: 75–87.
20.
Rapoport, A. (1960) Fights, Games and Debates. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
