Abstract
Organisational authorities must sometimes manage heated multiparty conflicts in uncontrolled settings. In these dynamic conflicts, satisfying all parties is rarely achievable, and thus fostering experiences of procedural justice, or fair process, is crucial. However, few studies have examined how organisational authorities’ situated communicative activities create such experiences. Previous research has identified perspective-getting (eliciting perspectives), perspective-taking (understanding perspectives), and, to a lesser degree, perspective-integrating (coordinating perspectives) as potentially important. Still, we do not know how these activities are done, whether they are associated with perceived procedural justice, nor their underlying mechanisms. We propose the PGTI model of perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating to conceptualise how organisational authorities’ communicative activities can create procedural justice interactionally turn-by-turn. This model was explored in a field study of 58 police trainees attempting to resolve a heated conflict in a public park. Combining observational measures (body-worn video) with self-report surveys, we used a test-explore design to (1) test the statistical associations between perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating with stakeholder experiences of procedural justice and (2) explore qualitatively how these communicative activities might lead to perceived procedural justice. We found that perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating had discriminant validity and were associated with perceptions of procedural justice. We argue that the mechanisms that lead from these communicative processes to procedural justice are the core components of procedural justice, namely voice, respect, neutrality, and benevolence. This novel model has high ecological validity because it is directly observable in the interactions, and it is useful because the communicative activities can be trained and supported. The theoretical contribution is a grounded model of the mechanisms through which perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating can lead to perceptions of procedural justice turn-by-turn, within heated conflicts.
Keywords
Introduction
Organisational authorities must sometimes manage multiparty conflicts arising outside controlled settings (Morrill & Rudes, 2010; Zhang et al., 2018). Particularly important are ‘heated’ authority-managed conflicts, which are conflicts in progress that require immediate and unplanned intervention, such as a manager resolving an escalating dispute between subordinates, or a fraught disagreement between an employee and a customer. Organisational authorities possess a mandate which gives them the legitimacy and responsibility to manage these conflicts. However, they are uniquely challenging because they involve heightened emotions and ambiguity, and their immediacy means that authorities need to prevent escalation. Researchers have noted multiple instances of heated authority-managed conflicts, including: factory supervisors and small-business owners defusing interpersonal conflicts (Collinson, 1988; Harris et al., 2012), intensive care unit leaders addressing disagreements between clinicians under stressful conditions (Ervin et al., 2018), managerial interventions during conflict between consultants and employees (Kykyri & Puutio, 2021), and police officers resolving public order disturbances or protests (Emsing et al., 2024). Yet, despite their importance, these conflicts have rarely been studied in context due to their unpredictable and dynamic nature.
Consequently, organisational authorities must rely upon the general literature on multiparty conflicts for evidence-based knowledge to effectively address heated conflicts. Theorisation of integrative conflict management suggests that organisations should create ideal spaces for open-minded discussions, mutual benefit relationships, and mutually satisfactory outcomes during conflict negotiation and mediation (e.g. Folger et al., 2021; Rognes & Schei, 2010; Tjosvold et al., 2014). Research has also stressed the importance of on-the-ground communicative processes for achieving positive or negative outcomes (e.g. Boothby et al., 2023; Weingart et al., 2015; Yeomans et al., 2020), especially perspective-taking (Calvard et al., 2023; Ku et al., 2015; Parker et al., 2008). However, much of this literature assumes calmer, more formal, conflict management situations whereas during heated conflicts authorities lack process control and are under time-pressure. Ambiguity about roles and who is right or wrong, combined with heightened emotions hinder collaboration and open-mindedness. Moreover, satisfying all interests is often unattainable. Instead, for heated conflicts, a more realistic process is that authorities apply their communication skills in the heat of the moment and attempt to foster procedural justice so that those involved in the conflict experience fair processes and treatment (Rupp et al., 2017; Tyler, 2023). But, given the lack of ecologically valid studies of heated authority-managed conflicts, the exact nature of these communication skills and whether current integrative models of conflict management are applicable for achieving procedural justice remain unclear.
Our contribution is to propose and explore mechanisms that link organisational authorities’ communicative activities to perceived procedural justice during heated conflicts. Specifically, we develop a process-oriented model that draws on integrative and constructive approaches to conflict management (Folger et al., 2021; Rognes & Schei, 2010, Tjosvold et al., 2014), and we connect this to broader research that emphasises perspective-taking as key for conflict management (Calvard et al., 2023; Ku et al., 2015). However, although perspective-taking has been identified as central, it is unclear how it leads to perceptions of procedural justice during heated conflicts (i.e. the step-by-step mechanisms). We argue that perspective-getting (eliciting perspectives; Eyal et al., 2018) and the novel concept of perspective-integrating (coordinating perspectives) are central activities alongside perspective-taking (understanding a perspective) to achieving procedurally just outcomes. Specifically, we propose a perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating (PGTI) model for how organisational authorities may cultivate procedural justice.
Our secondary contribution introduces a novel methodology for studying communicative activities and procedural justice as they occur in heated conflicts. Few studies have systematically examined the moment-by-moment process of managing heated conflicts despite recognising the importance of these interactions (Folger et al., 2021; Weingart et al., 2015) and that conventional research methods may be inadequate to examine them (e.g. Cronin & Bezrukova, 2019; Newell & Ellegaard, 2022). However, heated conflicts should be studied turn-by-turn because research shows that concepts and models disconnected from how conflict interaction actually unfolds are unreliable. Sikveland et al. (2022) found that well-established models for negotiators’ step-by-step communication during crisis negotiation rarely correspond with actual practice. Similarly, Yeomans et al. (2020) found that self-report measures of conversational receptiveness to engage with opposing views were less reliable than actual linguistic-behavioural measures for predicting partners’ experiences of receptiveness during a disagreement. To address these challenges, we aimed to study communication within heated conflicts with high ecological validity (Gillespie et al., 2024). Specifically, we introduce a method for capturing and operationalising PGTI activities ‘in the wild’ (Glăveanu & Gillespie, 2022, p. 2) in a naturalistic police training simulation in a public park. Our mixed-method approach combines observation using body-worn video, allowing for turn-by-turn analysis of communicative activities, with self-report measures which assess perceived procedural justice after conflict management.
Theoretical foundations
Our proposed PGTI model rests on three theoretical foundations which we develop in the following subsections. We first briefly introduce integrative conflict management approaches and highlight two current limitations. To address these two issues, we build a case for procedural justice as a desirable outcome and then examine the role of perspective-taking in conflict management and procedural justice.
Integrative multiparty conflict management
Integrative approaches propose that perspective differentiation and integration lead to better outcomes during conflict management (Folger et al., 2021; Rognes & Schei, 2010; Tjosvold et al., 2014). Under constructive conditions, third parties (e.g. organisational authorities) should enable conflicting parties to voice and differentiate their perspectives (the differentiation phase) and develop solutions that creatively integrate these perspectives (the integration phase). Models of differentiation and integration processes provide a useful framework for addressing heated conflicts but have two notable limitations.
First, these approaches are normative, advocating idealised preconditions for constructive conflict management, such as encouraging open-minded discussions, finding cooperative goals, and emphasising mutually beneficial relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2010; Tjosvold et al., 2014). They are thus currently better suited to more structured negotiation or dispute processes (Folger et al., 2021; Rognes & Schei, 2010; Tasa & Chadha, 2023). Although integrative researchers acknowledge that establishing constructive conditions is challenging, they often imply that without them, positive outcomes are either hit-or-miss or unachievable. This ‘one-best-way approach’ (Speakman & Ryals, 2010, p. 192) is unhelpful in heated conflicts where organisational authorities must spontaneously intervene in emotionally charged and ambiguous situations.
Second, research on integrative approaches and third parties mirrors the wider conflict management field and has rarely investigated communication process dynamics within conflict management interactions (Boothby et al., 2023; Cronin & Bezrukova, 2019; Kykyri & Puutio, 2021, Yeomans et al., 2020). This limitation is also found in the lack of on-the-ground research, which has been identified in research on conflict expression (Weingart et al., 2015), disagreements in teams (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Chiu, 2018), negotiation (Boothby et al., 2023; Newell & Ellegaard, 2022) and mediation (Gutenbrunner & Wagner, 2016; Sikveland & Stokoe, 2016). Taken together, the neglect of actual communicative processes is surprising because discursive studies of interpersonal conflict were foundational to organisational conflict resolution research (Morrill & Rudes, 2010) and because integrative approaches emphasise the importance of the interaction (Folger et al., 2021). Without understanding how organisational authorities participate in communicative processes, turn-by-turn, it is unclear how specific communicative activities may (or may not) lead to perceptions of procedural justice.
Procedural justice and organisational legitimacy
In multiparty conflicts, when satisfying incompatible interests is impossible, procedural justice is recommended (Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2008; Rupp et al., 2017). Procedural justice entails the application of fair procedures and decision-making by organisational authorities (e.g. management, police). Parties’ perceptions of procedural justice have long been identified as central to building and maintaining legitimacy and trust for both public and private organisations (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Colquitt, 2012). Tyler (2023, p. 3) writes that people evaluate ‘the appropriateness of the manner in which authorities or institutions exercise their authority and use those evaluations to shape their attitudes about their legitimacy’. For stakeholders, these perceptions of procedural justice may be as important as whether the outcome is in their favour (e.g. distributive justice; Colquitt, 2012; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Tyler, 2023, 2024). According to the group-value model (Blader & Tyler, 2003), when stakeholders experience fair processes, they feel positive about themselves and the organisation because it signals that they are valued group members. This legitimacy can feed forward into positive interactions and benefits for the organisation (Rupp et al., 2017).
Organisational justice researchers have adopted various conceptualisations of procedural justice (Bobocel, 2021; Colquitt, 2012; Rupp et al., 2017). We conceptualise it as including everything pertaining to the interaction (treatment, decision-making) and contrast it with the fairness of the outcome (distributive justice; Blader & Tyler, 2003; Gopinath & Becker, 2000). Specifically, procedural justice comprises four interrelated components (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Tyler, 2023, 2024). Voice and neutrality pertain to the perceived quality of how decisions are made (fairness of process). Voice entails authorities allowing others to present their views before making decisions. Neutrality entails authorities making unbiased decisions based on facts and applying rules ‘consistently across people’ (Tyler, 2024, p. 309). Respect and benevolence pertain to the perceived quality of treatment (fairness of interactions). Respect entails stakeholders experiencing being taken seriously and being treated with dignity. Benevolence entails people believing authorities are caring and trustworthy and desire to do what was best for the people involved.
Although it is assumed that communication is connected to procedural justice (Richter & Dow, 2017; Tyler, 2024), few studies directly address the communicative activities that underpin it. One exception is Gopinath and Becker (2000), who found that employee satisfaction with organisational communication was related to perceived procedural justice. We build on this finding using perspective-taking as our starting point.
Perspective-taking as a communicative activity
Perspective-taking involves understanding others’ viewpoints (Calvard et al., 2023) and is central to organisational communication (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Ku et al., 2015; Longmire & Harrison, 2018). Perspective-taking has been found to support organisational conflict management (Calvard et al., 2023; Parker et al., 2008), improve perceptions of a conflict (Sessa, 1996), and enhance understanding during mediation (Gutenbrunner & Wagner, 2016; Folger et al., 2021).
Currently, organisational researchers mainly assess perspective-taking as an ‘input’, either as a static individual difference variable or by priming participants to imagine the perspective of others (Ku et al., 2015; Parker et al., 2008). Such approaches have been criticised for being disconnected from how perspective-taking occurs in situated interactions (Bezuidenhout, 2013; Glăveanu & de Saint Laurent, 2018), overly reductive (Calvard et al., 2023; Litchfield & Gentry, 2010), and neglecting how multiple perspectives can be taken simultaneously (Ku et al., 2015).
We conceptualise perspective-taking within a process philosophy paradigm (Mead, 1932; Whitehead, 1929) that gives primacy to ‘processes’ such as interactions (Brinkmann, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2024). This process orientation shifts focus away from static personality traits towards relational communication processes through which the coordination of perspectives is achieved. However, although most researchers would agree that communication is central to organisational perspective-taking, surprisingly, few studies have examined how it unfolds in interaction (Calvard et al., 2023). This leaves underexplored the fact that understanding the perspectives of others is always imperfect, partial, and temporary (Rommetveit, 1974; Krauss et al., 1995). People continually question, demonstrate, and repair their understanding of one another’s perspectives (Hawlina et al., 2019; Schegloff, 1992). To capture this dynamic, constructive process it is necessary to consider not only perspective-taking, but also perspective-getting and perspective-integrating.
Complementing perspective-taking with -getting and -integrating
Our conceptualisation extends the literature in two ways. First, we propose an expanded, process-based conceptualisation of perspective-taking augmented with the equally central activities of perspective-getting and perspective-integrating. Second, we theorise their interaction and how they may contribute to procedural justice by introducing a preliminary PGTI model.
Perspective-getting
Perspective-getting is defined as a willingness to learn about the perspectives of others (Eyal et al., 2018), which we conceptualise as eliciting perspectives. Perspective-getting was introduced because asking about a perspective was found to be more effective for accurately understanding another’s point of view than priming perspective-taking (Damen et al., 2021). In social interaction, perspective-getting encompasses active attempts to gather information about another person’s perspective through observation or direct requests and is important for achieving perspective-taking. Within conflict management, asking questions (perspective-getting) is considered central to conflict mediation (Linares-Bernabéu, 2023; Tasa & Chadha, 2023; Sikveland & Stokoe, 2016) and constructive approaches (Tjosvold et al., 2014).
Perspective-taking
We define perspective-taking as understanding a perspective, which necessarily entails engaging with the viewpoint of another person (Calvard et al., 2023; Litchfield & Gentry, 2010; Parker et al., 2008). Our conceptualisation focuses on the verbal-behavioural manifestations of using the other person’s words and phrases because engaging with another’s perspective encompasses demonstrating that their viewpoint has been understood (Linell, 2009; Mead, 1934; Rommetveit, 1974; Schober, 1993; Weger et al., 2014). Perspective-taking in conversation can be found when people’s talk in social interaction includes traces of ideas, interests, and words belonging to others. It may thus be observed in how interactants pick up on and utilise content (words and phrases) introduced by other parties (Gasiorek & Ebesu Hubbard, 2017; Linell et al., 1988).
Perspective-integrating
Getting and taking a single perspective is logically insufficient for fairly managing a multiparty conflict. Organisational authorities who only engage one side of the conflict would create perceptions of bias rather than procedural justice. Accordingly, we introduce the concept of ‘perspective-integrating’, defined as coordinating perspectives. The origins of this concept can be found in Mead’s (1934) ‘generalised other’, Marková’s (2016) ‘dialogical mind’, and Gillespie’s (2020) ‘semantic contact’ between perspectives. These approaches reject the idea that humans have just one perspective and instead examine how people navigate multiple perspectives. Our novel conceptualisation emphasises the process of ‘integrating’ as an imperfect, dynamic, and observable verbal activity when people’s spoken utterances demonstrably attempt to integrate multiple perspectives. This may encompass articulating an openness to all perspectives, demonstrating an understanding of multiple perspectives simultaneously, or actively attempting to negotiate them to problem-solve or inform decision-making.
The idea of perspective-integrating is implicit in how the conflict management literature conceptualises coordination and cooperation. Ng et al. (2021, p. 406) note that perspective-takers, among other activities, must ‘integrate the perspectives of themselves and others’. Similarly, Ku et al. (2015) suggest that perspective-taking may act as a gateway to multiple viewpoints but also acknowledge that little research has been done on this (see also Calvard et al., 2023). Perspective-integrating is aligned with conversational receptiveness to others’ viewpoints (Yeomans et al., 2020), cognitive integration (Cronin & Weingart, 2019), integrative complexity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011), and an integrative management style (Tjosvold et al., 2014). However, these approaches predominantly focus on individual difference variables (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011; Tjosvold et al., 2014) or on outcomes (Cronin & Weingart, 2019), as opposed to the turn-by-turn process of conflict management. Perspective-integrating is also implicit in integrative conflict management (Folger et al., 2021) during the normative integration phase (e.g. establishing common ground; exploring solutions). However, perspective-integrating is a more situated activity that occurs even under imperfect conditions.
Introducing perspective-integrating enables us to conceptualise how organisational authorities managing heated conflicts engage with multiple perspectives within an interaction. The distinguishing feature of perspective-integrating is that it is a process-oriented specification of how an organisational authority attempts to apply their mandate and enables the potential weighing-up of conflicting perspectives during conflict management (Folger et al., 2021). For example, the manager trying to diffuse a heated disagreement between subordinates needs to efficiently understand and balance each employee’s perspective and communicate their integrated understanding, including the organisation’s goals (e.g. the conflict is detrimental to the organisation). To do this fairly, they ideally need to move beyond taking one perspective, and verbally express and coordinate all perspectives to create a superordinate or holistic understanding of the situation.
The perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating (PGTI) model
We propose that perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating are sequentially cumulative: perspective-getting is a precursor to perspective-taking, and perspective-taking is a precursor to perspective-integrating. This PGTI model, we suggest, can explain how these components combine to create perceived procedural justice during heated authority-managed conflicts. This model proposes that asking questions to obtain perspectives (perspective-getting), verbalising those perspectives (perspective-taking), and observably coordinating them (perspective-integrating) leads to perceived procedural justice. While the scope of this model is potentially broad, our focus is narrowly on organisational authorities attempting to resolve heated multiparty conflicts. In other contexts (e.g. with non-authority peacemakers; Zhang et al., 2018), with more information and control over the interaction, successful communicative activities might be different (e.g. more assertive about the facts of the case, or reinforcing the agreed rules of the interaction).
Previous research provides provisional support for the PGTI model. First, questioning, which includes perspective-getting, has been identified as an important negotiation tactic (Tasa & Chadha, 2023; Tjosvold et al., 2014) and central to informal mediation processes (Linares-Bernabéu, 2023; Sikveland & Stokoe, 2016). Moreover, while not directly examining perspective-getting, Lowrey-Kinberg and Buker’s (2017) discourse analysis suggests that an imbalance in the amount and type of questioning between the police and public stakeholders may reduce perceived procedural justice. Thus, we assume that better types of questioning during the conflict management process will support procedural justice.
Second, research has demonstrated a positive relationship between perspective-taking and conflict management (Gutenbrunner & Wagner, 2016; Parker et al., 2008; Sessa, 1996). Perspective-taking may therefore enhance the differentiation phase of integrative conflict management by demonstrating an understanding of different perspectives and interests (Folger et al., 2021). Moreover, using experimental methods, Ng et al. (2021) found that perspective-taking predicted perceived respect, which in turn predicted voice. However, they did not engage with procedural justice theory or explicitly investigate conflict management.
Finally, although there is a lack of research on integrating multiple perspectives during conflict management (Ku et al., 2015), theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that perspective-integrating should foster procedural justice. Integrative approaches recommend articulating the interests of all parties during integration (Folger et al., 2021). Yeomans and colleagues (2020) found that displaying conversational receptiveness toward different perspectives at the beginning of interactions mitigated conflict escalation. Additionally, a cooperative conflict management style is associated with procedural justice, which in turn seems to promote team effectiveness (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002) and positive organisational relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2010). Hollander-Blumoff and Tyler (2008) suggest that understanding others and finding integrative solutions during legal negotiations are related to procedural justice, but they did not empirically investigate these as communicative activities. Accordingly, the exact links between perspective-integrating as a communicative activity and perceived procedural justice remain uncharted.
However, the proposed PGTI relationships cannot be assumed. It is important not to ‘romanticise’ perspective-taking by assuming that understanding others necessarily leads to beneficial outcomes (Glăveanu & de Saint Laurent, 2018, p. 417). Perspective-taking may also have a dark side and be used to manipulate people or gain an unfair advantage (Calvard et al., 2023; Ku et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to test whether PGTI activities are associated with experiences of procedural justice and also to be attentive to nuances within on-the-ground interactions.
Empirical Study
We explored the PGTI model using a Norwegian police training simulation (hereafter, ‘the ambiguous conflict’). Trained actors enacted a heated conflict (public order disturbance) in a park, and the police trainees’ task was to manage the conflict. The simulation required trainees, in their role as authorities, to use their communication skills to manage the ambiguous conflict in situ. Invoking legal procedures or formal mediation was not viable in the public setting. The trainees had no forewarning about the rapidly escalating conflict, and the scenario had no obvious solution that would satisfy both parties. Perceived procedural justice was thus the optimal outcome. This simulation had been used to train police in Oslo for four years before data collection took place and was thus well-developed in terms of realism. The educational purpose was to expose trainees to an ambiguous conflict situation and create an opportunity to reflect on task performance. Within this naturalistic simulation we used a test-explore mixed-methods design (Wellman et al., 2023) to address two research questions.
First, we tested the associations proposed by the PGTI model. Based on prior studies, we expected both perspective-getting and perspective-taking to be associated with perceived procedural justice (e.g. Lowrey-Kinberg & Buker, 2017; Ng et al., 2021; Tjosvold et al., 2014). Whether perspective-integrating was also associated with procedural justice was an open question. Also, we wanted to investigate the discriminant validity of perspective-integrating to check if it was empirically distinct from perspective-getting and perspective-taking. Accordingly, our first research question was: What are the associations between trainees’ perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating activities and perceived procedural justice during the ambiguous conflict?
Second, we qualitatively explored the conflict management dialogues turn-by-turn. This exploratory analysis had theoretical and practical motives. At a theoretical level, it is important to challenge statistical models with concrete specifics of what happens ‘on the ground’ (Seawright, 2016) – being attentive not only to cases that demonstrate expected patterns but also deviations. Moreover, such in-depth analysis is fruitful for identifying mechanisms (Davis & Marquis, 2005), for example, how PGTI activities cause perceptions of procedural justice. At a practical level, conflict management is an activity situated in interactions and done (or not done) turn-by-turn. Accordingly, our second research question was: How might perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating lead to perceived procedural justice in the heated authority-managed multiparty conflict?
Overall research design
The research combined observational data on the conflict management dialogue (from body-worn video cameras) with a self-report measure of perceived procedural justice. To address the first question, we used quantitative measures of the PGTI activities occurring in the dialogue along with the survey measure of perceived procedural justice administered directly after the simulation. For the second question, we analysed the transcripts qualitatively, focusing predominantly on PGTI activities in high-scoring and low-scoring cases of procedural justice to abductively generate explanations for the observed patterns (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
The ambiguous conflict simulation
Police trainee pairs received a call from the Police Control Room that two men were involved in a heated disagreement in a public park. Upon entering the park, the trainees encountered the ‘Student’ and the ‘Drifter’ arguing loudly with one another in a physical altercation involving jostling and grappling.
The background scenario is that the Student had been reading in the park and temporarily walked away from his backpack to discard some rubbish. When he returned, he perceived the Drifter (a homeless person gathering bottles, which can be returned for money in Norway) rummaging through his backpack. This led to the heated physical and verbal conflict that the police trainees had to manage. The Student’s concern is to retrieve his backpack, which contains his wallet and half-filled water bottle, and once he has his backpack, his aim is to leave the park. The Drifter is concerned with retrieving his empty bottles, which fell to the ground during the confrontation, so that he can leave the park, exchange the bottles for money, purchase food, and stay at a nearby Blue Cross homeless shelter. Finally, the Student’s half-filled water bottle is of central importance. If the Student is allowed to search his backpack, he will find this bottle missing. However, the Drifter will claim the bottle as his, saying he found it on the grass.
The conflict is intentionally ambiguous. The cause of the conflict is initially unclear, and similar to many public order disturbances, there is no crime. Neither person is guilty or innocent, and there is no correct resolution. The goal is to de-escalate the heated conflict while treating each stakeholder fairly (i.e. procedural justice).
Participants
Fifty-eight police trainees (29% female, 71% male, mean age = 23.89) agreed to have their participation in the ambiguous conflict situation recorded for the research (74% response rate). Police trainees were contacted by email with information about the study before the training. Three male actors (ages 26, 32, and 37) played the roles of Student and Drifter and agreed to participate in the study. Two of the three actors had participated in the ambiguous conflict simulation previously, and the third actor gained experience by observing and acting in multiple iterations of the ambiguous conflict simulation before data collection took place.
The research project was approved by the Norwegian National Data Protection Services. Additional ethical approval was granted by an Ethical Review Board.
Procedure
Police trainees were paired into dyads and were naive to the simulation. Trainees and actors were equipped with Sony AZ1VR body cameras. Each trainee had a police radio for contact with the Police Control Room. A dispatcher in the Control Room directed the trainees to the public disturbance and provided standardised information. Each dyad had eight minutes to complete the simulation, although they were unaware of this time limit. Actors were blind to the purposes of the research. After the simulation, they completed a self-report measure of perceived procedural justice based on how they experienced the simulation in their role. The second author transcribed the video for each interaction, including significant actions, using both the trainee and actor’s video footage.
Measures
PGTI activities were manually coded turn-by-turn in the transcripts using an Excel spreadsheet. Each row was a turn of dialogue, and the codes were marked in the columns. The coding frame was iteratively developed for validity and reliability. The first and second authors tested an initial coding scheme on three transcripts, then revised it and applied it to a second batch of three transcripts before finalising the coding scheme and applying it to all the transcripts (with six transcripts double-coded for inter-rater reliability).
Perspective-getting was operationalised as any verbal inquiry into the perspective of another, as done in previous research (Damen et al., 2021; Hawlina et al., 2019; Sikveland & Stokoe, 2016). We coded every time that a police trainee directly asked an actor an open-ended question as an indicator of perspective-getting (e.g. ‘What happened here now?’ or ‘How are you feeling?’). The inter-rater reliability for perspective-getting was excellent (Cohens Kappa = .926, p < .001).
Perspective-taking was operationalised behaviourally using keywords and paraphrases of concerns pertaining to the Drifter or Student. Although perspective-taking is normally operationalised through self-report surveys or priming (Ku et al., 2015), our operationalisation draws on constructivist (Gasiorek & Ebesu Hubbard, 2017), spatial (Schober, 1993), active listening (Weger et al., 2014) and sociocultural (Linell, 2009; Linell, et al., 1988) traditions which track the extent to which words and phrases (i.e. perspective) of an Other are evident in the language of the perspective-taker. Accordingly, we coded when trainees used keywords (or paraphrases) from the Drifter or Student that pertained to their core concerns. These keywords were introduced during the scenario by the Student (‘backpack’, ‘wallet’, ‘water bottle’, ‘getting to class’) and Drifter (‘bottles’, ‘tote bag’, ‘getting to Blue Cross’). Because these keywords pertained to the interests of the Student (getting their backpack, wallet, and water bottle so they could go to class) or Drifter (getting their bottles and tote bag so they could go to the Blue Cross), we assumed that when the trainees used these keywords (or their equivalents), they were demonstrating the perspectives of the Student or Drifter respectively. This required contextual interpretation (for example, when the word ‘bottle’ was used, whether it pertained to the Student’s or Drifter’s perspective). Thus, for example, if, after the Student mentioned their backpack, the police trainee then referred to the backpack (e.g. ‘get your backpack’, ‘let’s look in your bag’), it was coded as taking the Student’s perspective. Alternatively, if, after the Drifter mentioned his bottles, the police trainee then referred to these bottles (e.g. ‘you can pick up your bottles if you want’, ‘get your bottles’), it was coded as taking the Drifter’s perspective. Because the coding was anchored in keywords, the inter-rater reliability for perspective-taking was excellent (Cohen’s Kappa = .972, p < .001).
Perspective-integrating was coded when police trainees verbally incorporated multiple perspectives in a single utterance (Drifter, Student, trainee partner, or police perspective). For example: ‘He says the bottle was in his backpack, not the tote bag’ (keywords ‘bottle’ and ‘backpack’ for Student and ‘bottle’ and ‘tote bag’ for Drifter) or ‘There isn’t anything dangerous in the backpack that can hurt me is there?’ (keywords ‘backpack’ for Student and ‘dangerous’ or ‘hurt me’ for police perspective). Perspective-integrating included explicit attempts to negotiate multiple perspectives. For example, ‘It is important that I hear your side of the story, and then I’ll hear his side of the story’ or ‘Because I need to know what has happened here and who you are, and then we’ll get to know who he is’. Certain keywords or phrases also were contextually coded as perspective-integrating when it was apparent that trainees understood that objects, like the bottle, could belong to either the Drifter or the Student but without taking sides (e.g. ‘They seem to be arguing over a bottle’ or ‘Please leave that bottle alone’). Again, because of the use of keywords, the inter-rater reliability for perspective-integrating was excellent (Cohen’s Kappa = .972, p < .001).
Finally, perceived procedural justice was assessed using nine procedural justice survey items (six-point Likert-type), adapted from Gau (2011) and Sunshine and Tyler (2003). Specifically, we used the trainees’ primary actor’s rating of four items on how they experienced the quality of treatment (respect, fairness, trust, and listening) and five items on the quality of decision-making (explanation of actions and decisions, voice, and whether decisions were made fairly and legally) at the hands of their primary police trainee (Cronbach’s alpha = .938).
Findings
Analysis 1: Testing the PGTI model
Table 1 shows descriptive information for the four measures. 1 The three PGTI activity measures had skewed distributions, and therefore subsequent correlations used Spearman’s rho.
Descriptive information for perspective-getting, perspective-taking, perspective-integrating, and perceived procedural justice.
Non-normal distribution.
Perspective-getting was associated with perspective-taking (rs = .26, p > .05) and perspective-integrating (rs = .31, p < .05) but not perceived procedural justice (rs = .15, p > .05). Hence, asking open-ended questions was associated with police trainees’ perspective-taking and making utterances indicating multiple perspectives, but not perceptions of being treated fairly.
Perspective-taking was associated with perspective-getting and perspective-integrating (rs = .33, p < .01) and approached significance for perceived procedural justice (rs = .23, p < .10). Thus, police trainees who engaged in perspective-taking also tended to articulate multiple perspectives.
Perspective-integrating was associated with perceived procedural justice (rs = .51, p < .001) and perspective-getting and perspective-taking. Thus, verbalising multiple perspectives had the strongest association with perceived procedural justice.
In terms of discriminant validity, perspective-getting, -taking, and -integrating were only weakly correlated (maximum rs = .33; see Table 2). This indicates that the novel concept of perspective-integrating is not reducible to either perspective-getting or perspective-taking.
Correlations between key measures (Spearman’s rho).
p ⩽ .05, bp ⩽ .01, cp ⩽ .001.
To explore potential confounds, we tested whether gender and actor may have influenced relationships among key measures. Gender was associated with procedural justice (rs = .42, p < .001) but not perspective-getting, -taking, or -integrating (see Table 2). This indicates that actors were more likely to experience procedural justice with female officers. Actor was used to test whether the different individual actors had an influence on the results, and had no statistically significant associations with any of the variables.
Given the covariations, we performed a path analysis to test the PGTI model to predict perceived procedural justice, controlling for gender (Figure 1). There was a direct effect of perspective-getting on perspective-taking, which approached statistical significance (beta = .24, p = .052), indicating that each additional open-ended question was associated with an average increase of 0.7 utterances indicating perspective-taking (95% CI: −0.01, 1.41). There was a direct effect of perspective-taking on perspective-integrating, which approached statistical significance (beta = .22, p = .057), indicating that each additional perspective-taking utterance was associated with a 0.15 increase in perspective-integrating utterances (95% CI: −0.004, 0.306). There was a direct effect of perspective-integrating on perceived procedural justice (beta = .49, p ⩽ .001), indicating that each additional perspective-integrating utterance was associated with an average increase of 0.11 to the actor’s rating of procedural justice (95% CI: 0.07, 0.15). There was a direct effect for gender, indicating that actors experienced a 0.89 increase in procedural justice when interacting with a female police trainee after controlling for perspective-integrating (beta = .40, p ⩽ .001; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.27). The predictive power of the model for both perspective-taking (R-squared = .06) and perspective-integrating (R-squared = .05) was low but moderate for the final model, which included perspective-integrating (R-squared = .41). Hence, the final model explained 41% of the variance in perceived procedural justice with perspective-integrating as the strongest predictor. The model fit statistics revealed some uncertainty for the PGTI model. Although the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-squared statistic (X2sb(7) = 5.73, p = .33), comparative fit index (.982), and SRMR (.086) did not give indications of the model having a poor fit, the RMSEA (.050: 90% CI: 0, 0.200) had a wide confidence interval.
PGTI model and path analysis.
Discussion
Our quantitative analysis indicated that trainees who (1) obtained the actor’s perspective through open questioning, (2) took the actor’s perspective by verbalising it, and then (3) verbalised multiple perspectives increased perceived procedural justice. Overall, support for the PGTI model was moderate, with some uncertainty about the pathways between the individual PGTI activities.
Surprisingly, the pathways between the PGTI activities only approached statistical significance, while perspective-integrating was a strong predictor of procedural justice. These findings align with the known limitations of perspective-taking for more complex situations (Ku et al., 2015). Potentially, the quality and not quantity of perspective-getting and perspective-taking is most important in assisting perspective-integrating. For example, trainees using too many PGTI activities could indicate a misunderstanding, confusion or a problem in managing the conflict. To better understand the PGTI activities and the nature of the associations with procedural justice, we analysed them qualitatively in the context of the dynamically unfolding interactions.
Analysis 2: Exploring the PGTI model
The qualitative stage of our test-explore design (Wellman et al., 2023) had three aims: (1) to explore the validity of the PGTI model in specific cases; (2) to generate explanations for the main and surprising findings; and (3) to build theory about the mechanisms connecting the PGTI activities to perceived procedural justice. First, we provide an overview of the qualitative data before analysing PGTI activities in cases of high and low procedural justice.
Overview of the transcripts
Figure 2 shows an overview of all the utterances from the police trainees. The x-axis is their turn number. Each row pertains to a trainee, and the rows are sorted from trainees with the highest (top) to the lowest (bottom) perceived procedural justice. Each turn is either irrelevant (lightest grey), perspective-getting (medium grey), perspective-taking (dark grey), or perspective-integrating (red).
Police trainee PGTI activities.
Figure 2 shows that perspective-getting and perspective-taking tended to occur during the beginning and middle of the highest-ranked interactions. Perspective-integrating utterances did not occur before perspective-taking and generally appeared toward the middle and end of the interactions, suggesting that it is built up turn-by-turn. Fifty of the 58 trainees displayed all PGTI activities at least once, and no trainees displayed none of the PGTI activities. Three trainees displayed no perspective-integrating, and their procedural justice scores were in the lowest quartile. However, 12 trainees who displayed all PGTI activities at least once were also in the lowest quartile for procedural justice.
This overview of the raw data reveals that the simple linear PGTI model (Figure 1) fails to capture the dynamic, back-and-forth, and constructive nature of the PGTI activities. It shows that although these activities are associated with perceived procedural justice, their presence does not guarantee it. This reinforces a process-based model, revealing that the PGTI activities leading to perceived procedural justice are iteratively achieved, turn-by-turn. To further examine these patterns we analysed PGTI activities during interactions with high and low procedural justice.
Perspective-getting and -taking: expected patterns and deviations
Perspective-getting and perspective-taking activities were nearly always present early in the interactions and occurred before perspective-integrating in 57/58 cases (Figure 2). As such, these two activities seemed most prominent for the differentiation phase of managing the ambiguous conflict (Folger et al., 2021). For example, Excerpt 1 shows how P49, who received a high procedural justice rating (4.77), combined perspective-getting and taking by immediately engaging in perspective-getting (turns 2 and 4) and then moving on to perspective-taking (turns 6 and 20) at the beginning of the interaction.
Perspective-getting and perspective-taking.
Female, perspective-getting (PG) = 3, perspective-taking (PT) = 15, perspective-integrating (PI) = 5, procedural justice (PJ) = 4.77.
P49 only needed two perspective-getting activities (turns 2 and 4) before taking the Student’s perspective. P49 demonstrates that she understood that the Student experienced that something was stolen from the backpack by utilising the Student’s own words, ‘stolen’ (turn 6), referring to the backpack’s location and quickly acting upon the Student’s perspective by retrieving the backpack (‘it’, turn 20).
Twenty trainees made perspective-taking utterances before perspective-getting. Moreover, three of these trainees scored highly on perceived procedural justice (P89, P66, P42). At first glance, this seemed contrary to the PGTI model. However, a closer look at these three interactions revealed that the actors were broadcasting their perspectives, which the trainees could ‘get’ by listening (i.e. the trainees did not need to ask for it). Nonetheless, P66 and P42 still used perspective-getting utterances early in the interaction. On the other hand, P89 had below-average perspective-getting and seemed to gather enough information without requiring many open-ended questions.
The interactions with low perceived procedural justice were characterised by a lack of perspective-getting and perspective-taking. The following encounter between P34 (PJ = 2.33) and the Drifter is illustrative:
Absences.
Male, PG = 3, PT = 2, PI = 0, PJ = 2.33.
The Drifter broadcasts keywords about his perspective multiple times, yet P34 does not verbalise perspective-taking once during the first 20 turns. Instead, he keeps reiterating his own concern (that the Drifter should be calm; turns 4 and 16). When P34 engages in perspective-getting (turn 18), he fails to follow up with perspective-taking (turn 20). Although he repeatedly says, ‘I understand’ (turns 4, 6, 20), he does not give the Drifter any demonstration of understanding, which likely undermines perceptions of the Drifter’s voice being heard and respected. This failure to engage with the content of the Drifter’s perspective persisted throughout the interaction, which only contained two perspective-taking utterances and no perspective-integrating.
Excerpt 3 is from P26, who had the lowest procedural justice score (PJ = 1.0). He had only three perspective-taking utterances and did not demonstrate any perspective-getting or perspective-integrating.
Ignoring perspectives.
Male, PG = 0, PT = 3, PI = 0, PJ = 1.0.
P26 failed to get or take the Drifter’s perspective early in the exchange despite many opportunities where it could have de-escalated the conflict. Instead, P26 engaged in conflict escalation by using coercive force (turn 31). However, P26 surprisingly verbalises perspective-taking in turn 33, indicating that he understood the Drifter’s need for his bottles but had ignored it earlier in the interaction. While P26 took the Drifter’s perspective, he failed to de-escalate the conflict by substantially engaging with the Drifter’s perspective or integrating it with the other perspectives.
Perspective-taking does not necessarily mean accepting, respecting, or agreeing with the perspective. In Excerpt 4, P61 (PJ = 1.55) verbalised the Drifter’s perspective 9 times, specifically about being attacked (turn 57) and that the bottles were important (turn 105). However, the Drifter’s perspective is simultaneously acknowledged and dismissed (‘You will get those bottles later!’), and P61 eventually performed a takedown and handcuffed the Drifter (turns 107−109).
Dismissing perspectives.
Male, PG = 2, PT = 9, PI = 1, PJ = 1.55.
Interactions with low procedural justice were characterised by police trainees either ignoring or rejecting perspectives, even when engaging in perspective-taking utterances. Although six trainees had an absence of perspective-getting and three did not display perspective-integrating, all trainees displayed perspective-taking. Thus, the key issue was not perspective-taking per se but the quality of how trainees engaged with these perspectives (i.e. dismissing or engaging with them).
Too much perspective-taking aimed at only one party was also sometimes problematic. In these interactions, trainees could become fixated upon either the Student’s or the Drifter’s perspective, leading to favouritism. This pattern of one-sided perspective-taking could lead to unjust outcomes, as evident in Excerpt 5.
One-sided perspective-taking.
Female, PG = 0, PT = 23, PI = 4, PJ = 4.56.
P25 and the Student achieved mutual understanding (turns 70 and 72), and the Student was allowed to leave the park with his bottle. P25 is strongly absorbed in the Student’s perspective (turn 70; turn 76, ‘But it is understandable if someone is in your backpack’). However, the Drifter was clearly upset (turn 83), and P25 had yet to investigate the Drifter’s perspective. Moreover, when P25 tried to help the Drifter with his bottles (turn 115), the Student’s perspective still dominated as P25 dismissed the Drifter’s claim to the bottle (turn 117). Although the Student gave a high procedural justice rating, the Drifter gave P25’s partner the lowest rating on procedural justice in the entire simulation (PJ = 1.0). This case demonstrates a dark side of perspective-taking, namely, how it can undermine procedural justice when it is one-sided.
Mechanisms underlying perspective-getting and -taking
The deviations in perspective-getting and perspective-taking help explain the lack of statistical association between both activities and procedural justice. Moreover, they imply two modifications to the PGTI model: (1) perspective-getting may occur without verbally asking open questions and (2) the quality of perspective-taking is more important than quantity. If performed poorly, perspective-taking may lead to stagnation, dismissing, or one-sidedness.
The mechanisms leading from PGTI activities to perceived procedural justice are most visible when perspective-getting and perspective-taking are performed well. Perspective-getting gives an opportunity for voice, while perspective-taking gives recognition to the voice, potentially leading to feelings of being respected. As such, perspective-getting and perspective-taking may boost two central components of procedural justice, namely voice and respect (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Rupp et al., 2017; Tyler, 2024). Perceived procedural justice, however, is not just an outcome of the interaction but is ongoingly recreated in the interaction, with consequences for the trajectory of the interaction. By fostering voice and respect, the authority can unlock the benefits of procedural justice within the interaction because they are seen as more legitimate.
However, neither perspective-getting nor perspective-taking signals neutrality or benevolence – the other two key components of procedural justice (Tyler, 2024). To foster these aspects, the police trainees would need to demonstrate impartiality and trustworthy motives. We found that these components were best activated by perspective-integrating (i.e. coordinating perspectives).
Perspective-integrating: Expected patterns, deviations, and mechanisms
Perspective-integrating utterances were most evident in interactions with high procedural justice, tended to follow perspective-getting and perspective-taking, and were more prominent toward the end of the interactions. However, sometimes they occurred earlier. Examining these cases revealed that when early integrating occurred, the police perspective was especially prominent. P49’s interaction with the Student (Excerpts 1 and 6) illustrates this:
Integrating police and actor perspectives and openness.
Female, PG = 3, PT = 15, PI = 5, PJ = 4.78.
Following perspective-getting (Excerpt 1, turns 2 and 4) and perspective-taking (Excerpt 6, turn 23), P49 starts integrating perspectives by verbalising police concerns about security (turns 25, 27) while acting on the Student’s perspective and letting him look at the backpack, but only with P49 (turn 29). This indicates that verbalising perspective-integrating could also contribute to the process of differentiation during integrative conflict management (Folger et al., 2021).
Sometimes, perspective-integrating resulted in low perceived procedural justice because the police perspective dominated the other perspectives. For example, when discussing the Drifter’s personal identification details, P7 (PI = 6; PJ = 2.89) says, ‘Because I need to know what has happened here and who you are, and then we’ll get to know who he is.’ While P7 verbalises multiple perspectives, they are dominated by the police perspective (‘I need to know’ and ‘we’ll get to know’). Such utterances could inhibit procedural justice by subordinating the Student and Drifter’s own perspectives to the police perspective. Such suppression does not demonstrate benevolence.
Perspective-integrating positively impacted perceived procedural justice when police trainees balanced perspectives by verbalising a need to hear all sides – thus demonstrating neutrality. This sometimes extended to the idea that key objects (such as the water bottle) could belong to either the Student and the Drifter. For example, in Excerpt 6, the Drifter became angry because the Student received his backpack and the contested bottle. However, P49 asks the Student to refrain from drinking from the bottle (turns 46, 48) because the ownership of the bottle is still unclear. This is impressive because P49 has not yet spoken to her partner or the Drifter, but she understands that there are divergent perspectives on the bottle. These types of perspective-integrating utterances support the neutrality component of procedural justice because they reveal a balancing (or weighing up) of perspectives.
Perspective-integrating utterances were most successful when they included superordinate assessments, actions, and solutions that used voice, maintained neutrality, and projected a respectful tone. This usually occurred toward the end of interactions and contributed to the integration phase (Folger et al., 2021). For example, P66 (PI = 11; PJ = 5.44) implored the Student to refrain from agitating the Drifter: ‘Can you please stop talking with him because then we escalate the situation, and he becomes angrier, and then it becomes more difficult both for you and for me to resolve this here’ (turn 96). This illustrates how acknowledging multiple perspectives can create the impression of genuinely trying to resolve the conflict (i.e. benevolence). P66 positions herself on the side of the Student, not in a biased way, but in the sense of sharing the goal of conflict resolution.
Sometimes, perspective-integrating occurred when trainees talked with their partners, trying to integrate police, Student, and Drifter perspectives, and these utterances could also signal neutrality and benevolence. P89’s exchange with her partner and the Drifter is illustrative:
In Excerpt 7, P89, who received the highest procedural justice rating (5.67), is trying to problem-solve on behalf of both the Student and Drifter. P89 verbalises perspective-integrating in the exchange with her partner (turns 91–101), and they efficiently propose solutions based on both the Student’s and Drifter’s perspectives. Arguably, this attempt to address the interests of both the Student and the Drifter could create impressions of neutrality and benevolence. When P89 proposed a solution to the Drifter (turn 103, going to Blue Cross), that the Drifter resisted (turns 104, 108, 110), P89 argued by integrating the police perspective with the Drifter’s perspective without letting the police perspective dominate (lines 105–112). Even when challenged, this balanced perspective-integrating is likely to foster feelings of neutrality and benevolence.
Integrating and balancing multiple perspectives with partners and actors.
Female, PG = 2, PT = 12, PI = 17, PJ = 5.67.
From PGTI to perceived procedural justice
Our qualitative findings necessitate a revision of our initial PGTI model (Figure 1). The PGTI activities, despite moving towards perspective-integrating, do not occur in a rigid linear sequence. They are iteratively performed, with perceptions of procedural justice being incrementally produced.
We also found that PGTI activities can both enhance and undermine procedural justice (Table 3). The voice elicited through perspective-getting can be ignored, while perspectives-taking can be ignored or disagreed with. Also, perspective-taking might overly focus on one perspective to the neglect of the other side of the conflict. Perspective-integrating, which has at least three types (see Table 3), can become problematic when it is overly focused on the police perspective or the perspective of either the Student or the Drifter. Successful perspective-integrating requires focusing on the participants’ perspectives in the conflict (Student and Drifter) and demonstrating neutrality and benevolence in relation to all perspectives.
Communicative activities and mechanisms shaping perceived procedural justice.
Figure 3 presents our revised model and illustrates the iterative processes and mechanisms through which PGTI activities lead to perceived procedural justice. The green circles represent each activity, with the solid black arrows indicating the dynamic back-and-forth cycling between these activities. Our initial linear model has become cyclical (with an arrow from perspective-integrating back to perspective-getting) to align with our qualitative findings (and Figure 2). The inner blue circles represent the components of procedural justice that are the mechanisms through which the PGTI activities feed into the overall experience of procedural justice. The hyphenated arrows show how each PGTI activity can enhance (or undermine) a component of procedural justice, thus fostering an overall perception of procedural justice. Finally, the dotted arrows capture how positive (or negative) perceptions of procedural justice feed forward into subsequent PGTI activities.
Revised PGTI model.
Our revised PGTI model captures the mutually reinforcing processes that are evident in turn-by-turn interactions, where information elicited and perceptions created feed-forward into subsequent turns. The revised model shifts focus away from linear antecedents, and towards the ways in which specific communication turns (i.e. PGTI activities) can create more global perceptions of inviting voice, and demonstrating respect, neutrality, and benevolence, which are the mechanisms which, in turn, combine to form a dynamic and evolving perception of procedural justice. For example, perspective-getting (a question in turn 1), followed by an exposition of a perspective (turn 2) gives voice to the interactants. If this voice is acknowledged through perspective-taking (turn 3) it will foster feelings of being respected. In this way, and also through perspective-integrating, as perceptions of voice, respect, benevolence and neutrality accumulate, the perception of procedural justice increases.
Discussion
The PGTI model conceptualises how organisational authorities’ communicative activities can cultivate procedural justice during heated authority-managed conflicts. Testing and exploring this in a naturalistic police-trainee scenario, we found that perspective-getting and perspective-taking supported procedural justice by demonstrating voice and respect, while perspective-integrating demonstrated neutrality and benevolence while also reinforcing the two other components. Identifying these mechanisms underlying the PGTI activities’ role in fostering experiences of procedural justice makes theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions.
Our findings support integrative approaches to conflict management (Folger et al., 2021; Rognes & Schei, 2010; Tjosvold et al., 2014) but extend these to heated authority-managed conflicts. Our public disturbance scenario did not have ideal conditions for constructive conflict management (Folger et al., 2021; Tjosvold et al., 2014). Nonetheless, police trainees who engaged in high-quality PGTI activities cultivated perceived procedural justice. These findings show that integrative conflict management can be successful even in heated ambiguous conflicts. In such situations, we argue, the focus needs to shift away from input variables (i.e. open-mindedness, collaborative interests) towards communicative activities on the ground, where getting, taking, and integrating perspectives might be particularly beneficial.
Our research extends integrative conflict management theory by unpacking how verbal communicative activities lead to perceived procedural justice as they occur turn-by-turn. Organisational authorities can use perspective-getting and perspective-taking to achieve perspective differentiation, which, we argue, unlocks procedural justice in the form of giving voice to and respecting perspectives. These activities, when performed well, feed into perspective-integrating, which may foster feelings of neutrality and benevolence, enabling a form of constructive conflict management, even in the absence of collaborative interests or open-mindedness (Tjosvold et al., 2014; Weingart et al., 2023). We also observed that successful outcomes did not always evidence all three PGTI activities in a linear sequence. Often, PGTI activities were repeated and sometimes performed in reverse order. In this sense, they are best conceptualised as forming a dynamic, mutually reinforcing system (Cronin & Bezrukova, 2019) that offers opportunities for voice, respect, neutrality, and benevolence.
Our methodological contribution has been to show how PGTI activities can be studied in naturalistic scenarios as observable behaviours. We returned to Mead’s (1934) original formulation of perspective-taking as a social behaviour, enabling us to conceptualise and operationalise PGTI activities as social-verbal behaviours. Specifically, in contrast to survey measures and experimental priming (Ku et al., 2015), we measured perspective-taking as it occurred within a heated interaction. Our novel coding framework demonstrated high inter-rater reliability and has the virtue of enabling researchers to study PGTI activities ‘in the wild’ (Glăveanu & Gillespie, 2022). This operationalisation allowed us to move from the quantitative analysis of the transcripts to a qualitative exploration of expected and deviating patterns in higher- and lower-rated cases of procedural justice. This mixed-method test-explore design (Wellman et al., 2023) supports validity by tightly integrating the qualitative and quantitative aspects (as demonstrated with Figure 2 and reporting quantitative codes alongside qualitative text). This deep integration was possible because both analyses were based on the same data (i.e. transcripts), which enabled us to both zoom out to view statistical relationships and zoom in to view specific instances (Gillespie et al., 2024).
Our study has practical implications for organisations attempting to resolve heated multiparty conflicts. We suggest that authorities verbally demonstrate the PGTI activities to cultivate experiences of voice, respect, neutrality, and benevolence and, thus, procedural justice. These activities are straightforward to incorporate in training on conflict management (e.g. asking questions, using stakeholders’ keywords and phrases, and demonstrably coordinating multiple perspectives). Our qualitative analysis, however, suggests that perspective-integrating should predominantly focus on the perspectives of those involved in the conflict and not be dominated by organisation-centric interests.
It is plausible that the PGTI activities might be helpful in diverse domains. For example, they might help manage interpersonal disagreements, negotiate between interests, and support conflictual group decision-making. However, any such extensions require further research.
Limitations and future research
Our research had limitations. Operationalising perspective-getting through open questions obscures other ways (e.g. nonverbal) to obtain perspectives. Operationalising perspective-taking and perspective-integrating using a keyword approach could be construed as reductionistic but was a necessary compromise to preserve the spontaneous and heated nature of the conflict (i.e. without interrupting it for a survey). Aware of this limitation, our coding of the keywords focused on the semantic context to mitigate over-simplification. We did consider using vignettes, priming, and surveys, but we could not find any way to use these methods while preserving the integrity of the heated conflict. Our research design choices favoured ecological validity, at the cost of controllability and standardisation. Our research can only suggest the relationship between the PGTI activities and the four procedural justice components (voice, respect, neutrality, benevolence). Future research should probe these mechanisms by measuring the components separately.
Our participants were also not yet police officers but trainees who had two months left of training before entering practical placement in the field. Moreover, they knew that they were in a conflict management simulation, which can impact talk and behaviour (Sikveland et al., 2022).
Our findings are limited to heated multiparty conflicts being resolved by an organisational authority and our specific police simulation scenario. It is unclear how far our results generalise to other organisational contexts. Organisational authorities entering the heated conflict in different ways and/or with more experience might have engaged in other communicative activities and resolved the conflict differently. The simulation was designed to be balanced (i.e. both Drifter and Student were equally innocent and guilty) and thus might not apply to unbalanced scenarios (Cronin & Bezrukova, 2019; Morrill & Rudes, 2010). Given that the two conflicting parties were not previously acquainted and did not expect to meet afterwards, our findings are potentially less applicable for organisational contexts in which those involved have ongoing relationships or where power relationships are more balanced. However, we would expect our results to generalise to the public’s interactions with security staff, military personnel, and emergency services.
Additionally, our small sample size and near-significant findings indicate that our study may have been underpowered. Relying on just three actors to rate perceived procedural justice may have also produced more homogeneous scores than would occur naturally because people’s perceptions of fairness are often ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (Bobocel, 2021, p. 100).
These limitations create opportunities for future research. Apart from the relationships between perspective-getting and voice (Lowrey-Kinberg & Buker, 2017; Tjosvold et al., 2014) and perspective-taking and respect (Ng et al., 2019), our findings within the interaction have not been demonstrated before. Therefore, the PGTI model and associated methodology should be applied to different heated authority-managed conflicts (e.g. management–employee disagreements or interpersonal conflicts in healthcare teams) with organisational authorities of different levels of experience to see if the same mechanisms and sequences are observed. The model could also be tested on more formal processes such as HR disputes, co-worker mediation, or during mergers. Research should also investigate whether the PGTI activities are beneficial for conflict management when used by peacemakers, facilitators or mediators not in formal positions of authority and if the PGTI model leads to outcomes beyond procedural justice (e.g. improved solutions, less use of coercive force).
Conclusion
Despite perspective-taking and communicative activities being widely recognised as crucial for conflict management, the turn-by-turn process through which perceived procedural justice is cultivated has been neglected. Our proposed PGTI model conceptualises how asking about the perspective of stakeholders, then demonstrating an understanding of those perspectives, and finally integrating these perspectives can create perceptions of procedural justice. This model not only brings together previous research on perspective-getting and -taking but also introduces the concept of perspective-integrating. Perspective-getting and -taking are not ends in themselves but rather dynamic precursors to perspective-integrating which in turn has a more direct impact on procedural justice. The mechanisms connecting PGTI activities to perceived procedural justice, we have argued, are the four core components of procedural justice, namely, voice, respect, neutrality, and benevolence. Conflict management is done turn-by-turn, and, accordingly, it should also be analysed turn-by-turn. Such an analysis, we have demonstrated, can identify stable communicative patterns that are explanatory, consequential, and trainable.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Manjeet Singh for helping design an earlier version of the ambiguous conflict scenario, and Erika Laugerud and Christine Pedersen for assistance during data collection.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.