Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts

IF 0.5 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Katharina G. Kugler, Peter T. Coleman
{"title":"Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts","authors":"Katharina G. Kugler, Peter T. Coleman","doi":"10.1111/ncmr.12192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conflicts over important moral differences can divide communities and trap people in destructive spirals of enmity that become intractable. But these conflicts can also be managed constructively. Two laboratory studies investigating the underlying social–psychological dynamics of more tractable versus intractable moral conflicts are presented, which tested a core proposition derived from a dynamical systems theory of intractable conflict. It portrays more intractable conflicts as those, which have lost the complexity inherent to more constructive social relations and have collapsed into overly simplified, closed patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that resist change. Employing our Difficult Conversations Lab paradigm in which participants engage in genuine discussions over moral differences, we found that higher levels of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complexity were associated with more tractable conversations. Whereas in a pilot study we examined conflicts that naturally became more/less intractable, in our main experiment, high versus low levels of cognitive complexity were induced.","PeriodicalId":45732,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation and Conflict Management Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ncmr.12192","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation and Conflict Management Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Conflicts over important moral differences can divide communities and trap people in destructive spirals of enmity that become intractable. But these conflicts can also be managed constructively. Two laboratory studies investigating the underlying social–psychological dynamics of more tractable versus intractable moral conflicts are presented, which tested a core proposition derived from a dynamical systems theory of intractable conflict. It portrays more intractable conflicts as those, which have lost the complexity inherent to more constructive social relations and have collapsed into overly simplified, closed patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that resist change. Employing our Difficult Conversations Lab paradigm in which participants engage in genuine discussions over moral differences, we found that higher levels of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complexity were associated with more tractable conversations. Whereas in a pilot study we examined conflicts that naturally became more/less intractable, in our main experiment, high versus low levels of cognitive complexity were induced.
变得复杂:复杂性对潜在的难以解决的道德冲突对话的影响
围绕重要道德差异的冲突可能会分裂社区,使人们陷入难以解决的破坏性敌对螺旋。但这些冲突也可以得到建设性的管理。两项实验室研究调查了更易处理和棘手的道德冲突的潜在社会心理动力学,这两项研究检验了从棘手冲突的动力系统理论中得出的核心命题。它将更棘手的冲突描述为那些已经失去了更具建设性的社会关系所固有的复杂性,并崩溃为过于简化、封闭的思维、感受和行动模式,从而抵制变革的冲突。运用我们的困难对话实验室范式,参与者就道德差异进行真诚的讨论,我们发现认知、情绪和行为复杂性水平越高,对话就越容易处理。在一项试点研究中,我们检查了自然变得越来越难处理的冲突,而在我们的主要实验中,诱发了高水平和低水平的认知复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信