Conflict and Cooperation

When taking the predictions of the BGR perspective into account, it could be helpful to try to avoid common knowledge of a group membership, ergo create unilateral knowledge of group membership in an organization, so that ingroup favouritism is not as strong. 
Another mentioned possibility might be direct reciprocity. If the possibility for direct reciprocity exists, cues of a partner's group membership become less important and people rely more on how the interaction partner will behave. 

Dissent can help understanding another person's perspective more clearly (perspective taking), which has been shown in a study where participants read a moral dilemma and consecutively discussed it with a confederate. Either the confederate was of a different opinion (controversy condition) or the same opinion (no-controversy condition). Measured was how accurate participants understood the other person's perspective (choosing arguments out of a list, they think the confederate would have chosen). The results were, that participants from the controversy condition group chose the arguments from the list more accurately and therefore understood the confederate's perspective better. Therefore, dissent might lead to more accurate perspective taking of the other person.

Dissent can lead to people resisting conformity as has been found in a study where participants where supposed to judge a series of multiple slides for color and brightness. In reality all slides were blue. In the majority condition 80% of previous confederates judged the slides as green, 20% as blue, so the majority showed dissent. In the minority condition, 20% saif the slides were green, 80% said they were blue, so the minority dissented. In a control group, no information was given. Each participant was then paired with a confederate who answered first and always said the slides were green. Measured was then, how many asociations the participants could find for the words blue and green. Participants who were exposed to minority dissent gave more associations, ergo they showed more creative behavior. Therefore, it can be concluded, that minority dissent enhances creativity and performance, regardless of whether the minority is correct or not. 

In a study with hidden profile (hidden information), members of a group were each given part of an information in a way that none of them could know the best solution for the problem at hand on their own. Via group discussion, they have to figure out the hidden profile. Generally, groups in this paradigm were not very successful in solving the hidden profile, but when there was dissent among the group members, they were able to make better decisions than consent groups. So, in cases where the best choice is not evident at the beginning, group decision quality benefits from dissent

"Hidden profiles" are dual or multiple-alternative group decision tasks in which the information about the decision alternatives is distributed among the group members in such a way, that no member can detect the best alternative on the basis of his or her individual information set. In a group discussion they try to figure out what the hidden information is, so what the best decision for the task is.

The two mediators are the intensity of a discussion (longer, more information exhange, more generated arguments--> the more intense, the better the performance) and discussion diversion, meaning a greater openness to new and inconsistent information.

Minority dissent facilitates flexible and divergent thinking among majority members, while in majority dissent situations, people tend to think more convergent and less flexible. 

One situational factor is the unanimity decision rule, according to which all members have to agree to the solution. In this case, minority opinions matter, more arguments are exchanged and there is overall more satisfaction with the final decision. 
Another factor is the possibility participation. If group member's opinions are heard and able to make a difference, there is more motivation to participate and express dissent. 
Additionally, if there is dialectical leadership present, meaning that the leader is open to dissent and encourages ideas that express alternatives and counter the current solution, the decision is higher in quality. 
Finally, critical norms, which are defined as a common understanding in groups that independence and critical thoughts are important, members feel more free to express their dissent, since they are not seen as disloyal by their co-members. 

There are two dialectical decision techniques, which could be used in organizations to mimic dissent. One would be the devil's advocacy, where one person is assigned to criticize proposals made by the group as authentic and substantial as possible. 
Another one would be the dialectical inquiry, where ciriticisms and counterproposals are made and then discussed. 
Generally though, real dissent has a stronger effect than a mimicked one, so another possibility would be to create quite diverse groups. 

One factor could be that people are generally motivated to claim as much as is reasonably possible for oneself. Therefore, they try to gain more responsibility, to justify larger claim later. 
Another factor could be the egocentric bias in the cognitive availability of information. It basically says that it is much easier for people to remember their own inputs than those of their partner, since they are always present at their own contributions, but not at their partner's. Even if we are aware of another person's contribution, we don't perceive it as as rich or deep as our own. 
Furthermore, people are motivated to enhance their self-esteem, this can be done by forming the belief, that the person themselves is the primary agent in joint tasks. 
 

Findings showed that married couples tend to overestimate not only their positive contributions (cleaning etc.) but also their negative ones (who leaves more dirty dishes behind). The magnitude of the overestimation was also only weakly correlated with the desirability of the activity. Therefore, the enhancement of self-esteem can not be the only motivator. 

People desire proportional fairness in the allocation of responsibility. If a group is assigned with the task of preparing a presentation and all members of the group are graded equally, one or more of the members might feel unjustly treated because they perceived their contributions to be bigger or more important than the other one's. This might lead to an interpersonal conflict.

Another example would be regarding the "illusion of transparency". It describes the tendency for people to overestimate the clarity with which they have sent certain signals of their state of mind or mood. For instance, in a romantic relationship, one partner might feel they signalled quite clearly that they wanted some attention, but the other partner does not react to these subliminal signs. Therefore, the partner sending the signals might feel overlooked or ignored, which could cause "bad blood" or conflicts. 

One approach to overcome biased responsibility allocation is to change the differential availability of people's personal contributions. This can be done by not asking the person about the percentage of their own contributions, but about the percentage of the other person's contributions. This leads to more focus on the contribution of the other party, and the person who has been asked the questions then tends to allocate more responsibility to the other person. 

The “spotlight effect” means that people overestimate the extent to which their appearance and behavior are noticed, evaluated and remembered by others. People assume that their actions, because they command so much of their own attention, are likely to occupy the attention of others as well.
One example would be if a person goes to a restaurant by themselves and is afraid that other people might think that the person is lonely, or that they stare at them extensively.

Social phobia and social anxiety entail a heightened fear of other people's attention on one's appearence and behaviors, which are encompassed in the spotlight effect.
Another mental disorder might be paranoia, which is assoicated with a higher sense of self-consciousness. People with this disorder perceive themselves as a target  for other people's attention or directed behavior (self-as-target bias).

The illusion of transparency refers to the overestimation of the clarity of one's own internal states for others.
One example would be a taste-test experiment, where participants got 5 drinks. They were told that one of those drinks tastes foul, but they did not know which one. They were then instructed to drink all five drinks on front of another person and that they should not show in their faces, if they had caught the foul or a normal drink. 
Most of the participants thought that it could be clearly seen on their face, when they had the foul drink in comparison to a normal one. 

The illusion of transoarency is an exaggerated sense of the clarity of one’s attempted communication and can cause interpersonal difficulties. For example, if a person overestimates the clarity with which she or he has sent certain signals they are more likely to evaluate the partners’ failure to take appropriate actions as an evidence of moodiness or lack of interests. Those unrealistic expectations that one partner is able to read one’s mind can cause misunderstanding and in turn conflict. 

The effect anger has on negotiations depends on various aspects. Most of the time, it seems to have a negative effect on negotiation, such as lower joint gains, less likelihood the dispute can be settled, less exchange of information about priorities, less concessions, covert retaliation and generally negative emotions and dissatisfaction. These outcomes, though, depend on moderators like the object of the negotiators’ anger, the counterpart’s power and the counterpart’s culture (east Asians generally do not make concessions to angry negotiators).

Outcome potential can be understood as the potential value of the joint gains of the negotiation parties, meaning what outcome is possible in a negotiation based on the overlap of the negotiator’s interests and priorities.
In Brett's model, the potential value is determined by the negotiator's interests and priorities. 

Negotiation strategies are goal-directed behaviors that people use to try to reach agreement. There are two main strategies: distributive and integrative negotiation strategies.

The distributive negotiation strategy is a form of behavior, which aims at claiming as much value as possible for oneself in a negotiation situation (take it or leave it). 
The integrative negotiation strategy describes a behavior, which is focused on creating value and claiming value. The counterpart is viewed as a partner, rather than an enemy. 

A person using a distributive negotiation strategy might attempt to influence the counterpart to make concessions by using threats, emotional appeals and single issue offers ("take it or leave it")
A person using an integrative negotiation strategy would rather share information about their interests and priorities and try to fashion tradeoffs ("logrolling") to generate high joint gains. 

Objective standards refer to comparisons a negotiator might use to justify the fairness of his offer. They can be ascribed to the distributive negotiation strategy, since the intent is to influence the counterpart to make concessions. 
One example would be an employer of a restaurant offering a potential employee a minimum wage salary, justifying it with the salary of the other employees. 

The first offer effect describes how an outcome is more favourable for those who make fist offer. This seems to be explainable by the anchoring effect in bargaining strategies. First offers, whether in a single or multiple issue negotiation, strongly influence the ultimate outcome, because the counterpart ‘‘anchors” on the opening offer. The underlying psychological reason for the first offer advantage is that counterparts insufficiently adjust for the strategic, self-interested positioning of the first offer. 

The first strategy is explicit information exchange. It consists of an exchange of questions and answers which generate insight into negotiator's interests and priorities. It is the simplest route to joint gains. 
The second stategy is the implicit information exchange. The negotiators' offers and arguments reveal information about their underlying interests and priorities. 
The third strategy is the heuristic trial and error. Negotiators using this technique start the neotiation by proposing multi-issue offers that satisfy their high aspirations. A concession to a lower level of aspiration is made only when the counterpart has rejected all the proposals that the negotiator could make at the higher level of aspiration. When the negotiator’s multi-issue offer is rejected by the counterpart, who is probably responding with his own multi-issue offer reflecting his aspirations, the first negotiator, instead of conceding, reconfigures her initial multi-issue offer to see if the counterpart would be interested in a slightly different configuration, but one that also fulfills the negotiator’s aspirations. 

A study showed, that mimicking the counterpart's behavior leads to more insight, generating trust and the creation of value, as well as more claim of value (not at expense of counterpart--> what was created was claimed). (Mechanisms of reciprocity).

The fixed-pie error or bias is the faulty belief that the counterpart’s priorities and interests are completely and directly opposed to one’s own, when in fact, this is not necessarily true. (distributive thinking; integrative would be to expand the pie).

Example:
a married couple fighting during the divorce negotiation. While both think the other one wants to financially ruin them, they actually only want to get as fast as they can over with it.

The incompatability bias is the faulty belief that another person has opposing preferences to one’s own interests, when in fact, the other person is in complete agreement. E.g. other people have interest in same resource as oneself and that this is impossible/ incompatible

It was found that approximately 40% of negotiators fail to realize when their interests are perfectly compatible with others

The negotiation correlates of social motives are prosocial or cooperatively motivated negotiators. They try to maximize outcomes for themselves and others. They use more integrative negotiation strategies. 
Furthermore, there are pro-self negotiators, who use more distributive negotiation strategies. They have either individualistic motives, so they try to maximize gains for themselves alone, or competitive motives, meaning they aim at maximizing the difference between themselves and others.
 

When a conflict emerges from task-related issues, such as differing viewpoints regarding the goals of a work task, it can be defined as a task conflict.

When a conflict emerges from personality clashes and/ or emotionally charged interactions with others due to issues of a personal nature, it can be defined as a relationship conflict.

Process conflicts emerge from differing opinions regarding the procedures for completing a task, including how tasks should be performed, when and by whom.

Non-task organizational conflicts are issues, that are organizational in nature, but but not specific to a work task, such as disagreements over workplace policies, benefits and so on.

1. Task conflict: some individuals of a team want different methods for reaching a goal, e.g. having more environmental cars vs. having the fastest cars. A team of accountants and financial analysts may disagree over how to interpret and report the results of financial data since each member brings a unique perspective

2. Relationship conflict: one individual got sexual harassed at work by another person.

3. Process conflict: some individuals of a team want to assign a task to colleagues, who don’t see themselves as suitable. Or: If one technician uses a different process for quality control than another, there will be a significant impact to the overall ability to create consistent quality control within the organization

4. Non-task organizational conflict: an organization wants one day in casual outfits (e.g. Fridays), while many employees don’t like this idea.