The present research intends to explore the effectiveness of Common Identity Mediation (cf. Gaertner, Mann, Murell, & Dovidio, 1989), a third-party intervention procedure especially conducive to facilitate intergroup dispute resolution. We therefore compared Common Identity Mediation to another third-party procedure (i.e., Arbitration-Mediation; cf. McGillicuddy et al. 1987; Ross und Conlon 2000) and an intergroup control condition without third-party assistance. We used a face-to-face, distributive intergroup dispute paradigm including circumstances that elevate the risk for failed third-party interventions (e.g., high emotional involvement of disputants). Results indicate that Common Identity Mediation is as effective as Arbitration-Mediation in reducing the risk of partial impasses and to improve economic outcomes. In addition, Common Identity Mediation shows a slight advantage in boosting psychological outcomes such as feelings of connectivity, shared identity, judgments of counterparts and satisfaction with the arranged settlement. Findings are discussed in light of social identity theory, the Common Ingroup Identity Model, the Ingroup Projection Model and with respect to their practical implications for practitioners.
Keywords: inter-group conflict, negotiation, dispute resolution procedure, Common Identity Mediation, Arbitration-Mediation, Common Ingroup Identity Model, Ingroup Projection Model
Table of Contents
Classic Third-party Interventions
Common Identity Mediation
Evaluation of Third-party Performance
Threats to Third-party Intervention
Present Research
Method
Participants and Design
Negotiation Task
Experimental Manipulations
Third-party Training
Procedure
Dependent Variables
Results
Manipulation Checks
Economic Outcomes
Psychological Outcomes
Discussion
Research Objectives & Core Themes
The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Common Identity Mediation as a third-party intervention strategy for resolving intergroup disputes, comparing its outcomes against Arbitration-Mediation and a control group to determine if it can improve psychological outcomes while remaining economically effective.
- Comparison of third-party dispute resolution procedures
- Role of social identity in intergroup negotiations
- Economic outcomes such as impasse rates and joint costs
- Psychological outcomes including connectivity and trust
- Impact of superordinate identity on negotiation performance
Excerpt from the Book
Common Identity Mediation
Common Identity Mediation is based on the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner, Mann, Murell & Dovidio, 1989), and aims to change disputants’ mental representation from perceived membership of different groups to perceived membership of the same group. In fact, these divergent cognitive representations represent different social identities (cf. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher S. D & Wetherell, 1987) that can be organized hierarchically, with a higher-level identity including multiple lower-level identities (circles of inclusion: cf. Allport, 1954). This mechanism causes Common Identity Mediation to change the disputants’ level of social identity, in order that lower-level, subgroup identities merge in one higher-level, superordinate identity (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachmann & Rust, 1993). Consequently, former outgroup members are included within the ingroup, so that individuals develop a common ingroup identity on a superordinate level (Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachmann & Anastasio, 1996). This can be achieved in two ways: first, the former (sub-)group identity can be eliminated (Hornsey und Hogg 2000); or second, the superordinate identity is established whilst maintaining the distinct group identities (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).
Summary of Chapters
Classic Third-party Interventions: Discusses the mechanisms and limitations of arbitration and mediation, including hybrid approaches like Mediation-Arbitration and Arbitration-Mediation, highlighting their reliance on decision control.
Common Identity Mediation: Explains the theoretical framework based on social identity theory, detailing how integrating distinct group identities into a superordinate identity can reduce intergroup bias.
Evaluation of Third-party Performance: Defines the criteria for assessing success, specifically distinguishing between economic outcomes (e.g., settlement rates) and psychological outcomes (e.g., satisfaction and connectivity).
Threats to Third-party Intervention: Analyzes barriers to successful negotiation, such as the role of group representatives, the framing of outcomes as losses, and the impairing influence of anger.
Present Research: Outlines the research design, hypotheses, and the experimental laboratory setting involving a distributive intergroup negotiation task.
Method: Details the participants, the experimental task setup, and the systematic manipulation of mediation conditions and training procedures for third parties.
Results: Presents the statistical findings regarding manipulation checks, economic performance metrics, and psychological outcome measures across the three conditions.
Discussion: Interprets the findings in relation to the Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Ingroup Projection Model, offering implications for practitioners and addressing study limitations.
Keywords
inter-group conflict, negotiation, dispute resolution procedure, Common Identity Mediation, Arbitration-Mediation, Common Ingroup Identity Model, Ingroup Projection Model, psychological outcomes, economic outcomes, social identity theory, intergroup bias, impasse rates, organizational disputes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research explores the effectiveness of Common Identity Mediation as a method to resolve intergroup disputes, specifically evaluating its impact on both economic and psychological outcomes.
What are the central themes of the work?
Central themes include social identity theory, the comparison of different third-party intervention styles, and the psychological effects of negotiation on disputants in organizational contexts.
What is the primary research goal?
The study aims to determine if Common Identity Mediation can achieve economic results comparable to Arbitration-Mediation while providing superior psychological benefits like increased trust and satisfaction.
Which methodology was employed for this study?
The study utilized a face-to-face, distributive intergroup dispute laboratory paradigm with 60 dyads, randomly assigning them to one of three conditions: a control group, Common Identity Mediation, or Arbitration-Mediation.
What is covered in the main part of the study?
The main section covers an overview of existing third-party procedures, the theoretical background of Common Identity Mediation, the specific methodology used to simulate the conflict, and a detailed analysis of the experimental results.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Common Identity Mediation, Arbitration-Mediation, intergroup conflict, social identity, and dispute resolution.
How does Common Identity Mediation differ from Arbitration-Mediation?
Unlike Arbitration-Mediation, which uses a threat of forced settlement to motivate compliance, Common Identity Mediation focuses on fostering a shared superordinate identity to improve relationship quality and connectivity.
What did the study find regarding the speed of settlement?
Contrary to the hypothesis that Arbitration-Mediation would lead to faster settlements due to the pressure of decision control, the study found no significant difference in the number of rounds required to reach an agreement between the two mediation types.
Does a superordinate identity guarantee a resolution to conflict?
The study suggests that while a superordinate identity is beneficial, the Ingroup Projection Model implies that underlying differences in perceived prototypicality may still influence conflict, indicating that more research on moderating circumstances is necessary.
- Quote paper
- Pascal Rickert (Author), 2013, Common Identity Mediation in Intergroup Disputes, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/230089
