a research paper on conflict resolution

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Affective Science
Biological Foundations of Psychology
Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
Developmental Psychology
Educational/School Psychology
Forensic Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems of Psychology
Individual Differences
Methods and Approaches in Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational and Institutional Psychology
Personality
Psychology and Other Disciplines
Social Psychology
Sports Psychology
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Conflict management.

Patricia Elgoibar , Patricia Elgoibar University of Barcelona
Martin Euwema Martin Euwema Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
and Lourdes Munduate Lourdes Munduate University of Seville
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.5
Published online: 28 June 2017

Conflicts are part of nature and certainly part of human relations, between individuals, as well as within and between groups. Conflicts occur in every domain of life: family, work, and society, local and global. Conflict management, therefore, is an essential competency for each person. People differ largely in their emotional and behavioral responses to conflict and need to learn how to behave effectively in different conflict situations. This requires a contingency approach, first assessing the conflict situation, and then choosing a strategy, matching the goals of the party. In most situations, fostering cooperative relations will be most beneficial; however, this is also most challenging. Therefore, constructive conflict management strategies, including trust building and methods of constructive controversy, are emphasized. Conflict management, however, is broader than the interaction of the conflicting parties. Third-party interventions are an essential element of constructive conflict management, particularly the assessment of which parties are intervening in what ways at what escalation stage.

cooperation
competition
conflict behavior
conglomerate conflict behavior
constructive conflict management
conflict resolution strategies

Definition of Conflict

Conflicts are part of nature, and certainly part of human relations. People experience conflict with other persons, in teams or in groups, as well as between larger entities, departments, organizations, communities, and countries. Conflicts appear at home, at work, and in our spare-time activities with friends, with people we love and with people we hate, as well as with our superiors and with our subordinates and coworkers. Parties need to accept conflicts as part of life dynamics and learn to deal with them effectively and efficiently. Conflict management refers to the way we manage incompatible actions with others, where others can be a person or a group.

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions; it is neither inevitable nor intrinsically bad, but it is commonplace (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ; Schellenberg, 1996 ). In the 20th century , Lewin ( 1935 ) concluded that an intrinsic state of tension motivates group members to move toward the accomplishment of their desired common goals. Later on, Parker Follett ( 1941 ) explored the constructive side of conflict and defined conflict as the appearance of difference, difference of opinions or difference of interests. Deutsch ( 1949 ) developed this line of thought and analyzed the relation between the way group members believe their goals are related and their interactions and relationships.

A common definition of conflict argues that there is a conflict between two (or more) parties (individuals or groups) if at least one of them is offended, or feels bothered by the other (Van de Vliert, 1997 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Traditionally, conflict has been defined as opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (Pondy, 1967 ). However, Deutsch ( 1973 ) defined conflict as incompatible activities: one person's actions interfere, obstruct, or in some way get in the way of another's action. Tjosvold, Wan, and Tang ( 2016 ) proposed that defining conflict as incompatible actions is a much stronger foundation than defining conflict as opposing interests, because conflicts also can occur when people have common goals (i.e., they may disagree about the best means to achieve their common goals). The key contribution of Deutsch’s ( 1973 ) proposal is that incompatible activities occur in both compatible and incompatible goal contexts. Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interaction, and outcomes as they approach conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Conflict

Euwema and Giebels ( 2017 ) highlighted some key elements of conflict.

Conflict implies dependence and interdependence. Parties rely to some extent on the other parties to realize their goals (Kaufman, Elgoibar, & Borbely, 2016 ). This interdependence can be positive (a cooperative context), negative (a competitive context), or mixed. Positive interdependence is strongly related to cooperative conflict behaviors, while negative interdependence triggers competitive behaviors (Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ). Interdependence also reflects the power difference between parties. A short-term contractor on a low-paid job usually is much more dependent on the employer than vice versa. Many conflicts, however, can be seen as “mixed motive” situations.

Conflicts are mostly mixed motive situations because parties have simultaneous motives to cooperate and motives to compete. Parties are, on the one hand, dependent on each other to realize their goal, and, on the other hand, they are at the same time competitors. For example, two colleagues on a team are cooperating for the same team result; however, there is competition for the role as project leader. In a soccer team, the players have a team goal of working together to win, but they can be competing to be the top scorer. The mixed motive structure is very important to understand conflict dynamics. When conflicts arise, the competitive aspects become more salient, and the cooperative structure often is perceived less by parties. Interventions to solve conflict, therefore, are often related to these perceptions and the underlying structures.

Conflict is a psychological experience. Conflict is by definition a personal and subjective experience, as each individual can perceive and manage the same conflict in a different manner. Conflict doesn’t necessarily have an objective basis (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). It depends on the perception of the specific situation, and the perception is by definition subjective and personal.

Conflict concerns cognitive and affective tension. When someone perceives blocked goals and disagreements, he or she can also, although not necessarily, feel fear or anger. Many authors consider that conflict is emotionally charged (Nair, 2007 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Sinaceur, Adam, Van Kleef, & Galinky, 2013 ), although the emotion doesn’t need to be labeled necessarily as a negative emotion. Some people actually enjoy conflict. Emotional experiences in conflict are also scripted by cultural, historical, and personal influences (Lindner, 2014 ).

Conflict can be unidirectional. One party can feel frustrated or thwarted by the other while the second party is hardly aware of, and doesn’t perceive the same reality of, the conflict.

Conflict is a process. Conflict is a dynamic process that does not appear suddenly, but takes some time to develop and passes through several stages (Spaho, 2013 ). Conflict is the process resulting from the tension in interpersonal interactions or between team members because of real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ).

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Early conflict and organizational research concluded that conflict interferes with team performance and reduces satisfaction due to an increase in tension and distraction from the objective (Brown, 1983 ; Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Jehn ( 1995 ) differentiated between task and relational conflict, and later also included process conflict (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ). Task conflict refers to different opinions on content (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Examples of task conflict are conflict about distribution of resources, about procedures and policies, and judgment and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). Process conflict refers to how tasks should be accomplished (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Examples are disagreements about logistic and delegation issues (Jehn et al., 2008 ). Finally, relationship conflict refers to “interpersonal incompatibility” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 257). Examples of relationship conflict are conflict about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). All three types of conflict—task, process, and personal (relational) conflicts—are usually disruptive, especially personal conflict, which is highly disruptive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Jehn, 1995 , 1997 ). A review and meta-analysis by De Wit et al. ( 2012 ) showed that, under specific conditions, task conflict can be productive for teams. Moreover, conflict can wreck a team’s efforts to share information and reach a consensus (Amason & Schweiger, 1994 ). Therefore, research supporting the benefit of task and relationship conflict is not conclusive and each situation varies. What seems to be clear is that managing conflict efficiently to avoid escalation is a priority for teams.

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict behavior, conflict management, and conflict resolution are different layers of a conflict process and therefore should be distinguished. Conflict behavior is any behavioral response to the experience of frustration, while conflict management is the deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, both to prevent or to escalate them. Also, conflict management is differentiated from conflict resolution, which is specific action aimed to end a conflict.

Conflict Behavior

Conflict behavior is the behavioral response to the experience of conflict (Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). Conflict behavior is defined as one party’s reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt, 1981 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). In conflict situations people often respond primarily, following their emotions, more or less conscientiously.

Many factors affect how people respond to the experience of conflict. Social psychology shows the processes are largely unconscious (Wilson, 2004 ). For example, how people respond to intimidating behavior by their supervisor might be primarily influenced by the context and individual perception, as well as previous relations with persons in authority, including parents and teachers (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ). These natural behavioral responses are also referred to as “conflict styles.” They are rooted in our personality and can differ in context. Some people will naturally respond by being friendly and accommodating, where others will start arguing or fighting (Barbuto, Phipps, & Xu, 2010 ; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ).

Conflict behavior becomes more effective once we are more aware of our natural tendencies and are also able not to act upon them, and instead to show flexibility in behavioral approaches. This is where conflict behavior becomes conflict management. Therefore, one can be a naturally highly accommodating person who will spontaneously give in to others who make demands, but one will be more effective after learning to assess the situation at hand and to carefully decide on a response, which might be quite different from the natural or spontaneous reaction.

Dual-Concern Model

The dual-concern model holds that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests) (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 1983 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Van de Vliert, 1999 ) (see Figure 1 ). Usually, the two concerns define five different conflict behaviors: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem solving or integrating. These behaviors are studied at the level of general personal conflict styles, closely connected to personality, as well as at the level of strategies and tactics (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ).

The different conflict styles have been studied intensively, with three approaches. A normative approach, wherein integrating (also known as problem solving) is seen as the preferred behavior for conflict resolution; a contingency approach, exploring conditions under which each of the behaviors is most appropriate; and a conglomerate approach, focusing on a combination of the behaviors (see “ Conglomerate Conflict Behavior ”).

Figure 1. Dual-concern model.

In forcing, one party aims to achieve his or her goal by imposing a solution onto the other party. Concern for one’s own interests and own vision is what matters. There is little attention and care for the interests and needs of the other party, or the relationship with the other (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ). This style is appropriate when the outcome is important for one party but trivial to the opponent, or when fast decision making is necessary. It becomes inappropriate when issues are complex, when both parties are equally powerful, when the outcome is not worth the effort for one party, or when there is enough time to make a collective decision. Moreover, forcing decisions can seriously damage a relationship and contribute to bullying in the workplace (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014 ); however, normative forcing, which is referring to rules and imposing them, can be effective (De Dreu, 2005 ). Note that some alternative terms that have been used for forcing in the literature are competitive , contending , or adversarial behavior .

With avoiding, one party aims to stay out of any confrontation with the other. This behavior prevents efforts to yield, to negotiate constructively, or to compete for one’s own gains. The conflict issue receives little attention, usually because the avoiding party thinks he or she won’t gain from entering into the conflict (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Avoiding may be used when the benefits of resolving the conflict are not worth confronting the other party, especially when the problem is trivial or minor; when no good solutions are available for now; or when time is needed (Van Erp et al., 2011 ). An important motive for avoiding also is to prevent loss of face and to maintain the relationship. This is particularly true in collectivistic cultures, particularly in Asian societies (Oetzel et al., 2001 ). Avoiding is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party, when the parties cannot wait, or when immediate action is required (Rahim, 2002 ). Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim ( 1994 ) distinguished between long-term avoidance, which is a permanent move to leave the conflict, and short-term avoidance, defined as temporary inaction.

Accommodating

Accommodating is giving in or going along with the ideas, wishes, and needs of the other party. Accommodating usually is the result of a low concern for one’s own conflictive interests combined with a high concern for the interests and needs of the other party. Giving in often is related to a strong need for harmony and a sensitivity to the needs of the other. Accommodation is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in the conflict, when the opponent is right, when the issue is much more important to the other party, and in order to build or maintain a long-term relationship, in exchange for future consideration when needed. Giving in also can be an educational strategy, giving space to the other to find out what the effect will be. Accommodating is less appropriate when the issue is of great concern, when accommodation creates frustration, or when accommodation reinforces dynamics of exploitation (Spaho, 2013 ). Note that an alternative term for this concept that can be found in the literature is yielding .

Compromising

Compromising involves searching for a middle ground, with an eye on both one’s own interest and the interest of the other. The premise is that both parties must find a middle ground where everyone receives equal consideration, meaning that each party makes some concession (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Compromising is appropriate when a balance of forces exists and the goals of parties are mutually exclusive (Buddhodev, 2011 ). Compromise leads to a democratic solution; however, it may prevent arriving at a creative solution to the problem and a limited effort to increase resources before distributing them (Spaho, 2013 ).

Problem Solving or Integrating

Problem solving is a win–win strategy aimed at “optimizing rather than satisfying the parties” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 36). Great value is attached to one’s own interests and vision, but also a lot of attention is given to the needs, ideas, and interests of the other. One looks for open and creative solutions that meet both interests. Problem solving or integrating is useful in dealing with complex issues, and it allows both parties to share skills, information, and other resources to redefine the problem and formulate alternative solutions. It is, however, inappropriate when the task is simple or trivial, and when there is no time. Also, it is more difficult to develop when the other party does not have experience in problem solving or when the parties are unconcerned about the outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Note that some alternative terms that can be found in the literature for this concept are cooperation and collaboration .

The dual-concern model is used as a contingency model, describing which conflict behaviors are used best under what conditions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997 ), and also as a normative model, promoting integrating behaviors as the most effective style, particularly when it comes to joined outcomes and long-term effectiveness. Forcing, in contrast, is often described as a noncooperative behavior, with risk of escalated and unilateral outcomes (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Burke, 1970 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 2010 ; Thomas, 1992 ). As a result, authors define forcing and integrating as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999 ). Following this model, many scholars during the 1970s and 1980s proposed that individuals use a single behavior in conflict, or that the behaviors should be seen as independent. Therefore, the antecedents and effects of different conflict behaviors are often analyzed separately (Tjosvold, 1997 ; Volkema & Bergmann, 2001 ). However, parties usually try to achieve personal outcomes, and try to reach mutual agreements by combining several behaviors in a conflict episode (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). This is the basic assumption of the conglomerate conflict behavior (CCB) theory (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ), which established that conflict behaviors are used in a compatible manner, sequentially or simultaneously.

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

In the dual-concern model, a contrast is made between forcing (contending with an adversary in a direct way) and integrating (reconciling the parties’ basic interests) as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold et al., 1999 ). However, the CCB framework assumes that individual reactions to conflict typically are complex and consist of multiple components of behavior (Van de Vliert, 1997 , Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). The CCB theory covers the idea that behavioral components may occur simultaneously or sequentially and that the combination drives toward effectiveness (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Medina & Benitez, 2011 ). The theory has been supported in studies analyzing conflict management effectiveness in different contexts, such as in managerial behavior (Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999 ), in military peacekeeping (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ) and by worker representatives in organizations (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

The main reason that people combine different behaviors is because conflicts are often mixed-motive situations (Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003 ; Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). Mixed-motive situations are described as situations that pose a conflict between securing immediate benefits through competition, and pursuing benefits for oneself and others through cooperation with other people (Komorita & Parks, 1995 ; Sheldon & Fishbach, 2011 ). Therefore, a person's behavior in a conflict episode is viewed as a combination of some of the five forms of conflict behaviors. An example of sequential complex behavior is to first put the demands clearly (forcing), followed by integrating (searching for mutual gains, and expanding the pie), and finally compromising, where distributive issues are dealt with in a fair way. An example of serial complexity can be found in multi-issue conflict, when for some issues conflict can be avoided, while for high priorities, demands are put on the table in a forcing way. Another CCB pattern is the conglomeration of accommodating and forcing. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “logrolling” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 35), and it is a classic part of integrative strategies, to maximize the outcomes for both parties. Logrolling behavior consists of accommodating the high-concern issues of the other party and forcing one’s own high-concern issues. This approach is usually helpful in multi-issue trade negotiations; however, it requires openness of both parties to acknowledging key interests.

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

The most famous and popular conflict behavior questionnaires are:

MODE (Management of Differences Exercise). MODE, developed in 1974 by Thomas and Killman, presents 30 choices between two options representing different conflict styles.

ROCI (Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory). The ROCI is a list of 28 items that measures the five styles of conflict behavior described.

Dutch Test of Conflict Handling. This list of 20 items measures the degree of preference for the five styles (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994 ; De Dreu et al., 2001 , 2005 ). It has been validated internationally.

Conflict management is deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, either to prevent or to escalate them. Unlike conflict behavior, conflict management encompasses cognitive responses to conflict situations, which can vary from highly competitive to highly cooperative. Conflict management does not necessarily involve avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and to enhance the constructive functions of conflict in order to improve team and organizational effectiveness (Rahim, 2002 ).

Conflicts are not necessarily destructive (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema, Munduate, Elgoibar, Pender, & Garcia, 2015 ), and research has shown that constructive conflict management is possible (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ). The benefits of conflict are much more likely to arise when conflicts are discussed openly, and when discussion skillfully promotes new ideas and generates creative insights and agreements (Coleman et al., 2014 ; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema et al., 2015 ; Tjosvold, Won, & Chen, 2014 ). To make a constructive experience from conflict, conflict needs to be managed effectively.

Deutsch’s classic theory of competition and cooperation describes the antecedents and consequences of parties’ cooperative or competitive orientations and allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes (Deutsch, 1973 , 2002 ). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so that the extent that protagonists believe that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negatively related) affects their interaction and thus the outcomes. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance and less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining or win–lose outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interactions, and outcomes. If parties perceive that they can reach their goals only if the other party also reaches their goals, the goal interdependence is positively perceived and therefore parties will have higher concern for the other’s goals and manage the conflict cooperatively (De Dreu et al., 2001 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). On the contrary, if one party perceives that they can reach their goals only if the other party fails to obtain their goals, the interdependence becomes negatively perceived and the approach to conflict becomes competitive (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Goals can also be independent; in that case, conflict can be avoided (the parties don’t need to obstruct each other’s goals to be successful). Therefore, how parties perceive their goals’ interdependence affects how they negotiate conflict and whether the conflict is constructively or destructively managed (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 2008 ).

Successfully managing conflict cooperatively requires intellectual, emotional, and relational capabilities in order to share information, to contribute to value creation, and to discuss differences constructively (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). In contrast, a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relations between parties, and negative psychological effects on at least one party—the loser of a win–lose context (Deutsch, 2014 ).

Deutsch’s theory proposes that emphasizing cooperative goals in conflict by demonstrating a commitment to pursue mutually beneficial solutions creates high-quality resolutions and relationships, while focusing on competitive interests by pursuing one’s own goals at the expense of the other’s escalates conflict, resulting in imposed solutions and suspicious relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

In summary, Deutsch’s theory states that the context in which the conflict process is expressed drives parties toward either a cooperative or a competitive orientation in conflicts (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 2006 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ). In other words, a cooperative context is related to a cooperative conflict pattern, and a competitive context is related to a competitive conflict pattern. When parties have a cooperative orientation toward conflict, parties discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that is satisfactory to both parties—both parties win (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ). On the contrary, in competition, there is usually a winner and a loser (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ) (see Table 1 ). In the CCB model, the patterns can include cooperative (i.e., integrating) and competitive (i.e. forcing) behavior; however, the cooperative pattern will be dominated by integrating while the competitive pattern will be dominated by forcing (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

Source : Coleman, Deutsch, and Marcus ( 2014 ).

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

The need for trust.

Trust is commonly defined as a belief or expectation about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Holmes & Rempel, 1989 ; Rousseau et al., 1998 ). Mutual trust is one important antecedent as well as a consequence of cooperation in conflicts (Deutsch, 1983 ; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008 ). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal pointed out, “Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust” ( 1998 , p.255). There is ample evidence that constructive conflict and trust are tightly and positively related (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ; Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003 ; Lewicki, Tonlinson, & Gillespie, 2006 ).

Successful constructive conflict management requires maximal gathering and exchange of information in order to identify problems and areas of mutual concern, to search for alternatives, to assess their implications, and to achieve openness about preferences in selecting optimal solutions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 1999 ). Trust gives parties the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that the shared information won’t be used against them (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006 ). Various studies revealed that trust leads to constructive conglomerate behaviors and to more integrative outcomes in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Lewicki, Elgoibar, & Euwema, 2016 ; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998 ; Ross & LaCroix, 1996 ).

How can trust be promoted? Developing trust is challenging (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2014 ; Hempel et al., 2009 ). Numerous scholars have noted that trust is easier to destroy than to create (Hempel et al., 2009 ; Meyerson et al., 1996 ). There are two main reasons for this assertion. First, trust-breaking events are often more visible and noticeable than positive trust-building actions (Kramer, 1999 ). Second, trust-breaking events are judged to have a higher impact on trust judgments than positive events (Slovic, 1993 ). Furthermore, Slovic ( 1993 ) concluded that trust-breaking events are more credible than sources of good news. Thus, the general belief is that trust is easier to destroy than it is to build, and trust rebuilding may take even longer than it took to create the original level of trust (Lewicki et al., 2016 ).

However, there is room for optimism, and different strategies have been shown to promote trust. As held in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), risk taking by one party in supporting the other party has been found to signal trust to the other party (Serva et al., 2005 ). Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in conflict management and negotiation scarce. Therefore, the use of trust-promoting strategies depends on the specific situation, and parties need practical guidance on how and when to manage conflict constructively by means of promoting mutual trust.

How does the possibility of trust development between parties depend on the conflict context? Based on this practical question, some strategies for trust development have been proposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012 ; Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012 ; Lewicki et al., 2016 ). In relationships where trust is likely, the following strategies can help: assume trustworthiness, prioritize your interests and give away a little information about them, engage in reciprocity (concessions), highlight similarities and spend time together, get to know your counterpart personally and try to be likable, behave consistently and predictably, and paraphrase your counterpart’s positions. In relationships where trust seems possible: emphasize common goals; focus on the subject, not on the people; look to the future and find a shared vision; mix questions and answers about interests and priorities—the fundamental elements of information sharing—with making and justifying offers; take a break; suggest another approach; call in a mediator; and forgive the other party’s mistakes. In relationships where trust is not possible, more cautious strategies can help: make multi-issue offers; think holistically about your counterpart’s interests; engage in reciprocity (concessions); express sympathy, apologize, or compliment your counterpart; and look for preference patterns in your counterpart’s offers and responses.

Constructive Controversy

C onstructive controversy is defined as the open-minded discussion of conflicting perspectives for mutual benefit, which occurs when protagonists express their opposing ideas that obstruct resolving the issues, at least temporarily (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Indicators of constructive controversy include listening carefully to each other’s opinion, trying to understand each other’s concerns, and using opposing views to understand the problem better. These skills are considered vitally important for developing and implementing cooperative problem-solving processes successfully and effectively.

Deutsch ( 2014 ) stated that there haven’t been many systematic discussions of the skills involved in constructive solutions to conflict, and he proposed three main types of skills for constructive conflict management:

Rapport-building skills are involved in establishing effective relationships between parties (such as breaking the ice; reducing fears, tensions, and suspicion; overcoming resistance to negotiation; and fostering realistic hope and optimism).

Cooperative conflict-resolution skills are concerned with developing and maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process among the parties involved (such as identifying the type of conflict in which the parties are involved; reframing the issues so that conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively; active listening and responsive communication; distinguishing between effective relationships between parties and positions; encouraging, supporting, and enhancing the parties; being alert to cultural differences and the possibilities of misunderstanding arising from them; and controlling anger).

Group process and decision-making skills are involved in developing a creative and productive process (such as monitoring progress toward group goals; eliciting, clarifying, coordinating, summarizing, and integrating the contributions of the various participants; and maintaining group cohesion).

Tjosvold et al. ( 2014 ) and Johnson et al. ( 2014 ) also elaborate on the skills needed for facilitating open-minded discussions and constructive controversy. They developed four mutually reinforcing strategies for managing conflict constructively:

Developing and expressing one’s own view. Parties need to know what each of the others wants and believes, and expressing one’s own needs, feelings, and ideas is essential to gaining that knowledge. By strengthening expression of their own positions, both parties can learn to investigate their position, present the best case they can for it, defend it vigorously, and try at the same time to refute opposing views. However, expressing one’s own position needs to be supplemented with an open-minded approach to the other’s position.

Questioning and understanding others’ views. Listening and understanding opposing views, as well as defending one’s own views, makes discussing conflicts more challenging but also more rewarding; therefore, the parties can point out weaknesses in each other’s arguments to encourage better development and expression of positions by finding more evidence and strengthening their reasoning.

Integrating and creating solutions. The creation of new alternatives lays the foundation for genuine agreements about a solution that both parties can accept and implement. However, protagonists may have to engage in repeated discussion to reach an agreement, or indeed they may be unable to create a solution that is mutually acceptable, and then they can both learn to become less adamant, to exchange views directly, and to show that they are trying to understand and integrate each other’s ideas so that all may benefit.

Agreeing to and implementing solutions. Parties can learn to seek the best reasoned judgment, instead of focusing on “winning”; to criticize ideas, not people; to listen and understand everyone’s position, even if they do not agree with it; to differentiate positions before trying to integrate them; and to change their minds when logically persuaded to do so.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution processes are aimed at ending a conflict. So, while conflict management can also include escalation, conflict resolution searches for a way of ending the conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978 ). Conflict resolution means reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict.

To find a resolution, parties have to bring an extra piece of information, relate the information they have differently, or transform the issue, change the rules, change the actors or the structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991 ). The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002 ). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016 ).

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties attempt to jointly create an agreement that resolves a conflict between them (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2014 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) were the first to identify the two polar yet interdependent strategies known as distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation means that activities are instrumental to the attainment of one party’s goals when they are in basic conflict with those of the other party. Integrative negotiation means that parties’ activities are oriented to find common or complementary interests and to solve problems confronting both parties. Other scholars also focused on the opposite tactical requirements of the two strategies, using a variety of terms, such as contending versus cooperating (Pruitt, 1981 ), claiming value versus creating value (Lax & Sebenius, 1987 ), and the difference between positions and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ).

If a distributive strategy is pursued too vigorously, a negotiator may gain a greater share of gains, but of a smaller set of joint gains, or, worse, may generate an outcome in which both parties lose. However, if a negotiator pursues an integrative negotiation in a single-minded manner—being totally cooperative and giving freely accurate and credible information about his/her interests—he or she can be taken advantage of by the other party (Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). The different proposals that have been formulated to cope with these central dilemmas in negotiation are mainly based on a back-and-forth communication process between the parties, which is linked to the negotiators’ interpersonal skills (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Mediation is process by which a third party facilitates constructive communication among disputants, including decision making, problem solving and negotiation, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Bollen, Munduate, & Euwema, 2016 ; Goldman, Cropanzano, Stein, & Benson, 2008 ; Moore, 2014 ). Using mediation in conflict resolution has been proven to prevent the negative consequences of conflict in the workplace (Bollen & Euwema, 2010 ; Bollen et al., 2016 ), in collective bargaining (Martinez-Pecino et al., 2008 ), in inter- and intragroup relations (Jones, 2016 ), and in interpersonal relations (Herrman, 2006 ). However, mediation is not a magic bullet and works better in conflicts that are moderate rather than extreme, when parties are motivated to resolve the conflict, and when parties have equal power, among other characteristics (Kressel, 2014 ).

Conflict Coaching

Conflict coaching is a new and rapidly growing process in the public as well as private sector (Brinkert, 2016 ). In this process, a conflict coach works with a party to accomplish three goals (Jones & Brinkert, 2008 ): (a) analysis and coherent understanding of the conflict, (b) identification of a future preferred direction, and (c) skills development to implement the preferred strategy. Therefore, a conflict coach is defined as a conflict expert who respects the other party’s self-determination and aims to promote the well-being of the parties involved. Giebels and Janssen ( 2005 ) found that, when outside help was called in, parties in conflict experienced fewer negative consequences in terms of individual well-being than people who did not ask for third-party help.

Sometimes, the leader of a team can act as conflict coach. A study by Romer and colleagues ( 2012 ) showed that a workplace leader’s problem-solving approach to conflicts increased employees’ perception of justice and their sense that they had a voice in their workplace, as well as reduced employees’ stress (De Reuver & Van Woerkom, 2010 ; Romer et al., 2012 ). In contrast, the direct expression of power in the form of forcing behavior can harm employees’ well-being (Peterson & Harvey, 2009 ). A forcing leader may become an additional party to the conflict (i.e., employees may turn against their leader; Romer et al, 2012 ).

Conflict coaching and mediation are different processes. First, in conflict coaching, only one party is involved in the process, while in mediation, the mediator helps all the parties in conflict to engage in constructive interaction. Second, conflict coaching focuses on direct skills instructions to the party (i.e., negotiation skills). In that, conflict coaching is also a leadership development tool (Romer et al., 2012 ). There is a growing tendency to integrate conflict coaching and workplace mediation, particularly in preparation for conflict resolution, because the coach can help the coached party to investigate options and weigh the advantages of the different options (Jones, 2016 ).

Arbitration

Arbitration is an institutionalized procedure in which a third party provides a final and binding or voluntary decision (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2014 ; Mohr & Spekman, 1994 ). Arbitration allows the parties to have control over the process, but not over the outcomes. Therefore, arbitration differs from negotiation, mediation, and conflict coaching, in which the parties decide the agreement themselves (Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000 ; Lewicki et al., 2014 ). In arbitration, the third party listens to the parties and decides the outcome. This procedure is used mainly in conflicts between organizations, in commercial disputes, and in collective labor conflicts (Beechey, 2000 ; Elkouri & Elkouri, 1995 ).

Decision Making by Authorities

The strategies of negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration have in common that the parties together decide about the conflict process, even when they agree to accept an arbitration. This is different from how authorities resolve conflict. Decision making by authorities varies from parents’ intervening in children’s fights to rulings by teachers, police officers, managers, complaint officers, ombudsmen, and judges. Here, often one party complains and the authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and misuse of power. However, the authorities’ decisive power is limited, and therefore in most situations authorities are strongly urged to first explore the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation among the parties involved. The authority can act as an escalator for the process, or as a facilitator, and only in cases of immediate threat can intervene or rule as a last resort. Authorities who employ this strategy can improve the learning skills of the parties and can impose upon the parties an acceptance of responsibility, both for the conflict and for the ways to end it.

It is important to emphasize the natural and positive aspects of conflict management. Conflict occurs in all areas of organizations and private lives and its management is vital for their effectiveness. Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities are identified, and new solutions are forged (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when conflict occurs, it shouldn’t be avoided but should be managed constructively.

Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Johann m. majer.

1 Department of Social, Organizational, and Political Psychology, Faculty of Education, Institute of Psychology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Matthias Barth

2 Education for Sustainable Development, Faculty of Sustainability, Institute of Sustainable Development and Learning, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Marie van Treek

Roman trötschel, associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Transformative and mutually beneficial solutions require decision-makers to reconcile present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflicts over time) and to align them with those of other decision-makers (i.e., interpersonal conflicts between people). Despite the natural co-occurrence of intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability, both types of conflicts have been studied predominantly in isolation. In this conceptual article, we breathe new life into the traditional dialog between individual decision-making and negotiation research and address critical psychological barriers to the transformation toward sustainability. In particular, we argue that research on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be tightly integrated to provide a richer understanding of the interplay between these conflicts. We propose a novel, unifying framework of interdependent conflicts that systematically structures this interplay, and we analyze how complex interdependencies between the social (i.e., conflict between decision-makers) and temporal (i.e., conflict within a decision-maker) dimensions pose fundamental psychological barriers to mutually beneficial solutions. Since challenges to conflict resolution in the transformation toward sustainability emerge not only between individual decision-makers but also frequently between groups of decision-makers, we scale the framework up to the level of social groups and thereby provide an interdependent-conflicts perspective on the interplay between intra- and intergenerational conflicts. Overall, we propose simple, testable propositions, identify intervention approaches, and apply them to transition management. By analyzing the challenges faced by negotiating parties during interdependent conflicts and highlighting potential intervention approaches, we contribute to the transformation toward sustainability. Finally, we discuss implications of the framework and point to avenues for future research.

Introduction

Human civilization stands at a crossroads. Avoiding a decline of the human species and ensuring its long-term survival requires scaling up human cooperation at all levels, from individual to global ( Dreber and Nowak, 2008 ; Ostrom, 2009 ; Dannenberg and Barrett, 2018 ). Sustainability issues such as climatic change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion can result in a conflict of interests between individuals, groups, organizations, and nations ( Hsiang et al., 2013 ; Mach et al., 2019 ). These challenges inevitably require collaborative decision-making processes (i.e., negotiations) to coordinate different interests and reach conflict solutions ( Barrett and Dannenberg, 2012 ; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013 ). Negotiation is a pervasive communication process that is most-widely used to plan for the future, allocate resources, resolve conflicts of interests, and solve complex problems via mutually satisfying agreements ( Jang et al., 2018 ).

“[Negotiations] can dramatically reshape the social and physical environments we occupy” ( Jang et al., 2018 , p. 318). The transformative potential of collaborative decision-making processes to lead to new practices ( Asara et al., 2015 ) has long been recognized by scholars of social conflict. Indeed, Pruitt and Carnevale (1993 , p. 15) concluded that “…[negotiation] presides over much of the change that occurs in human society. Conflict often results from dissatisfaction with the status quo, and it often leads to negotiation about how to do things differently. […] [S]ociety usually prospers if negotiation goes well and the agreements reached are mutually satisfying to the parties. Conversely, society is often harmed when negotiation goes poorly and fails to produce a mutually satisfying outcome.”

Negotiation processes can trigger change at different societal levels (the Multi-level perspective; Geels and Schot, 2007 ; Geels, 2011 ). At the micro-level (i.e., niches), at which individual actors operate, negotiation processes can promote sustainability transitions. At the meso-level (i.e., regimes), diverse stakeholders and representatives of social groups (e.g., communities, firms, private and public organizations, political parties, governmental institutions) incrementally transform the current state of society via negotiations ( Geels, 2020 ). Across both levels, negotiation processes constitute an essential element of collective sense-making processes and can foster societal change ( Geels, 2020 ).

It is important to note that “the structure and processes of negotiation are fundamentally the same at the personal level as they are at the diplomatic and corporate level” ( Lewicki and Litterer, 1985 ). Indeed, negotiations are interactive human decision-making processes. In line with this reasoning, our conceptual article stands in the tradition of psychological and behavioral decision-making research in assuming that negotiators depart from rationality in systematic ways (e.g., Raiffa, 1982 ; Neale and Bazerman, 1985 ; Trötschel et al., 2015 ). In the transformation toward sustainability, negotiators are confronted with so-called “wicked problems,” which are characterized by systemic complexities, including the involvement of multiple, interdependent actors ( Rittel and Webber, 1973 ). Beyond these social interdependencies, negotiators are also confronted with the critical element of time and temporal interdependencies, as has been emphasized in the extended conceptualization of “super wicked problems” ( Levin et al., 2012 ; Peters, 2017 ).

Previous research has revealed that negotiations on sustainability issues are often ineffective and end in suboptimal solutions ( Van der Gaast, 2015 ; Weber and Johnson, 2016 ; Dannenberg and Barrett, 2018 ) and that the involved parties, external stakeholders, and – most often – societies would benefit from more-mutually beneficial solutions ( Bazerman et al., 1999 ). We argue that negotiation aimed at the transformation toward sustainability faces fundamental psychological barriers grounded in the conglomeration of social and temporal interdependencies. Given these conflicting interests both between people and over time, exactly how such transformation can be promoted remains unclear. In the psychological literature, two major lines of research have contributed significantly to our understanding of complex decision-making processes: first, the negotiation-research perspective (i.e., how parties resolve conflicts of interests between decision-makers), and second, the individual decision-making perspective (i.e., how decision-makers resolve conflicts between present- and future interests). These two research perspectives have been the focus of a long-standing dialog that has spurred innovation across and beyond lines of research ( Raiffa, 1982 ; for a review, see Tsay and Bazerman, 2009 ). In the present contribution, we seek to reinvigorate this traditional dialog between the two psychological research areas and address key barriers and drivers in the transformation toward sustainability.

Given that the transformation toward sustainability faces super wicked problems ( Levin et al., 2012 ), including conflicts between people and over time, these conflicts should be considered jointly rather than in isolation. We posit the existence of an interplay between inter- and intrapersonal conflicts (see Thompson and Gonzalez, 1997 ). Politicians, for instance, “[must] navigate political conflict over climate policy in Congress […] and within themselves” ( Van Boven et al., 2018 ). Importantly, we believe that the web of interplay between conflicts is difficult to disentangle because negotiators must simultaneously integrate their own interests with those of their counterparts and reconcile their present- and future interests. The interplay between conflicts therefore acts as a significant barrier to the transformation toward sustainability (e.g., Weber and Johnson, 2016 ). To explicitly delineate the concrete challenges that arise from this interplay between inter- and intrapersonal conflicts, we introduce the concept of interdependent conflicts. We propose that a solution to one conflict (e.g., between decision-makers) impacts the solution to concurrent conflicts (e.g., within decision-makers). Consequently, interdependent conflicts can only be resolved efficiently by considering them simultaneously (see super wicked problems, Levin et al., 2012 ).

By developing a framework of interdependent conflicts, we contribute to existing research on decision-making and negotiation in the transformation toward sustainability in various ways. First, we provide a unifying structure for complex and interdependent decision-making processes. Second, taking the negotiation perspective, we seek to expand existing research by introducing a temporal dimension (i.e., negotiation agreements with short-term and long-term consequences). Third, from a multi-level perspective, we offer a systematic link between psychological negotiation research and transition management and highlight negotiation processes at different societal levels. Fourth, from an applied perspective, we aim to provide a more-comprehensive understanding of psychological conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability and to offer potential leverage points with hands-on tools for interventions that foster sustainable solutions. In essence, we seek to encourage future research to further examine human decision-making processes in the context of interdependent conflicts with the goal of fostering the transformation toward sustainability.

The Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Based on the assumption that conflict resolutions depend on one another in the social and temporal dimensions, we derive a basic structure for the framework by distinguishing between three psychological conflicts. The involved parties may experience (1) present interpersonal conflict between their own and their counterparts’ present interests. This type of conflict has traditionally been investigated by social-conflict- and negotiation research (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2000 ). Simultaneously, each party may experience (2) intrapersonal conflict between their present- and future interests (i.e., the conflict emerges for each party individually). This type of conflict has predominantly been studied by individual decision-making research (e.g., Frederick et al., 2002 ). Finally, the two parties may also experience (3) future interpersonal conflict between their own and their counterparts’ future interests. Very few studies have investigated outcome delays and the efficiency of negotiated agreements found in this type of conflict (e.g., Okhuysen et al., 2003 ; Henderson et al., 2006 ). The parsimonious framework focuses explicitly on dyadic, two-party conflicts of interests and on two instances over time (i.e., present- and future interests). 1 Figure 1 illustrates the proposed framework of interdependent conflicts for individual decision-makers.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-623757-g001.jpg

The framework of interdependent conflicts at the individual level. Figure shows the integration of traditional research fields (vertical and horizontal gray-framed areas) into our unifying framework of interdependent conflicts. The framework distinguishes between present interpersonal conflict, intrapersonal conflict emerging for each party, and future interpersonal conflict. These conflicts naturally co-occur and interdependently affect one another.

Our paper is structured as follows: To establish our framework, we first introduce interdependent conflicts at the individual level. In so doing, we review the existing literature, outline characteristic psychological processes, derive propositions, and conclude with an intervention approach to addressing the proposed problems at the individual level. Second, we scale up our framework from the individual-group to the social-group level to establish interdependent conflicts as an interplay between inter- and intragenerational conflicts. We then follow the same structure as at the individual level.

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Individual Level

Interpersonal conflicts.

Interpersonal conflicts emerge whenever two or more parties perceive their views or interests as being incompatible ( Jehn, 1995 ), and negotiation is the decision-making process that parties with divergent interests use to reconcile their differences ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). Traditionally, the interest structure of interpersonal conflicts has been a central element of theorization and research (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2011 ). In general, the literature distinguishes between convergent- and divergent-interest structures: (1) When parties have convergent interests, these interests are compatible, and no interpersonal conflict emerges. By contrast, when parties have divergent interests, these interests can be (2a) diametrically opposed, resulting in a distributive-interest structure (i.e., a zero-sum structure without opportunities for exploring integrative, win-win solutions). In zero-sum negotiations, the best solution for both parties is a compromise ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). When parties have divergent interests, these interests can also be (2b) opposed, but since the parties have different priorities, they form an integrative-interest structure, which includes mutually beneficial trade-off opportunities and allows the parties to explore integrative agreements (i.e., win-win agreements; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). In contrast to compromise agreements, integrative agreements create value for both parties and therefore leave them better off than would a compromise (e.g., Bazerman et al., 1985 ). Importantly, in order to exploit integrative potential and reach mutually beneficial, transformative solutions, parties must consider their own and their counterparts’ underlying interests and coordinate them via negotiations.

In interpersonal conflicts, negotiators typically display the detrimental psychological tendency to devalue their counterparts’ interests ( Thompson and Hastie, 1990 ; Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ; Curhan et al., 2004 ). Parties therefore have a biased idea of how to resolve a social conflict in favor of their own interests. Pinkley et al. (1995) demonstrated that negotiators devalue their counterparts’ interests and thus create suboptimal agreements even though the parties have complete information on their counterparts’ interests. As parties have a basic propensity toward interpersonal devaluation, resolving interpersonal conflicts is difficult and often leads to suboptimal agreements ( Schelling, 1958 ; Bazerman and Neale, 1992 ).

Intrapersonal Conflicts Over Time

The individual decision-making perspective.

Decision-makers who experience intrapersonal conflict must make a choice between different alternatives that entail consequences that occur at different times (e.g., Soman et al., 2005 ). People must weigh immediate against future utility ( Loewenstein, 1988 ) and thus make “trade-offs among costs and benefits occurring at different times” ( Frederick et al., 2002 ). In the transformation toward sustainability, intrapersonal conflicts are ubiquitous and challenging to decision-makers, for instance, when choosing between maintaining the status quo or developing an alternative with substantial long-term benefits ( Weber, 2017 ).

Research has demonstrated that people tend to temporally devalue their own future interests relative to their immediate ones (for a review, see Frederick et al., 2002 ). As individuals put a premium on immediate benefits, they often prefer smaller, immediate benefits over larger, later ones ( Weber, 2017 ). Hardisty and Weber (2009 , p. 329) describe this human tendency as a “strong desire, all things being equal, to get things now.” Decision-makers therefore have a biased idea in favor of their present interests in terms of how to resolve the temporal conflict.

The Negotiation Perspective

Social-conflict research metaphorically describes intrapersonal conflicts as two psychological states with opposing interests in which one party seeks to protect present interests and the other to protect future interests ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Schelling (1984 , p. 58) describes this situation with the following metaphor: “Everybody behaves like two people, one who wants clear lungs and long life and the other who adores tobacco, or one who wants a lean body and the other who wants dessert… the ‘straight’ one often in command… but the wayward one needing only to get occasional control to spoil the other’s best-laid plans.”

Read et al. (1999) indicate that such intrapersonal conflict can have similar interest structures to interpersonal conflict. (1) When a decision-maker has convergent interests, present- and future interests are compatible, and no intrapersonal conflict emerges. When one decision-maker has divergent interests, present- and future interests can be (2a) diametrically opposed, resulting in a distributive-interest structure over time. In this case, the decision-maker prefers the diametrically opposed option now as opposed to later. Alternatively, the decision-maker’s present- and future interests can also be (2b) opposed but have different priorities, resulting in an integrative-interest structure over time. Preference-consistent trade-offs can therefore also reconcile a party’s interests over time in individual decision-making. Read et al. (1999 , p. 184) suggest that “analogously [to interpersonal conflicts], individual decision-makers can reach integrative agreements with themselves, if they consider the possibility of trade-offs across the many choices that they face.” To reach efficient solutions in an intrapersonal conflict, decision-makers must consider their own present- and future interests and reconcile them by negotiating with themselves over time ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Therefore, researchers argue that intrapersonal conflicts are as difficult to resolve as interpersonal conflicts ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ).

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Inter- and Intrapersonal Conflicts

In the following sections, we highlight the central psychological processes involved in the interplay between interdependent conflicts based on the reviewed literature. We remain fully aware that other cognitive, motivational, and affective processes may also contribute to inefficient conflict resolution.

Interpersonal and Intertemporal Devaluation

As parties are prone to devalue others’ present interests and their own future interests ( Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ; Frederick et al., 2002 ), we conclude that devaluing interests is likely the dominant psychological tendency in interdependent conflicts. Decision-makers face three distinct interests in addition to their own present interests: their counterparts’ present interests, their own future interests, and their counterparts’ future interests. Solutions to interdependent conflicts are hence impaired by either interpersonal devaluation, intertemporal devaluation, or both: In a present interpersonal conflict, a party socially devalues their counterparts’ present interests. In an intrapersonal conflict, a party temporally devalues their own future interests. In a future interpersonal conflict, a party interpersonally and intertemporally devalues their counterparts’ future interests. In line with previous research ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ; Charlton et al., 2013 ), devaluation should be strongest in future interpersonal conflicts due to the duality of interpersonal and intertemporal devaluation.

Outcome Interdependence and Decisional Control

In addition to the processes of interpersonal and intertemporal devaluation, outcome interdependence and decisional control play an important role in interdependent conflicts. Following Interdependence Theory ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ), the structure of any given interdependence situation can be described in terms of specific features that aid in the understanding of psychological processes ( Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996 ). Outcome interdependence and decisional control differ systematically across types of psychological conflicts. Specifically, the degree of outcome interdependence varies across inter- and intrapersonal conflicts. Whereas Party A’s outcomes are interdependent on Party B’s outcomes (interpersonal conflict), Party A’s future outcomes are purely dependent on its present outcomes (intrapersonal conflict). Consequently, parties’ decisional control also ranges across conflicts, from joint control in interpersonal conflicts to actor control in intrapersonal conflicts. 2

In intrapersonal conflict, decision-makers face a situation with outcome dependence and full actor control and can decide how to resolve a conflict between their own present- and future interests independently of their counterparts. Herrnstein and Prelec (1991) describe actor control with a metaphor from the courtroom: The moment that a temporal decision is made, the actor functions as both “judge and jury.” In intrapersonal conflicts, parties have full actor control to simply overrule their own future interests and only serve their present interests, or vice-versa (see also Loewenstein, 1996 ).

By contrast, in interpersonal conflicts, parties face a situation with outcome interdependence and joint control – that is, both parties’ outcomes are mutually dependent on the decisions and actions of their counterparts. Parties thus have joint control and must therefore coordinate their decisions with those of their counterparts. Joint control has been metaphorically described by conflict scholars as the “negotiation dance” ( Raiffa, 1982 ) to highlight the coordination of decisions and actions in interpersonal conflicts.

Based on the distinction between full actor and joint control, parties could perceive of having different degrees of freedom in resolving their conflicts of interests over time and between people. Specifically, conflicts over time (i.e., outcome dependence) may be resolvable via actor control. By contrast, conflicts between people (i.e., outcome interdependence) may only be resolvable via joint control. Due to these differences across conflicts, parties may experience more constraints in resolving conflicts of interests with their counterparts (i.e., joint control) compared with resolving conflicts of interests with themselves (i.e., actor control). We therefore conclude that negotiators tend to prioritize the resolution of inter- over intrapersonal conflicts because solutions between people require interpersonal coordination, whereas solutions over time are less constrained by coordination with other parties.

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

Building on the above-mentioned research, our framework of interdependent conflicts postulates how parties cognitively process the interplay between different psychological conflicts. In contrast to a rational approach in which parties cognitively process interdependent conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way (i.e., by considering all the consequences of their actions equally), we hypothesize that parties systematically prioritize the consideration of certain conflicts in a biased way.

Prioritizing the Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

Proposition 1: In interdependent conflicts, parties prioritize the consideration of present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority) .

These priorities are derived both from parties’ tendency to discount their future interests ( Frederick et al., 2002 ) and to devaluate their counterparts’ interests ( Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ) as well as from the parties’ differences in decisional control ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ). When considering present interpersonal conflicts, parties devalue their counterparts’ present interests only on the interpersonal dimension. When considering intrapersonal conflicts, parties devalue their future interests only on the temporal dimension. However, when considering future interpersonal conflicts, they devalue not only their own future interests on the temporal dimension but also their counterparts’ future interest on the interpersonal and intertemporal dimension. This devaluation should lead to a more-pronounced consideration of the present inter- and intrapersonal conflict compared with future interpersonal conflicts. However, as detailed above, in addition to devaluation, parties also experience less decisional control and more constraints when resolving inter- over intrapersonal conflicts. Together, this observation should lead to a prioritized consideration of present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority; see Figure 2 ). Consequently, parties’ prioritization of interdependent conflicts should impair a balanced and comprehensive consideration of conflicts. Noteworthy, such a prioritization of conflicts should result in an unbalanced and biased way of processing interdependent conflicts.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-623757-g002.jpg

Prioritized consideration of interdependent conflicts. We propose that parties prioritize present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority).

In line with this reasoning, prioritizing the consideration of conflicts should also determine which conflict is resolved at the cost of another. 3 We postulate that conflicts with a higher-order priority (e.g., a present interpersonal conflict) are likely to be resolved at the cost of resolving conflicts with a lower-order priority (e.g., an intrapersonal conflict). This biased prioritization may have important implications for resolving interdependent conflicts and threaten the transformation toward sustainability.

Initial support for our assumptions can be found in a survey study ( Drory and Ritov, 1997 ) that investigated conflict-management strategies when parties experienced only an interpersonal conflict vs. both an interpersonal conflict and an intrapersonal conflict. Parties preferred more-cooperative strategies for resolving the present interpersonal conflict when they experienced the intrapersonal conflict simultaneously as compared with when they did not. Similarly, parties that experienced interdependent conflicts were more inclined to collaborate with their counterparts when the intrapersonal conflict between present interests and long-term adverse consequences was made explicit (vs. implicit; Ritov and Drory, 1996 ). This finding is in line with recent research revealing that parties value agreements over impasses when dealing with present interpersonal conflicts, even if the impasse would lead to more-profitable outcomes than would the achieved agreement ( Tuncel et al., 2016 ).

Effects of Priorities in the Consideration of Conflicts on the Quality of Agreements

Proposition 2: Prioritizing the consideration of conflicts determines the extent to which parties can exploit integrative potential and reach integrative agreements .

To resolve interdependent conflicts in an integrative way, decision-makers must consider their interests in a comprehensive rather than in an isolated, prioritized way. From a rational perspective, parties can maximize the utility of a solution ( Raiffa, 1982 ) by making integrative trade-offs between their own and their counterparts’ interests (i.e., interpersonal conflict) and between their present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflict). Such trade-off opportunities can only be exploited when parties consider the conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way. However, the predicted tendency to prioritize conflicts should lead to a biased, prioritized consideration and therefore hinder parties in exploiting integrative potential. Specifically, if integrative potential is found in the intrapersonal conflict or even in the future interpersonal conflict, parties should neglect these trade-off opportunities and instead seek to resolve the present interpersonal conflict. Consequently, prioritizing conflict consideration can be particularly detrimental because parties do not consider all trade-off opportunities in a comprehensive, unbiased way and may thus overlook mutually beneficial and transformative solutions.

O’Connor et al. (2002) showed that responders in a simulated-ultimatum game rejected more bids (i.e., forewent favorable solutions in an intrapersonal conflict) when instructed to focus on the present interpersonal conflict compared with the intrapersonal conflict. This finding provides initial support for our assumptions on the detrimental effects of prioritizing interdependent conflicts.

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Conflicts

We assume that prioritizing the present interpersonal conflict is caused – in part – by constraints in decisional control. Resolving interpersonal conflicts requires negotiating between parties to overcome divergent interests, whereas resolving intrapersonal conflict does not require negotiating to overcome divergent interests in the present or future. To balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts, we propose also applying a negotiation strategy to intrapersonal conflicts over time ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Negotiating “with oneself” should help parties reach integrative solutions over time and raise the priority of intrapersonal conflicts.

Social-conflict research has revealed that integrative solutions are particularly likely when each negotiator (1) has a strong concern for his or her own outcomes (dual concerns at a subordinate level; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ; De Dreu et al., 2000 ) and (2) takes both parties’ common interests into consideration (common concerns at a superordinate level; Rhoades and Carnevale, 1999 ; De Dreu et al., 2000 ; Trötschel et al., 2011 , 2021). Accordingly, parties should be concerned about (1) their present- and future interests (dual concerns at a subordinate level) and (2) their common interests over time (common concerns at a superordinate level). Considering dual and common concerns over time should trigger negotiating with oneself, and this strategy should raise the intrapersonal conflict to the same level of priority as the interpersonal conflict. Simultaneously, raising the priority of intrapersonal conflicts by negotiating with oneself should also lead to an increase in the priority of future interpersonal conflicts. Overall, we posit that combining interpersonal and intrapersonal negotiation should lead to a balanced, unbiased, comprehensive consideration of interdependent conflicts (see Figure 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-623757-g003.jpg

The negotiation-with-oneself strategy for balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts at the individual level. The horizontal ellipses show how common concern can lead to integrative negotiation processes between parties. The vertical ellipses show how common concern can lead to integrative negotiation processes over time.

Applying the Intervention Approach to the Transformation Toward Sustainability

Negotiations play a vital role in community-led grassroots innovations that are niche spaces supporting local-scale transitions toward sustainability (e.g., Raven et al., 2008 ; Seyfang and Haxletine, 2012 ; Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013 ). Grassroots initiatives have been shown to foster change in diverse areas, such as mobility or energy ( Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013 ). However, a crucial success factor for exploiting the transformative potential of grassroots innovations is the successful negotiation and mutually-beneficial conflict resolution. Conflicts emerge because local partners and stakeholders of such an initiative may have at least some common interests but may also have opposing interests in reaching their shared objectives. For instance, individual owners of cooperative housing apartments may share their interest in investing in energy-efficient buildings, but may have diverging interests in the potential pathways to reach this energy transition. Some of the owners may prefer to install solar panels on the rooftop, whereas others may prefer to maintain the rooftop accessible for the residents and to use other energy sources for powering the building energy-efficiently. As they can only reach their objectives jointly, the cooperative owners must negotiate strategies that lead to the intended transformation of existing structures. However, all involved actors may enter negotiations by positioning their interests in their immediate and local context that may hinder the implementation of the pathway toward innovation. Both our framework of interdependent conflicts and the suggested intervention approach of intrapersonal negotiations for reconciling one’s present- and future interests may help to facilitate successful negotiations in grassroots innovations. Therefore, implementing the proposed intervention approach in the context of community-led grassroots initiatives requires that individual actors are concerned with their dual interests in the present and future at a subordinate level as well as with their common interests at a superordinate level. At a subordinate level, future interests come into play when the involved actors formulate long-term goals, develop a vision, and specify their expectations for the transition toward sustainability. Present interests may guide decision-making when searching for pathways to implement the innovation. Additionally, at the superordinate level, actors should share the common concern that radical innovation will lead to the intended transformation toward sustainability. When actors consider their dual and common concerns, intrapersonal negotiation may be initiated, and a prioritized consideration of conflicts may be debiased. As a consequence, negotiation processes between local actors may be improved and lead to more-mutually beneficial and transformative solutions for the societal transformation sparked by grassroots initiatives.

Tools for Implementing the Intervention Approach

Tools for implementing the negotiation-with-oneself strategy can be derived from both decision-making- and social-conflict research. Decision-making research suggests that an increasing similarity between one’s present- and future self may trigger a party’s readiness to negotiate with themself (e.g., Bartels and Urminsky, 2011 ; Hershfield, 2011 ; Urminsky, 2017 ). Alternatively, changing the primary default consideration from present- to future interests may also stimulate intrapersonal negotiations ( Weber et al., 2007 ; Sunstein and Reisch, 2013 ). Social-conflict research suggests that perspective-taking of one’s own future interests may also help induce negotiations with oneself over time and balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts ( Galinsky et al., 2008 ; Trötschel et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, learning approaches that support analogous reasoning in transferring integrative insights from one type of psychological conflict to another could facilitate interdependent-conflict resolution ( Thompson and DeHarpport, 1994 ; Gillespie et al., 1999 ; Nadler et al., 2003 ; Kim et al., 2020 ).

Although interventions may support negotiators in reaching mutually beneficial, transformative solutions, reaching integrative solutions at the level of social groups has been shown to be even more challenging ( Loschelder and Trötschel, 2010 ; Trötschel et al., 2010 ). However, the transformation toward sustainability most-often requires negotiations between social groups, such as between larger institutions or organizations that represent certain interests ( Majer et al., 2018 ). Compared with interpersonal conflict, intergroup conflict stands out in terms of the distinct psychological processes involved. To further elucidate the psychological barriers to and drivers of interdependent conflicts at the group level, we next scale our framework up and focus on intergenerational conflict. Such situations include central psychological barriers that hinder us from taking dramatic action in the transformation toward sustainability ( Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013 ).

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Level of Social Groups: The Interplay Between Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

At the zenith of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020, the European Union agreed on the largest budget and financial package in its history to address the aftermath of the once-in-a-century-pandemic crisis. This negotiation had implications not only for member states within the present generation but also for their successor generations to come. The talks lasted almost 100 h because the member states’ contributions were heavily disputed. After an agreement had been reached, Chancellor Merkel was relieved that Europe had shown that it can come together after all ( Erlanger and Stevis-Gridneff, 2020 ). However, other European politicians criticized the fact that the funds for important future EU projects had been cut back to reach a deal between the member states ( DLF, 2020 ).

This example can be systematically structured using the framework of interdependent conflicts. Conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability include a social dimension between groups (i.e., intragenerational conflict between different groups within a current generation) and a temporal dimension between generations over time (i.e., intergenerational conflict between the predecessor and successor generation of a single group; Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ). In line with our framework, scholars have proposed that “many real-world intergenerational dilemmas [i.e., over time] are confounded by intragenerational social dilemmas [i.e., between groups]” ( Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008 ). Following this reasoning, we systematically differentiate between three types of psychological conflicts ( Figure 4 ): (1) present intragenerational conflict (i.e., between different groups within the present generation); (2) intergenerational conflict (i.e., between the predeceasing present generation and succeeding future generation of a single group); and finally, (3) future intragenerational conflict (i.e., between different groups within the future generation; see Footnote 1). 4

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-623757-g004.jpg

The framework of interdependent conflicts in the intergenerational context. Figure 4 displays the interplay between the arising present intragenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between different groups within the present generation), the intergenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between the predecessor and successor generation of a group), and the future intragenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between different groups within the future generation).

Intergroup Conflicts (i.e., Intragenerational Conflict)

A group consists of two or more individuals connected by social relationships ( Forsyth, 2014 ). These relationships can be established objectively via outcome interdependence between individuals, which induces the formation of groups ( Lewin, 1948 ). Alternatively, relationships can also be established subjectively by assigning memberships to in-groups or out-groups to oneself and others based on similarity ( Tajfel, 1981 ). The conflicts between groups can be described as incompatibilities in the different groups’ values and/or goals, which may be caused by outcome interdependence and/or perceived similarity ( Boehm et al., 2020 ). This idea implies that intergroup conflict may involve not only economic interests but also categorization as an in- or out-group. In the transformation toward sustainability, the two foundations of intergroup conflict often arise in combination (e.g., Majer et al., 2018 ; Schuster et al., 2020 ).

Early theorizations on the causes of intergroup conflict focused on economic interests in (scarce) resources as the root of competition in intergroup conflict ( Sherif and Sherif, 1953 ; Sherif, 1961 ; Campbell, 1965 ). When comparing interpersonal and intergroup interactions, research found that intergroup relations are more competitive than are interpersonal relations ( Wildschut and Insko, 2007 ) and suggested that fear and greed explain this discontinuity effect in intergroup interactions ( Wildschut and Insko, 2007 ). Specifically, fear is based on the expectation that the other group will maximize its outcome, which poses a threat to the given group and increases competition. By contrast, greed is based on the expectation that the other group will tend to cooperate, which makes the other group vulnerable to the given group’s greed and increases competition. 5

However, another line of research suggests that merely categorizing oneself and others as members of an in- and out-group, respectively, is sufficient to induce intergroup conflict ( Tajfel and Turner, 1979 , 1986 ). Specifically, Self-Categorization Theory posits that individuals are motivated to make themselves positively distinct from others by comparing themselves to others on relevant dimensions ( Turner et al., 1987 ). If comparisons are favorable for the in-group relative to the out-group, people can make themselves positively distinct, with beneficial and direct consequences for their self-concept and self-esteem. Evidence shows that people strive for positive distinctiveness (for an overview, see Boehm et al., 2020 ), which can be obtained via different strategies, including social competition, for instance, by discriminating the out-group.

Overall, greed and fear as well as the need for positive distinctiveness all contribute to intergroup devaluation. Greed and fear are particularly pronounced when outcome interdependence exists. However, the need for positive distinctiveness can be explained by the psychological process of self-categorization as an in- or out-group member.

Intragroup Conflicts Over Time (i.e., Intergenerational Conflict)

In contrast to intergroup conflicts within a generation (e.g., Barrett and Dannenberg, 2012 ), much-less work has focused on intergenerational conflicts over time (e.g., Hauser et al., 2014 ). From a psychological perspective, intergenerational conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ) are characterized as decisions in which the interests of present decision-makers stand in conflict with those of future others. Such intergenerational conflicts have distinctive features as compared with intergroup (i.e., intragenerational) conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ).

Specifically, outcomes are not reciprocally interdependent in intergenerational conflicts. Instead, the outcomes of the future generation are fully determined by the present generation. Present generations therefore have complete actor control without the need to coordinate their interests with future others. Consequently, future generations have no voice in intergenerational conflicts (see outcome interdependence; Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ). In addition, present generations do not have to bear the long-term consequences of their decisions and actions because they are not part of the generation that experiences the consequences. Furthermore, no direct or indirect reciprocity between the present- and future generation is possible ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ). The future generation cannot give anything back or punish the present generation. This lack of direct or indirect reciprocity also implies a lack of communication between the present- and future generations. Importantly, in intergroup conflicts between different groups within a current generation, reciprocity, and communication have been shown to increase cooperation and lead to more-mutually beneficial solutions (e.g., Tavoni et al., 2011 ; Yoeli et al., 2013 ). However, as the direct experience of consequences, reciprocity, and communication are ruled out in intergenerational conflict, cooperation, and integrative solutions between the present- and future generation are further exacerbated. In intergenerational conflicts, the future generation’s outcomes depend on the present generation’s beneficence (i.e., intergenerational beneficence), which is often lacking ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ). To increase intergenerational beneficence, it is therefore necessary for a perceived similarity between the present- and future generation to exist and for the present generation to identify with the future generation.

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

Intergroup devaluation.

Intergroup devaluation can be explained by the processes of greed and fear in intergroup relations as well as by the need for positive distinctiveness in comparison with the out-group. Intergroup devaluation has been found to be particularly prominent in present- and future intragenerational conflicts, which renders these conflicts difficult to resolve.

Intergenerational Devaluation (i.e., Intergroup- and Intertemporal Devaluation)

Intergenerational conflicts are difficult to resolve because intergroup- and intertemporal devaluation jointly impede integrative conflict resolution. The future generation’s interests are devalued temporally. In addition, intergroup devaluation arises because the present- and future generations are typically not part of the same collective. Both intergroup- and intertemporal devaluation are additive components of intergenerational devaluation, which is the major barrier to integrative solutions in intergenerational conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ). Although the degree of intergenerational devaluation should depend on perceived similarities between the present- and future generation, in general, the need for positive distinctiveness should be more-pronounced in intragenerational conflicts between distinct groups within the present generation. However, in the case of intergenerational conflicts, intergroup- and intergenerational devaluation can accumulate and lead to severe devaluation against the opposing groups’ successor generation in the future.

Outcome interdependence in intragenerational conflict only exists between the two different groups within the present generation. In intergenerational conflict over time, however, future generations outcomes fully depend on the present generation. Concerning decisional control ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ), intragenerational conflict can only be resolved via joint control because one group within the present generation must coordinate its interests with another group of the same generation. By contrast, the present generation has full actor control in intergenerational conflicts because this generation fully determines the consequences for the succeeding future generations.

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

In line with the general assumption of our framework of interdependent conflicts, we postulate that social groups cognitively process different psychological conflicts in a biased way. This idea stands in contrast to a rational approach in which groups cognitively process interdependent conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way (i.e., they equally consider all consequences of their actions).

Prioritizing Interdependent Conflicts Within and Between Generations

Proposition 3: In interdependent conflicts at the social-group level (i.e., generations), parties prioritize the consideration of present intragenerational conflicts (first priority) over intergenerational conflicts (second priority) and future intragenerational conflicts (third priority) .

Social groups have a tendency to prioritize present intragenerational conflicts because joint control with the other group within the present generation places constraints on the decision-making process and requires coordination between groups. This joint control stands in contrast to intergenerational conflicts over time, which should be given second priority because the present generation has full actor control when it comes to resolving these conflicts. In line with this reasoning, future intragenerational conflicts should be given third priority because in addition to intergenerational devaluation, the need for positive distinctiveness from the other group (i.e., intergroup devaluation) also contributes to the prioritization of these conflicts.

These priorities also determine which conflict will be resolved at the cost of another. Conflicts of higher priority may be resolved at the cost of lower-priority conflicts because present intragenerational conflicts should receive more consideration than intergenerational conflicts or future intragenerational conflicts. Prioritizing the consideration of interdependent conflicts thus has important implications for the transformation toward sustainability.

Recent research has found initial support for Proposition 3 ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ) by showing that adding the dimension of intergenerational conflict over time to the dimension of intragenerational conflict renders conflict resolution between parties more short-sighted.

Proposition 4: A prioritized consideration of conflicts determines the extent to which social groups (i.e., generations) can exploit the integrative potential and reach integrative agreements .

To achieve mutually beneficial, transformative solutions at the group level, a balanced and unbiased consideration of all conflicts (rather than a prioritized consideration) is necessary. However, we assume that the involved groups prioritize conflicts with detrimental consequences. Specifically, parties consider the coordination of diverging interests in higher-priority conflicts to a greater extent than in lower-priority conflicts. Integrative potential and the trade-off opportunities embedded within lower-priority conflicts are therefore less-likely to be discovered. A prioritized, biased consideration of conflicts should thus result in suboptimal solutions for involved groups. In other words, resolving interdependent conflicts should be transformative and mutually beneficial if future generations’ interests are considered in an unbiased and balanced way.

Jacquet et al. (2013) provided initial evidence for Proposition 4 by experimentally demonstrating that when a temporal dimension is introduced in intergroup conflicts, conflict resolution is less optimal than when the intergroup conflict has no long-term consequences.

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

Based on research on social conflict and negotiation (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2000 ) and on intergroup conflict (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2000 ), we develop an intervention approach tailored to balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts between social groups. Research has shown that the perception of belonging to distinct, opposed groups (“us” vs. “them”) can be changed via interventions ( Dovidio et al., 2000 ). Specifically, by re-categorizing one’s own group and the other group into subgroups of one superordinate, common in-group identity (the new “we” – i.e., two subgroups within one group; Gaertner et al., 1993 , 1994 ), intergroup conflict can be reduced. Importantly, managing intragenerational conflict via negotiations requires that (1) the two subgroups consider their common concerns by creating a new superordinate, common in-group identity and (2) that each subgroup maintain its distinct group membership and consider its dual concerns (i.e., creating a common in-group identity, while maintaining dual identities). If the groups consider their superordinate, common in-group identity and common concerns, while simultaneously considering their dual identities and dual concerns, intragenerational conflicts can be resolved in an integrative, unbiased way ( Gaertner et al., 2016 ).

To balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts across social groups and time, we transfer the intervention approach from intra- to intergenerational conflict. We find the classic, common in-group-identity approach particularly suitable for stimulating negotiations with future others in an integrative way. As a prerequisite, the present generation should (1) create a common in-group identity with their succeeding future generation that includes common concerns shared by the present- and future generations and (2) acknowledge their distinct dual identities over time – including dual concerns of the present- and future generations – in order to stimulate negotiations with future others.

However, in intergenerational conflict, future generations have no voice to stand up for their concerns. As communication between present- and future generations is ruled out, a shift toward future generations’ interests is necessary to elicit negotiations with future others. We propose that present generations be held responsible for resolving intergenerational conflicts via negotiations. Contemporary representatives of the future generation may take responsibility for speaking up for their generations’ interests ( Kamijo et al., 2017 ). This negotiating-with-future-others strategy combines a common in-group-identity approach with a representation of future generations in order to foster integrative solutions. Negotiating with future others also raises the priority of the intergenerational conflict compared with that of the present intragenerational conflict, thereby leading to a more-balanced consideration of interdependent conflicts. If each present generation uses the negotiating-with-future-others strategy, a more-balanced consideration of the future intragenerational conflict should also be reached. Overall, negotiating with future others should be a particularly suitable approach to balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts and fostering mutually beneficial and transformative solutions ( Figure 5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-623757-g005.jpg

The negotiating-with-future-others strategy for balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts at the generational level. The horizontal ellipses show how common in-group identity leads to integrative negotiation processes at the intragenerational level between groups. The vertical ellipses show how common in-group identity leads to integrative negotiation processes at the intergenerational level over time. If both groups engage in such intergenerational negotiation processes, they should also be able to balance the consideration of future intragenerational conflicts.

Negotiations are also an integral part of the transition management approach ( Meadowcroft, 2009 ; Loorbach, 2010 ; Schreuer et al., 2010 ), which typically seeks to regulate and govern fundamental processes of societal change that may take generations to realize ( Frantzeskaki et al., 2012 ). During this transition, the sustainability value of intergenerational justice must be protected. However, the involved societal groups of the present generation may enter negotiations by positioning their interests in their direct and immediate context, thereby leading to suboptimal solutions ( Loorbach, 2010 ). In particular, the different interest groups within the present generation may experience short-term need for compromises, whereas succeeding future generations need long-term ambitions for radical change ( Frantzeskaki et al., 2012 ). Traditionally, transition management distinguishes between four types of circular-governance activities to facilitate sustainability transitions: strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive activities ( Loorbach, 2010 ). The strategic and tactical activities in the transition-management cycle are largely interest-driven and require negotiation between representatives and delegates of larger societal interest groups, organizations, or institutions that have the capacity to contribute to the vision of the transition. Particularly during the tactical-activity phase of the transition-management cycle, the development of a concrete transition agenda requires the negotiation and coordination of interests between groups within the present generation and the alignment of these interests with those of future generations. In an exemplary innovation program on future urban mobility (e.g., urban-living labs, von Wirth et al., 2018 ), stakeholder groups of the present generation such as local residents, public transportation services, private mobility providers, and city authorities develop transition scenarios ( Sondeijker et al., 2006 ), which are descriptions of desirable future states that include alternative pathways for reaching them (i.e., backcasting). However, the interests of future generations should be aligned with these transition scenarios created by the delegates of the stakeholder groups within the present generation. According to our intervention approach, present delegates should create a common in-group identity with the succeeding future generation and also consider the dual identities of the present- and the future generations when developing the scenario for the urban mobility transition. In addition, a representative of the future generation could be assigned to safeguard the future generation’s interests during the development of scenarios for the urban mobility transition. Our proposed intervention approach may be particularly suitable for generating more mutually beneficial and transformative solutions in the management of transitions when interests within and between generations must be negotiated. As a result, the negotiation-with-future-others strategy may help to overcome a biased and unbalanced consideration of interdependent conflicts between societal interest groups and their successor generations.

Potential tools for creating common in-group identities include placing focus on superordinate-group memberships (e.g., nations, organizations, and communities), increasing affinity with future generations ( Wade-Benzoni, 2008 ; Arora et al., 2016 ), and emphasizing factors that are shared by the groups (e.g., values, fate, and goals). Alternative tools exist that may further trigger intergenerational negotiations over time by forecasting future generations’ beneficence ( Bosetti et al., 2020 ), priming present generations with the inevitability of their own mortality ( Wade-Benzoni et al., 2012 ), or providing advice to future generations ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ). However, these tools often neglect common in-group identities and the representation of future generations, both of which are required to elicit negotiations with future others.

General Discussion

We developed and introduced a framework of interdependent conflicts for stimulating novel research that examines individual- and joint decision-making processes in the transformation toward sustainability. The critical relevance that negotiations entail in this transformation is undisputed ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ; Loorbach, 2010 ); however, it is also unanimously accepted that “negotiation will fail to achieve fundamental change unless there is a commitment to long-term change […]” ( Kemp et al., 2007 , p. 316). Despite this conclusion, the existing literature on negotiations and decision-making treats sustainability challenges rather unidimensionally. While negotiation- and social-conflict research primarily focus on conflict resolution in the present ( Jang et al., 2018 ), individual decision-making often neglects the social interdependencies against which deep structural change must be negotiated and coordinated.

Typically, decision-makers must simultaneously consider their own interests and those of other decision-makers in addition to long-term future consequences for themselves and future others. We aimed to provide a novel perspective on why agreements reached via negotiations are often not in favor of our own or others’ long-term interests. One of the key contributions of our novel framework is that it enables an analysis of decision-making settings in the transformation toward sustainability in a more-comprehensive, unifying, and systematic way. Moreover, our framework provides a parsimonious structure for disentangling these complex conflict situations, analyzing the arising psychological phenomena, and designing interventions that tap into the psychological barriers that impede transformative solutions. At best, agreements create integrative solutions for all parties involved – not only in the present, but also over longer timespans. Our framework offers a systematic integration of the social and temporal dimensions and thereby helps in reaching these transformative and mutually beneficial solutions.

Sustainability challenges represent the largest collective-action problem ever faced by humanity ( Ostrom, 2009 ). Joint decision-making and negotiation, cooperation, and conflict resolution are therefore inevitable in making collective progress toward sustainable living in our societies. Taking the proposed psychological barriers into account, these negotiation processes may be biased toward solutions in the present. To overcome this crucial barrier, a better understanding of the underlying psychological processes may help in guiding negotiation processes that promote forward-looking conflict resolution. The European Union’s financial and budget deal closed by the different member states is exemplary in demonstrating interdependent conflicts. On the one hand, various member states of the European Union have repeatedly shown that they can come together to jointly resolve issues of the present generation that they could not deal with individually. On the other hand, resolving conflicts between member states within the present generation may lead to costs for member states’ very own long-term interests and for those of their succeeding future generations.

The described tensions may lead to a rather skeptical view of the transformative potential of negotiations. Indeed, the challenges for parties in creating transformative solutions are difficult. However, we hope that our framework and the proposed intervention approaches might help negotiators navigate toward more-transformative solutions across different societal levels and contexts. In grassroots initiatives, small groups of societal frontrunners may initiate negotiations over innovations and, in the management of the transition, representatives of larger societal-interest groups, institutions, or organizations may negotiate their interests in contributing to the transition pathway. Thereby, negotiations may also help to bridge structural changes across societal levels. We believe that existing and potential future tools for implementing intervention approaches should be tested, adapted, and refined depending on the interdependent-conflict situation. Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize the idea that interdependent conflicts are negotiable not only between individual actors and societal groups but also within ourselves and across generations. Making use of the transformative potential of these negotiation processes may open new transition pathways toward sustainability. We, therefore, remain optimistic that negotiations as collaborative decision-making approaches are most promising for reaching transformative solutions and are our only true alternative to collaboratively achieving long-term societal prosperity ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). In acknowledging this belief, the framework of interdependent conflicts may provide innovative impulses for integrating and reconciling interests within planetary boundaries.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

JM developed the theory, created the figures, and drafted the manuscript. MB, HZ, MT, and RT contributed to theory development, structuring, and revising the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Immo Fritsche, Michel Handgraaf, and Poonam Arora for their helpful and valuable comments on an earlier version of the framework. We would also like to thank Lucas Rosenbusch for creating the reference list for this article.

Funding. This research was funded by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG; MA 8577/1-1) and by a seed-money grant from Leuphana University, both of which were awarded to JM.

1 Besides the specified psychological conflicts in the framework, two other psychological conflicts might emerge for each party (i.e., an interpersonal conflict over time in which one party’s present interests conflict with the counterpart’s future interests and an interpersonal conflict over time in which one party’s future interests conflict with the counterpart’s present interests). These interpersonal conflicts over time directly reflect the unique characteristic of interdependent conflicts. Since conflicts are interdependent, the specified three different types of psychological conflicts in our framework can determine the parties’ interpersonal conflicts over time. Therefore, the framework of interdependent conflicts implicitly integrates these interpersonal conflicts over time. For conciseness reasons, the presented version of the framework of interdependent conflicts offers the most parsimonious version that may be extended in future research on interdependent conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability. Our reasoning also applies to interdependent conflicts at the level of social groups that we address in the latter part of the article.

2 Another extreme is partner control (e.g., Van Lange and Balliet, 2015 ), which is omitted here for reasons of simplicity.

3 Psychological conflicts may be either independent, positively interdependent, or negatively interdependent. When conflicts are independent of one another, one conflict can be resolved without any consequences for resolving the other. In current individual- and societal challenges, conflicts are rarely independent of one another (super wicked problems; ( Levin et al., 2012 ). By contrast, in most current social issues, interdependence between conflicts occurs: Parties’ consideration of their present interests in an interpersonal conflict usually impacts their consideration of interests in the future, and vice versa. When conflicts are positively interdependent, resolving one psychological conflict also facilitates finding a solution to the other interdependent conflict. However, positive interdependence does occur in real-world settings, albeit rarely. Most importantly, though, when psychological conflicts are negatively interdependent, parties’ efforts to resolve one conflict impede efficiently resolving the other interdependent conflict. We therefore only focus on negative interdependence between conflicts in our framework.

4 We are aware that different constellations between present- and future generations can be conceived (e.g., generations living at the same time, group representations). However, we follow the standard definition and focus explicitly on the basic situation in which the present generation (as predecessors) has no contact with the future generation (as their successors; Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ).

5 Various explanatory mechanisms are discussed in the fear- and greed perspective for situations in which groups’ outcomes are interdependent, but these mechanisms lie beyond the scope of this article.

Arora P., Logg J., Larrick R. (2016). Acting for the greater good: identification with group determines choices in sequential contribution dilemmas . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29 , 499–510. 10.1002/bdm.1892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Asara V., Otero I., Demaria F., Corbera E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability . Sustain. Sci. 10 , 375–384. 10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Babcock L., Loewenstein G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases . J. Econ. Perspect. 11 , 109–126. 10.1257/jep.11.1.109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barrett S., Dannenberg A. (2012). Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 , 17372–17376. 10.1073/pnas.1208417109, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels D. M., Urminsky O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: how the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption . J. Consum. Res. 38 , 182–198. 10.1086/658339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bazerman M. H., Magliozzi T., Neale M. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 35 , 294–313. 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90026-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bazerman M. H., Moore D. A., Gillespie J. J. (1999). The human mind as a barrier to wiser environmental agreements . Am. Behav. Sci. 42 , 1277–1300. 10.1177/00027649921954868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bazerman M. H., Neale M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Bazerman M. H., Tenbrunsel A. E., Wade-Benzoni K. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: making decisions with competing internal preferences . Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 :225. 10.5465/amr.1998.533224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boehm R., Rusch H., Baron J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: a review of theories and measures . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 178 , 947–962. 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bosetti V., Dennig F., Liu N., Tavoni M., Weber E. (2020). Forward-looking belief elicitation enhances inter-generational beneficence . SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3648287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Campbell D. T. (1965). “ Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives ” in Nebraska symposium on motivation. ed. Levine D. (Lincoln: University of Nebrasksa Press; ), 283–311. [ Google Scholar ]
Charlton S. R., Yi R., Porter C., Carter A. E., Bickel W., Rachlin H. (2013). Now for me, later for us? Effects of group context on temporal discounting . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26 , 118–127. 10.1002/bdm.766, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Curhan J. R., Neale M. A., Ross L. (2004). Dynamic valuation: preference changes in the context of face-to-face negotiation . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 , 142–151. 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dannenberg A., Barrett S. (2018). Cooperating to avoid catastrophe . Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 435–437. 10.1038/s41562-018-0374-8, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Dreu C. K. W., Weingart L. R., Kwon S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 , 889–905. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DLF (2020). “Den Planeten in vernünftigem Zustand hinterlassen.” Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/philosophin-ueber-generationengerechtigkeit-den-planeten-in.694.de.html?dram:article_id=482019 (Accessed August 9, 2020).
Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., Kafati G. (2000). “ Group identity and intergroup relations: the common in-group identity model ” in Advances in group processes. Vol . 17 eds. Thye S. R., Lawler E. J., Macy M. W., Walker H. A. [Bingley, UK: Emerald (MCB UP)], 1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
Dreber A., Nowak M. A. (2008). Gambling for global goods . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 , 2261–2262. 10.1073/pnas.0800033105, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Drory A., Ritov I. (1997). Intrapersonal conflict and choice of strategy in conflict management . Psychol. Rep. 81 , 35–46. 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.1.35 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ehrlich P. R., Ehrlich A. H. (2013). Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proc. Biol. Sci. 280 :20122845. 10.1098/rspb.2012.2845, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Erlanger S., Stevis-Gridneff M. (2020). Angela Merkel guides the E.U. to a deal, however imperfect. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/world/europe/european-union-coronavirus-aid.html (Accessed July 21, 2020).
Forsyth D. R. (2014). “ The psychology of groups ” in Noba textbook series: Psychology. eds. Biswas-Diener R., Diener E. (Champaign, IL: DEF Publishers; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Frantzeskaki N., Loorbach D., Meadowcroft J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability . Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 15 , 19–36. 10.1504/IJSD.2012.044032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Frederick S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review . J. Econ. Lit. 40 , 351–401. 10.1257/jel.40.2.351 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Anastasio P. A., Bachman B. A., Rust M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4 , 1–26. 10.1080/14792779343000004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gaertner S. L., Guerra R., Rebelo M., Dovidio J., Hehman E., Deegan M. (2016). “ The common ingroup identity model and the development of a functional perspective: a cross-national collaboration ” in The social developmental construction of violence and intergroup conflict. eds. Vala J., Waldzus S., Calheiros M. M. (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; ), 105–120. [ Google Scholar ]
Gaertner S. L., Rust M. C., Dovidio J. F., Bachman B. A., Anastasio P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: the role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias . Small Group Res. 25 , 224–249. 10.1177/1046496494252005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Galinsky A. D., Wang C. S., Ku G. (2008). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 , 404–419. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.404, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geels F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms . Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1 , 24–40. 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geels F. W. (2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory . Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 152 :119894. 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Geels F. W., Schot J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways . Res. Policy 36 , 399–417. 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gelfand M. J., Fulmer C. A., Severance L. (2011). “ The psychology of negotiation and mediation ” in APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. ed. Zedeck S. (American Psychological Association; ), 495–554. [ Google Scholar ]
Gillespie J. J., Thompson L. L., Loewenstein J., Gentner D. (1999). Lessons from analogical reasoning in the teaching of negotiation . Negot. J. 15 , 363–371. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1999.tb00734.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hardisty D. J., Weber E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: money versus the environment . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138 , 329–340. 10.1037/a0016433, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hauser O. P., Rand D. G., Peysakhovich A., Nowak M. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future . Nature 511 , 220–223. 10.1038/nature13530, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Henderson M. D., Trope Y., Carnevale P. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 712–729. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.712, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Herrnstein R. J., Prelec D. (1991). Melioration: a theory of distributed choice . J. Econ. Perspect. 5 , 137–156. 10.1257/jep.5.3.137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hershfield H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: how conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1235 , 30–43. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06201.x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hsiang S. M., Burke M., Miguel E. (2013). Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict . Science 341 :1235367. 10.1126/science.1235367, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jacquet J., Hagel K., Hauert C., Marotzke J., Röhl T., Milinski M. (2013). Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game . Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 , 1025–1028. 10.1038/nclimate2024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jang D., Elfenbein H. A., Bottom W. P. (2018). More than a phase: form and features of a general theory of negotiation . Acad. Manag. Ann. 12 , 318–356. 10.5465/annals.2016.0053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jehn K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict . Adm. Sci. Q. 40 :256. 10.2307/2393638 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kamijo Y., Komiya A., Mifune N., Saijo T. (2017). Negotiating with the future: incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations . Sustain. Sci. 12 , 409–420. 10.1007/s11625-016-0419-8, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kelley H. H., Thibaut J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Kemp R., Loorbach D., Rotmans J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development . Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14 , 78–91. 10.1080/13504500709469709 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim J., Thompson L., Loewenstein J. (2020). Open for learning: encouraging generalization fosters knowledge transfer in negotiation . Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 13 , 3–23. 10.1111/ncmr.12163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levin K., Cashore B., Bernstein S., Auld G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change . Policy. Sci. 45 , 123–152. 10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lewicki R. J., Litterer J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin. [ Google Scholar ]
Lewin K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. New York, NY: Harper. [ Google Scholar ]
Loewenstein G. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice . Manag. Sci. 34 , 200–214. 10.1287/mnsc.34.2.200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loewenstein G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65 , 272–292. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loorbach D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework . Governance 23 , 161–183. 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Loschelder D. D., Trötschel R. (2010). Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: third-party intervention in intergroup negotiations . Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 13 , 795–815. 10.1177/1368430210374482 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mach K. J., Kraan C. M., Adger W. N., Buhaug H., Burke M., Fearon J. D., et al.. (2019). Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict . Nature 571 , 193–197. 10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Majer J. M., Loschelder D. D., Windolph L. J., Fischer D. (2018). How sustainability-related challenges can fuel conflict between organizations and external stakeholders: a social psychological perspective to master value differences, time horizons, and resource allocations . Umweltpsychol. 22 , 53–70. [ Google Scholar ]
Meadowcroft J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions . Policy. Sci. 42 :323. 10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nadler J., Thompson L., Boven L. V. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: four models of knowledge creation and transfer . Manag. Sci. 49 , 529–540. 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.529.14431 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Neale M. A., Bazerman M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes . Acad. Manag. J. 28 , 34–49. 10.2307/256060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Connor K. M., De Dreu C. K. W., Schroth H., Barry B., Lituchy T. R., Bazerman M. H. (2002). What we want to do versus what we think we should do: an empirical investigation of intrapersonal conflict . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 15 , 403–418. 10.1002/bdm.426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Okhuysen G. A., Galinsky A. D., Uptigrove T. A. (2003). Saving the worst for last: the effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 91 , 269–279. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00023-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ornetzeder M., Rohracher H. (2013). Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing: comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations . Glob. Environ. Chang. 23 , 856–867. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ostrom E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems . Science 325 , 419–422. 10.1126/science.1172133, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peters B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program . Polic. Soc. 36 , 385–396. 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pinkley R. L., Griffith T. L., Northcraft G. B. (1995). “Fixed pie” a la mode: information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62 , 101–112. 10.1006/obhd.1995.1035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pruitt D. G., Carnevale P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. [ Google Scholar ]
Raiffa H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Raven R. P., Heiskanen E., Lovio R., Hodson M., Brohmann B. (2008). The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies: meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe . Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28 , 464–477. 10.1177/0270467608317523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Read D., Loewenstein G., Rabin M., Keren G., Laibson D. (1999). “ Choice bracketing ” in Elicitation of preferences. eds. Fischhoff B., Manski C. F. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; ), 171–202. [ Google Scholar ]
Rhoades J. A., Carnevale P. J. (1999). The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: a test of the dual concern model 1 . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29 , 1777–1802. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00152.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ritov I., Drory A. (1996). Ambiguity and conflict management strategy . Int. J. Confl. Manag. 7 , 139–155. 10.1108/eb022779 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rittel H. W., Webber M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning . Policy. Sci. 4 , 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rusbult C. E., Van Lange P. A. M. (1996). “ Interdependence processes ” in Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles eds. Higgins E. T., Kruglanski A. W. (New York: The Guilford Press; ), 564–596. [ Google Scholar ]
Schelling T. C. (1958). The strategy of conflict. Prospectus for a reorientation of game theory . J. Confl. Resolut. 2 , 203–264. 10.1177/002200275800200301 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schelling T. C. (1984). Choice and consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Schreuer A., Ornetzeder M., Rohracher H. (2010). Negotiating the local embedding of socio-technical experiments: a case study in fuel cell technology . Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 22 , 729–743. 10.1080/09537325.2010.496286 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schuster C., Majer J. M., Trötschel R. (2020). Whatever we negotiate is not what I like: how value-driven conflicts impact negotiation behaviors, outcomes, and subjective evaluations . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90 :103993. 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103993 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Seyfang G., Haxeltine A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions . Environ. Plan. Govern. Pol. 30 , 381–400. 10.1068/c10222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sherif M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Vol. 10. OK: University Book Exchange Norman. [ Google Scholar ]
Sherif M., Sherif C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension; An integration of studies of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
Sherstyuk K., Tarui N., Ravago M.-L. V., Saijo T. (2016). Intergenerational games with dynamic externalities and climate change experiments . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3 , 247–281. 10.1086/684162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Soman D., Ainslie G., Frederick S., Li X., Lynch J., Moreau P., et al.. (2005). The psychology of intertemporal discounting: why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones? Mark. Lett. 16 , 347–360. 10.1007/s11002-005-5897-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sondeijker S., Geurts J., Rotmans J., Tukker A. (2006). Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management . Foresight 8 , 15–30. 10.1108/14636680610703063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sunstein C. R., Reisch L. A. (2013). Green by default . Kyklos 66 , 398–402. 10.1111/kykl.12028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1979). “ An integrative theory of intergroup conflict ” in The social psychology of intergroup relations. eds. Austin W. G., Worchel S. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; ), 33–37. [ Google Scholar ]
Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1986). “ The social identity theory of intergroup behavior ” in Psychology of intergroup relations. eds. Worchel S., Austin W. G. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall; ), 7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
Tavoni A., Dannenberg A., Kallis G., Loschel A. (2011). Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 , 11825–11829. 10.1073/pnas.1102493108, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson L., DeHarpport T. (1994). Social judgment, feedback, and interpersonal learning in negotiation . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58 , 327–345. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson L., Gonzalez R. (1997). “ Environmental disputes: competition for scarce resources and clashing of values ” in Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation eds. Bazerman M. H., Messick D. M., Tenbrunsel A. E., Wade-Benzoni K. A. (San Francisco: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass Publishers; ), 75–104. [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson L., Hastie R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 47 , 98–123. 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trötschel R., Hüffmeier J., Loschelder D. D. (2010). When yielding pieces of the pie is not a piece of cake: identity-based intergroup effects in negotiations . Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 13 , 741–763. 10.1177/1368430210374608 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trötschel R., Hüffmeier J., Loschelder D. D., Schwartz K., Gollwitzer P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: when putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 771–790. 10.1037/a0023801, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trötschel R., Loschelder D. D., Höhne B. P., Majer J. M. (2015). Procedural frames in negotiations: how offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108 , 417–435. 10.1037/pspi0000009, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tsay C. J., Bazerman M. H. (2009). A decision-making perspective to negotiation: a review of the past and a look to the future . Negot. J. 25 , 467–480. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00239.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tuncel E., Mislin A., Kesebir S., Pinkley R. L. (2016). Agreement attraction and impasse aversion: reasons for selecting a poor deal over no deal at all . Psychol. Sci. 27 , 312–321. 10.1177/0956797615619200, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
Urminsky O. (2017). The role of psychological connectedness to the future self in decisions over time . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 34–39. 10.1177/0963721416668810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Van Boven L., Ehret P. J., Sherman D. K. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13 , 492–507. 10.1177/1745691617748966, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Van der Gaast W. (2015). International climate negotiation conditions: Past and future. Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM research school. [ Google Scholar ]
Van Lange P. A. M., Balliet D. (2015). “ Interdependence theory ” in APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations. eds. Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R., Simpson J. A., Dovidio J. F. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 65–92. [ Google Scholar ]
von Wirth T., Gislason L., Seidl R. (2018). Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance . Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 82 , 2618–2628. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.086 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wade-Benzoni K. A. (2008). Maple trees and weeping willows: the role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions . Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 1 , 220–245. 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00014.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wade-Benzoni K. A., Hernandez M., Medvec V., Messick D. (2008). In fairness to future generations: the role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 , 233–245. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wade-Benzoni K. A., Tost L. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13 , 165–193. 10.1177/1088868309339317, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wade-Benzoni K. A., Tost L. P., Hernandez M., Larrick R. P. (2012). It’s only a matter of time: death, legacies, and intergenerational decisions . Psychol. Sci. 23 , 704–709. 10.1177/0956797612443967, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weber E. U. (2017). Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future . Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 :13. 10.1038/s41562-016-0013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weber E. U., Johnson E. J. (2016). “ Can we think of the future? Cognitive barriers to future-oriented thinking ” in Global cooperation and the human factor eds. Messner D., Weinlich S. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 139–154. [ Google Scholar ]
Weber E. U., Johnson E. J., Milch K. F., Chang H., Brodscholl J. C., Goldstein D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: a query-theory account . Psychol. Sci. 18 , 516–523. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01932.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wildschut T., Insko C. A. (2007). Explanations of interindividual—intergroup discontinuity: a review of the evidence . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18 , 175–211. 10.1080/10463280701676543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yoeli E., Hoffman M., Rand D. G., Nowak M. A. (2013). Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 , 10424–10429. 10.1073/pnas.1301210110, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: an interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice

Original Article
Open access
Published: 04 April 2019
Volume 15 , pages 263–279, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Olga Stepanova 1 ,
Merritt Polk 1 &
Hannah Saldert 1

15k Accesses

28 Citations

Explore all metrics

Conflicts over land use and their resolution are one of the core challenges in reaching sustainable development today. The aim of this paper is to better understand the mechanisms that underlie conflict resolution. To do so we focus on the use and integration of different knowledge types for conflict resolution in three fields: natural resource management, transdisciplinary research and urban planning. We seek to understand what role different types of knowledge have in the different examples and contexts given. How is knowledge conceptualized and defined? How is it used and integrated to resolve conflicts? These questions are answered through a thematic review of the literature and a discussion of the different knowledge typologies from the respective research fields. We compare conflict resolution approaches and, as a synthesis, present an interdisciplinary knowledge typology for conflict resolution. We find that knowledge use centered approaches are seen as facilitating a common understanding of a problem and creating a necessary base for more productive collaboration across disciplines. However, it is often unclear what knowledge means in the studies analyzed. More attention to the role that different knowledge types have in conflict resolution is needed in order to shed more light on the possible shortcomings of the resolution processes. This might serve as a base to improve conflict resolution towards more lasting, long-term oriented and therefore more sustainable solutions. We conclude that the three literatures inform and enrich each other across disciplinary boundaries and can be used to develop more refined approaches to understanding knowledge use in conflict analysis and resolution.

Co-producing Knowledge for Sustainable Development in Telecoupled Land Systems

Joint problem framing: a transdisciplinary methodology for a sustainable future in mountain areas

Carine Pachoud, Enora Bruley, … Yannick Vialette

Critical Mapping for Researching and Acting Upon Environmental Conflicts – The Case of the EJAtlas

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Conflicts over land use are one of the core challenges in reaching sustainable development today (Owens and Cowell 2011 ; von der Dunk et al. 2011 ; Raco and Lin 2012 ; Antonson et al. 2016 ). The ways in which conflicts are managed are decisive for social justice, human rights, democratic participation and long-term environmental protection and conservation, all of which are foundations of sustainable development as well central issues within the newly launched United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Owens and Cowell 2011 ; SDGs, UN 2015 ). A number of approaches from different subject areas and theoretical traditions focus on conflicts both implicitly, through collaboration and consensus building (i.e., in urban planning and transdisciplinary knowledge production research), and explicitly, in studies of conflict resolution and mitigation (i.e., in natural resource management and environmental governance) (Innes and Booher 2015 ; Stepanova 2013 , 2015 ).

For example, while conflict is a given starting point for the urban planning (UP) discourse, it has most often been approached in terms of communication, collaboration and consensus building, as well as in terms of emancipation and agonism regarding the role of power relations and domination in planning processes and outcomes (Fainstein 2000 ; Harvey 2008 ; Healey 1997 ; Innes and Booher 2003 , 2010 ; Mouffe 2005 ; Owens and Cowell 2011 ). A few recent studies present more in-depth analyses of the processes that specifically constitute conflict development and resolution (e.g., Coppens 2014 ; Antonson et al. 2016 ; Kombe 2010 ).

In contrast, in natural resource management (NRM) and environmental governance, conflicts over natural resources, land use and their resolution have been intensively studied as such (Shmueli 2008 ; Reed et al. 2011 ; Stepanova and Bruckmeier 2013 ; Martín-Cantarino 2010 ). A few recent studies from within environmental management (e.g., Blythe and Dadi 2012 ; Stepanova 2013 ; Butler et al. 2015 ) suggest that a hitherto neglected component of knowledge integration might be one of the key elements to support conflict resolution on the way to sustainability. Similarly, the importance of knowledge integration as a crucial component for “societal problem solving” in urban planning, is highlighted in studies on transdisciplinary research (TDR) (Bergmann et al. 2012 ; Burger and Kamber 2003 ; Godemann 2008 ; Pohl et al. 2010 ; Polk 2015a , b ). In these studies, integration of multiple knowledge types from diverse sources is presented as central for sustainable development, resource management and planning.

The integration of different knowledges is especially important for the management and governance of complex issues, including conflict resolution with multiple actors. Research suggests that the integration of different knowledges may help to manage the complexity of conflicts by stimulating different kinds of awareness among the actors, e.g., complexity awareness, awareness of different perspectives and critical knowledge gaps, and whole system awareness (Jordan 2014 , p. 60; Wouters et al. 2018 ). For example, complexity awareness helps to “select strategically central aspects of the issue complex and develop effective action plans” for which the actors usually need “a thorough understanding of conditions and causality” (Jordan 2014 , p. 60). Integration of knowledge may facilitate common understanding of the problem at hand, its causes, help anticipate consequences and develop proposals for actions (ibid.; Andersson 2015 ).

The aim of this paper is to increase our understanding of one of the mechanisms that underlie conflict resolution Footnote 1 , namely knowledge integration, through a focus on the definitions and use of different types of knowledge. To do so, we compare different practices of knowledge use for conflict resolution that are dispersed in the NRM, TDR and UP literatures. By practices of knowledge use, we mean how different knowledges are defined in the literature, and how they are used and integrated in conflict resolution. Thus, the practice of knowledge use is seen as subordinate to mechanisms of conflict resolution. By focusing on definitions of knowledge and its use and integration, we draw attention to the ways that these three scholarly areas see and use knowledge in processes of conflict resolution. Knowledge integration as a mechanism of conflict resolution, is an important but under-investigated link between the knowledge types and the methods of conflict resolution (i.e., tools and approaches, e.g., participation). Both topics receive attention in the literature, however in different degrees of analytical depth and detail. By focusing on knowledge types, we hope to contribute to providing insight into the knowledge use related mechanisms of conflict resolution, which can further inform the development of more refined analytical tools for conflict analysis.

Overall, we seek to understand what role knowledge has in the different examples and contexts given. How is knowledge conceptualized and defined? How is it used and integrated to resolve conflicts? These questions are answered through a thematic review of the literature and a discussion of the different approaches to knowledge use and integration that exist in these research fields. As a synthesis, we present an interdisciplinary knowledge typology, which relates the findings from the review of these literatures to each other.

Building upon the work that has been done in NRM, TDR and UP, we discuss how the integration of these three literatures can be used to develop more refined approaches to conflict analysis and resolution. We believe that the topic of conflict analysis and resolution together with the discussion of practices of knowledge use that constitute resolution strategies, will be of interest for a broad scholarship of sustainability science. This integrative approach in turn has the potential to further our analysis and understanding of collaboration and to contribute to more informed and sustainable management practice (SDGs, UN 2015 ).

The paper proceeds as follows. We present a thematic literature review guided by the question: how are conflict resolution and practices of knowledge use addressed in the respective disciplines? Based on this review we trace and compare the role that different knowledge types and knowledge use processes are given in the respective areas. Finally, we present a synthesis of the reviewed literature and different knowledge typologies that represent the NRM, TDR and UP research fields. In the concluding discussion, we suggest ways in which studies of conflict resolution may benefit from this broader interdisciplinary discussion.

Conceptual base

As noted above, studies of non-violent resource use conflicts (e.g., land use), are spread across disciplines from UP to NRM and environmental governance. The terminology used to address conflicts differs across different approaches. Similar to the term conflict, the terms knowledge and knowledge integration are defined and understood differently in different disciplines and studies. The varying definitions and understandings of the terms imply difficulties when searching for texts to review (Nursey-Bray et al. 2014 ; Reed et al. 2010 ). We will therefore start by clarifying how these terms are defined in our study, both for the purpose of methodological clarity and to facilitate the analysis.

Conflict resolution

Conflict is a term that captures diverging interests or disagreements and is referred to in a number of ways including: dispute, clash of interests, competing interests or simply problem. Conflict resolution is also referred to in different ways, for example as conflict prevention, mitigation, management, transformation, consensus building, cooperation, reconciliation, and collaboration. In this paper, we use the term conflict , to refer to local non-violent resource use conflicts that arise around the use of natural resources, primarily land, and to a lesser extent other natural resources, such as different species. High levels of complexity characterize such conflicts including multiple stakeholders with different interests, values and knowledge who are associated with a variety of political and administrative contexts and levels. In the context of UP, conflicts occur when a planned change in land use infringes upon the interests and values of different stakeholders to such a degree that they cannot accept the change without some sort of negotiation. Here, conflict is broadly understood as a situation where stakeholders have incompatible interests related to certain geographically defined land-use units or resource (von der Dunk et al. 2011 ).

Conflict resolution in the context of NRM and urban planning is a process where a variety of approaches, methods, policy and management instruments are applied. These include formal and informal resolution, governmental and user based procedures, as well as other types of arbitration and mediation, which are direct and indirect, legally enforced and voluntary, knowledge based or culture specific, or a combination of these (Stepanova 2015 ). Throughout this paper conflict resolution is understood as a dynamic iterative process where different stakeholders (not only courts and mediators) initiate attempts to solve the conflict formally and informally in search of “better” management solutions. In this process, stakeholders co-produce, test, use and integrate different knowledge types (Blackmore 2007 ; Collins et al. 2007 ).

Knowledge integration

Knowledge and its integration from different scientific disciplines and non-scientific sources (e.g., local knowledge, professional knowledge) is the theme that is common for all three research fields discussed in this paper: NRM, TDR and UP. Practices of knowledge use and integration is one of the main themes in NRM and environmental governance research where they are discussed as necessary preconditions for more adaptive, collaborative and sustainable resource management (Bremer and Glavovic 2013a , b ; Bohensky and Maru 2011 ; Tengö et al. 2014 , 2017 ). Within TDR, knowledge integration is an overall way to deal with wicked, or complex societal problems (Brown et al. 2010 ; Polk 2015a , b ; Scholz and Steiner 2015a , b ). While not explicitly focusing on ‘conflict management’ or ‘conflict resolution’ per se, TDR approaches all are based upon the assumption that knowledge integration is a cornerstone for not only understanding conflicts that occur within attempts to reach a more sustainable society, but also for resolving them. The integration of knowledge, expertise and values from both scientific and non-scientific sources is used normatively, balancing diverse opinions and values regarding how goals are defined, and over what types of knowledge and expertise are seen as most applicable to the solution of specific problems. It is also used instrumentally, where different types of integration are seen as necessary for grasping the complexity of wicked problems, as well as seen as having additional process-related (governance) value for solving current and future conflicts (Bergmann et al. 2012 ; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ; Polk 2014 ; Wiek et al. 2012 , 2014 ). Knowledge integration from diverse sources also results in an increase of knowledge about how other organizations and actors understand, formulate and solve problems and can thus contribute to how societal problems can be solved in the future (Spangenberg 2011 ; Walter et al. 2007 ; Wiek et al. 2012 , 2014 ). In these ways, the contributions of knowledge integration to solving societal conflicts (in a broad use of the term), is both implicitly as well as explicitly, a cornerstone of the TDR field.

Different types of knowledge and knowledge integration are also central in the planning literature (Rydin 2007 ; McGuirk 2001 ; Watson 2014 ). Rydin ( 2007 ), for example, sees the use of knowledge as “a central element in achieving (positive) change through planning” (p. 53) and claims that “the purpose of planning is to handle multiple knowledges” (p. 55). Practices of knowledge exchange, and different forms and practices of knowing are among the central themes in planning which itself is sometimes conceptualized as a practice of knowing (Davoudi 2015 ). The importance of the conceptualization of knowledge together with the demand to pay more attention to practices of knowledge use in the context of unequal power relations within planning practice has been repeatedly emphasized (Fainstein 2000 ; McGuirk 2001 ; Rydin 2007 ; Owens and Cowell 2011 ; Flyvbjerg and Richardson 2002 ).

Knowledge refers to many different entities (Rydin 2007 ). It is a much used term in the discourses studied here, that is also used analytically and theoretically, sometimes interchangeably and not always clearly defined. This makes it methodologically challenging to track and study its use. In order to untangle the complexity and multifacetedness of the knowledge concept, this paper will build upon Rydin’s conceptualization of knowledge as knowledge claims (Rydin 2007 ). Following Rydin, we define knowledge as a claim to understanding certain causal relationships . In other words, understanding of the causal relationship between action and impact constitutes the core of a knowledge claim (ibid. p. 53). According to Rydin, a knowledge claim can be distinguished from other claims, e.g., ethical, pragmatic, efficiency or aesthetic. Knowledge claims may be used to support values. Values thus may constitute part of a knowledge claim, and influence it, but for our use here, they are not equal to knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge claims cannot be reduced to experiences even though experience may be a prerequisite to understanding (ibid p. 56; Collins and Evans 2002 ; Scholz and Steiner 2015a , b ). This distinction helps to separate knowledge from values in complex conflicts and provides a basis for more refined tracking and analysis of knowledge use. Footnote 2

Regarding knowledge integration, another distinction has to be made in regard to the relationship between knowledge and learning. Knowledge related processes are difficult to identify and isolate as they are always intertwined with learning (Blackmore 2007 ). Here, we understand knowledge use as an overarching term that embraces individual learning, joint learning and knowledge co-production. Learning, in turn, includes knowledge integration as an integral part (Ballard et al. 2008 ). Knowledge integration can also happen on the individual and group level and on different levels of institutional arrangements (e.g., within planning context). In this paper, knowledge integration is understood as the integration of different knowledge claims in a complex social process of knowledge production, synthesis, sharing and learning within planning and decision-making (Godemann 2008 ; Polk 2015a , b ; Stepanova 2013 ). Knowledge integration can be understood as both a process and an outcome of conflict resolution and participatory decision-making. For the purpose of this paper, the process dimension of knowledge integration is seen as internal and inherent to individual and group learning processes and methodologically difficult to capture without long-term ethnographic studies. The outcome dimension of knowledge integration, while entwined with specific results of learning/co-production processes, can be traced through the implementation and application of different knowledges in decision-making processes and documentation (e.g., through the decisions made, argumentation used). We see the integration of different knowledges (conflicting knowledge claims) in the context of urban planning as expressed in development goals, plans, and other forms in the implementation stage of the decision-making processes.

Given the multifaceted nature of conflicts and their engagement of diverse actors, it is also important to distinguish the multiple contexts or levels where processes of joint learning and knowledge integration occur. Multilevel integration is understood as horizontal and vertical integration of different knowledge types (Rydin 2007 ). Horizontal integration happens among stakeholders in formal (e.g., routine public consultation within planning where different knowledge claims and interests get manifested and shared) and informal (e.g., open stakeholder forums, informal dialogues) processes of conflict resolution within urban municipal planning. Importantly, horizontal knowledge integration does not “ensure (its) anchoring in respective institutional and political contexts where social change occurs” (Polk 2015a , b :110). Therefore, the need to also study vertical integration which, together with other knowledge types, includes the integration of knowledge from collaborative and participatory processes on the horizontal level of conflict resolution into actual decision-making and public policy on local and regional levels (Stepanova 2013 ).

Materials and methods

In order to explore how conflict resolution and practices of knowledge use are addressed in NRM, TDR and UP, we thematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published in English from January 1999 until September 2017. Footnote 3 Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Books and grey literature (such as reports) were excluded due to the concerns regarding their peer review status and quality. While this delimitation risks missing relevant studies, it nevertheless provides an adequate basis to assess the research in these respective fields for the purpose of this paper.

We applied an iterative search using the search engine Google scholar™ in September–October 2017. This engine was chosen because it returned more results with more complete citation numbers as it includes a wider variety of sources than other search engines. The aim was to first identify studies that directly address conflict resolution in the title, abstract and/or keywords. The keywords for the first search were adapted to the terminology used in respective disciplines. In NRM the keywords were: conflict resolution/knowledge/learning; in TDR: co-production/conflict resolution/joint learning/knowledge integration; in urban planning: conflict resolution/joint learning/knowledge integration/co-production/knowledge use. The results of the first search gave us an overview of how well represented the studies of conflicts and knowledge practices were in the respective disciplines. A second more specific search was made among studies identified in the first round. For this second search, the aim was to distil the studies that discuss practices of knowledge use/integration/learning in relation to /as a strategy for conflict resolution. The keywords applied were knowledge integration/learning/ for conflict resolution. The texts were selected based on the abstract and introduction. A few references were also added from the authors’ wider reading within our research backgrounds (NRM, TDR, UP). These additional references we considered applicable for our purposes as they discussed the themes we were interested in. They were not retrieved through the literature search partly because they dealt with conflict resolution either indirectly or did not use any of the keywords in the title, abstract nor introduction. This was primarily the case for the TD literature, where conflict is not a core concept. In the other areas, the analysis is primarily based on the results retrieved through the organized literature searches. The studies that addressed a combination of the two themes (knowledge integration/use for conflict resolution) were analyzed in more detail. Several exemplary texts were chosen to constitute a base for the discussion of conflict resolution practices in each research area (Tables 1 , 2 , 3 ). The chosen texts most fully fulfilled the criteria for the second search. They discussed practices of knowledge use/integration/learning in relation to/as a strategy for conflict resolution, were highly cited, and represented different streams within the respective research areas.

Knowledge use and conflict resolution in natural resource management (NRM)

The theme of conflict resolution has since long been discussed in NRM together with the theme of knowledge use which is central in NRM. Knowledge-based conflict resolution is a basic prerequisite and aim, for example, within adaptive co-management (Plummer et al. 2012 , 2017 ) that includes adaptive management (e.g., Stringer et al. 2006 ; Pahl-Wostl 2007 ), collaborative management (e.g., Schusler et al. 2003 ; Berkes 2009 ; Mostert et al. 2007 ), and participatory resource management (e.g., Muro and Jeffrey 2008 ; Beierle and Konisky 2000 ).

Conflict, although indirectly, is also at the core within common pool resource research (CPR) and within the social-ecological resilience literature. In CPR, conflict resolution is addressed through deliberation, negotiation, dialogue and joint learning, which is facilitated by innovative institutional arrangements (e.g., Ostrom et al., Adams et al. 2003 ; Dietz et al. 2003 ; Paavola 2007 ; Ratner et al. 2013 ). In the social-ecological resilience literature, conflicts are treated through social networks, knowledge sharing and social learning (e.g., Lebel et al. 2006 ; Olsson et al. 2004 on adaptive co-management for resilience). Together with adaptive co-management, more detailed and in-depth studies of conflicts and their resolution are also found within human ecology (Bruckmeier 2005 ; Bruckmeier and Höj Larsen 2008 ; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Stepanova 2013 , 2015 ) and biological/wildlife conservation (e.g., Dickman 2010 ; Redpath et al. 2004 , 2013 ; Henle et al. 2008 ; Madden and McQuinn 2014 ). In these literatures, conflict resolution is often framed in terms of participation, cooperation, collaboration, dialogue and conflict transformation (Stepanova and Bruckmeier 2013 ).

Table 1 contains representative studies within NRM that explicitly discuss processes of knowledge use and integration for conflict resolution that were identified in the process of literature review. The resolution approaches discussed in these studies are consensus and compromise oriented and see knowledge sharing and integration through joint learning as a necessary precondition to form a common understanding or interpretations of a problem at hand. The main difference is the level of analysis of conflicts and the way that knowledge integration is theorized or framed. The framing of knowledge integration through social, joint and collaborative learning prevails (Reed et al. 2011 ; Redpath et al. 2013 ; Bruckmeier and Höj Larsen 2008 ; Butler et al. 2015 ) with the exception of the framing/reframing approach (Emery et al. 2013 ; Shmueli 2008 ; Putnam et al. 2003 ) (Table 1 ). Joint learning is seen as central for better understanding the positions and perceptions of participating actors. It is also seen to help formulate common goals and paths to reach them (Reed et al. 2011 ). In slight contrast to other approaches where knowledge integration is conceptualized though learning, in the framing/reframing approach, which may be seen as a process of knowledge integration itself, knowledge production and integration are seen as part of a cognitive process (framing) of understanding , interpreting and making sense of the problem at hand (Shmueli 2008 ; Emery et al. 2013 ). However, it may be argued that learning and understanding are interconnected or constitute each other. At the same time, understanding in framing/reframing is also about acceptance (no matter what it is based on) on the way to a trade-off or consensus.

In the NRM literature, the process component of knowledge integration (related to individual and group learning) is rarely analyzed in depth or evaluated. Rather, it is implicitly present in general processes of dialogue, negotiation, learning, collaboration and participation. Joint formulation of alternative resource management plans often constitute the outcome component of knowledge integration. This latter component is given more attention in the studies as a concrete outcome of the resolution efforts, something that consensus may result in.

The knowledge types identified in these studies fall within the general knowledge typology of scientific, expert/managerial, local (ecological) knowledge. For example, Butler et al. ( 2015 ) provide an example of successful horizontal and vertical integration of competing knowledges (scientific, managerial, local ecological) in a form of jointly produced alternative management plans formulated in the process of collective negotiations.

Stepanova ( 2013 ) offers a more detailed knowledge typology where the three general knowledge types (local, scientific, managerial/administrative) are further categorized as formal or informal, local ecological or local social knowledge. Footnote 4 By informal knowledge, she refers to mainly individual, not documented knowledge communicated in informal forums. Informal knowledge is often integrated in formal knowledge articulated through written documents, norms and procedures.

This review of the NRM literature shows that the authors rarely specify what they mean by knowledge or different knowledge types. In the reviewed studies, the focus is rather on the instrumental processes that stimulate or support knowledge use and integration on different levels of decision-making (concerned with the “how”, “through what strategies and tools”) (i.e., Reed et al. 2011 ; Butler et al. 2015 ), rather than on in-depth discussion of the roles that different knowledge types have in conflict resolution and resource management.

Knowledge types and knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research (TDR) and their contributions to conflict resolution

What can the transdisciplinary approaches contribute to using knowledge integration for conflict resolution in urban contexts? The transdisciplinary discourse includes a number of different approaches to knowledge integration. Given that the transdisciplinary discourse itself is interdisciplinary, knowledge integration is framed from within a variety of theoretical and disciplinary approaches. One of the main focus areas in the TDR literature included in our review is the research process itself, how it is characterized, what features it has, what forms it takes, what its goals are and how different degrees and types of participation/collaboration effect societal outcomes (Jahn and Keil 2015 ; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2008 ; Talwar et al. 2011 ; Walter et al. 2007 ; Wiek et al. 2014 ; Westberg and Polk 2016 ; Wickson et al. 2006 ). Overall, participation and learning (mutual, social, situated) are seen as mechanisms for ensuring sufficient integration of knowledge, expertise and values from different stakeholder groups. TDR thus includes not only discussions regarding knowledge integration, but also focuses on process , and more recently on how power relationships influence the ability to integrate different perspectives into TDR (Berger-González et al. 2016 ; Klenk and Meehan 2015 ; Schmidt and Neuburger 2017 ). For the purpose of this paper, four topics within the TDR literature will be discussed here. These include: conceptual models for collaboration, knowledge typologies, mutual learning processes and participatory features/power (see Table 2 ).

For the context of conflict resolution in focus in this paper, knowledge integration in the TD discourse is not just about knowledge outcomes, it is about knowledge creating processes, about how knowledge exchange, sharing and integration occur through different types of participation, cooperation and collaboration. A great deal of attention has been put on designing conceptual models for collaboration that can create the premises for knowledge exchange and learning (Jahn et al. 2012 ; Lang et al. 2012 ; Morton et al. 2015 ; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ; Polk 2015a , b ; Wiek et al. 2014 ). These models focus on designing mechanisms into the research processes that ensure a sufficient amount of knowledge integration to grasp the complexity of the problem under study and represent the expertise of relevant stakeholders. Key strategies include creating joint understanding and problem framing around a common research objects, collaborative knowledge production processes and joint synthesis, implementation and communication of results (Lang et al. 2012 ; Polk 2015a , b ). Central issues for joint understandings and problem formulations include discussions regarding the significant amount of time needed to create the mutual trust and commitment that underlies the creation of productive relationships.

Numerous studies within the TD discourse discuss both knowledge types and their integration (Burger and Kamber 2003 ; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ; Pohl 2011 ; Zierhofer and Burger 2007 ; Klenk and Meehan 2015 ; Morton et al. 2015 ; Hoffmann et al. 2017 ). Overall, the main distinction of knowledge types is between scientific knowledge and practitioner-based expertise or the so-called science–policy interface (Munoz-Erickson 2014 ). A number of TD scholars make further distinctions based upon groups of actors, the focus or functions of knowledge, and on knowledge systems or communities. The first is often within the science–practice divide and includes interdisciplinary knowledge integration among different disciplines and scientific domains like the natural and social sciences, and different types of professional or experienced based knowledge based on groups of actors such as bureaucrats, civil servants, business interests or on experiential or lay knowledge (Edelenbos et al. 2011 ; Enengel et al. 2012 ; Munoz-Erickson 2014 ). The second includes knowledge classifications based on the type of analysis being undertaken such as instrumental, normative and predictive (Burger and Kamber 2003 ; Pohl 2011 ). The third focuses more on mutual learning processes and includes how knowledge systems are constituted in different communities, collectives and epistemologies (Burger and Kamber 2003 ; Pohl 2011 ; Westberg and Polk 2016 ).

From the Swiss discourse on TDR, Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn present a much-cited typology of knowledge, where systems, target and transformative knowledge are noted as the basic types of knowledge that are needed for TDR for sustainability (Burger and Kamber 2003 :52; Proclim 1997 ; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ). Systems knowledge refers to knowledge about the current state of a specific problem (How did we get here and where are we heading?); target knowledge refers to desirable futures or goals (Where do we want to go?), and transformative knowledge refers to knowledge about how to transition to a specific goal or future (How do we get there?) (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ; ProClim 1997 ). These knowledge types are seen to embody the specific challenges of sustainability, regarding uncertainties, the contested nature of sustainability and the practical and institutional contextual complexity related to reaching sustainability (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ). These types of knowledge are not based on stakeholder categories, but span both disciplines and actor groups.

Knowledge integration is also approached with a focus on mutual learning processes as well as how this learning occurs within group settings (e.g., Godemann 2008 ; Westberg and Polk 2016 ). Here the focus is on the specific aspects of the knowledge/knowing concept and how different types of knowledge/expertise are brought together via, for example creating a common knowledge base, cognitive frame, and shared mental modes through situated and social interactions within a group (Godemann 2008 ; Schauppenlehner-Kloyber and Penker 2015 ; Westberg and Polk 2016 ).

Dealing with power differentials has also been an implicit topic within TDR through analyzing how participatory features enable different degrees of collaboration, t. ex. Talwar et al. ( 2011 ), Brandt et al. ( 2013 ) and Wiek et al. ( 2014 ). There is a growing focus on the impact of power differentials, since the integration of multiple voices and knowledges are a cornerstone of the TD approach (Bracken et al. 2015 ; Berger-González et al. 2016 ; Klenk and Meehan 2015 ). More recent approaches criticize TDR for not adequately dealing with ingrained power differentials between participating groups. For example, approaches from anthropology and science studies criticize what they consider a naive approach to knowledge integration that does not adequately deal with power and their resultant epistemological and cultural differences (Berger-González et al. 2016 ; Klenk and Meehan 2015 ).

As this section shows, TDR provides in-depth discussions and reflections over the participation processes that lead to knowledge integration and co-production. It looks into how knowledge integration and co-production happen through in-depth study of the process-related mechanisms and the premises for knowledge exchange and learning.

Knowledge use and conflict resolution in urban planning (UP)

In contrast to TDR where conflict is present indirectly, conflict is widely acknowledged in urban planning literature (Healey 2003 ; Innes and Booher 2003 , 2010 , 2015 ; Owens and Cowell 2011 ). Conflicts are seen as natural byproducts of the planning process where conflicts of multiple differing interests and goals become manifest. Formal planning procedures are themselves a tool for conflict resolution, which is achieved through both formal (e.g., legal and policy based) and informal procedures that may differ in means and/or form (Zhang et al. 2012 ). For example, in collaborative planning conflict resolution is an explicit goal (Innes and Booher 2010 , 2015 ). Innes and Booher ( 2015 ) argue that “collaboration is about conflict”, they refer to conflict as an engine behind collaboration, because if stakeholders did not have disagreements, they would not need to collaborate (ibid p. 203). In urban collaborative planning, conflicts are addressed through different forms of consensus oriented collaborative efforts, e.g., dialogues, discussions, formal (e.g., public consultation within planning) and informal (e.g., stakeholder forums) participatory procedures. Footnote 5 The resolution procedures aim to generate common/shared perceptions, objectives or understanding among the stakeholders, inform negotiation and decision-making (Ross 2009 ; Halla 2005 ; Margerum 2002 ; Sze and Sovacool 2013 ).

Together with the conflict theme, the theme of knowledge use, knowledge contestation and plurality of knowledge is also internal to collaborative planning (Sandercock 2003 ). Knowledge integration, although implicitly addressed, is incorporated in collaborative planning’s striving towards a joint creation of a shared understanding and meaning (Innes and Booher 2015 ). Different forms of communication and participation, for example collaborative dialogues, group negotiations, open stakeholder forums within collaborative planning serve as arenas for integration of different knowledges (Peltonen and Sairinen 2010 ; Sun et al. 2016 ; Domingo and Beunen 2013 ; Patterson et al. 2003 ). Shared understanding of the issue at hand is one of the expected outcomes of integration of different knowledge types.

Critical planning scholars, who criticize collaborative planning´s orientation towards consensus, call for more robust deliberation and institutionalization of inclusive participation in order to facilitate transformative learning/integration of knowledges. Transformative learning may expose power relations and widen the scope of the value systems. It may also widen the scope of forms of knowledge and meaning used to inform the formulation of planning aims (Brand and Gaffikin 2007 ; McGuirk 2001 ; Mouffe 2005 ) and lead to a more accurate and meaningful knowledge base for planners to act and make decisions upon (Innes and Booher 2015 ). Scientific, lay and expert/managerial knowledge types are among the most recognized.

Acknowledging the contribution and relevance of collaborative planning literature for general conflict resolution through collaborative procedures, we find that very few studies explicitly focus on both practices of knowledge integration and conflict resolution. Most of the UP studies reviewed here revolve around collecting or sharing information within the frames of communication, rather than discussing different knowledge types and the processes of their use. However, a few studies also focus explicitly on collective knowledge production and knowledge integration and deem the integration of different knowledge types in collaborative processes as important for conflict resolution or reaching consensus (Ross 2009 ; Peltonen and Sairinen 2010 ; Patterson et al. 2003 ; Golobiĉ and Maruŝiĉ 2007 ). For example, Peltonen and Sairinen ( 2010 ) argue that joint knowledge production (co-creation) and communication of the newly produced knowledge are important elements of the planning process that may help finding new solutions, especially in conflict management. Integration of the three main knowledge types distinguished in these studies—scientific, expert/managerial and lay—is expected to provide an overview or deeper understanding of conflicts and different issues, and help to find common interests and reach consensual solutions (Table 3 ).

Some examples of the tools applied to facilitate knowledge integration include development of knowledge-based alternative solutions based on integration of local/lay and expert knowledge through creation of “cognitive maps” (models) that are later used for open public debates (Golobiĉ and Maruŝiĉ 2007 ), and the use of social impact assessment (Peltonen and Sairinen 2010 ). Through the mediation process, the conflicting parties build a common platform of knowledge which may be further used for formulation of intermediary agreements, trade-offs and decision-making.

This section shows that UP authors see conflicts as a natural part of the planning process where the planning procedure is, itself, a tool for conflict resolution. The theme of knowledge use is internal to the planning process. However, very few studies explicitly focus on how different knowledge types contribute to knowledge integration and conflict resolution simultaneously.

Comparing knowledge use practices for conflict resolution in NRM, TDR and UP

The need to address the challenge to manage multiple knowledge types and claims is evident among the reviewed studies that represent NRM (Blackmore 2007 ; Henry 2009 ), TDR (Polk 2015a , b ; Godemann 2008 ; Walter et al. 2007 ; Wiek et al. 2014 ; Pohl et al. 2010 ), and UP within the collaborative planning literature (Healey 1997 ; Rydin 2007 ; Innes and Booher 2003 , 2015 ).

Overall, in the NRM literature more refined and defined knowledge types that go beyond the general categories of local/scientific/managerial are rarely discussed in relation to conflict resolution. In the reviewed studies, the focus is primarily on the outcomes of participation and collaboration as the main approaches to resolving conflicts, rather than on processes and mechanisms. The studies are mostly concerned with the instrumental part of conflict resolution, e.g., collaborative and participatory tools, with limited further analysis or evaluation of the processes that happen within these tools.

Similarly, the reviewed UP studies tend to focus on specific tools to facilitate integration/collaboration/communication of knowledge. They do not go into in-depth analyses or discussion of the mechanisms of integration or the roles that different knowledge types have in the process. Neither do the reviewed studies provide an in-depth analytical evaluation of the knowledge integration process in terms of its specific contribution to planning and decision-making. In contrast to NRM and UP, TD specifically focuses on the phases and mechanisms of knowledge integration, with no specific focus on conflict resolution.

Although the reviewed studies and practices of knowledge use do not always explicitly aim to resolve conflicts, they have in common the goal of creating a common/joint understanding of the problem at hand. Common understanding is regarded as one of the cornerstones and prerequisites for reaching a trade-off among the stakeholders; it serves as a basis for more adequate and informed decision-making and, eventually, resolution of conflicts. Collaborative and participatory settings and tools that promote joint learning/joint knowledge production and communication are among the main tools used to facilitate integration of different knowledge types.

However, the degree of attention paid to actual practices of knowledge use and integration differs significantly between the three fields. In NRM and UP the analysis and discussion of knowledge processes often remain on the discursive/rhetorical level or is reduced to the general and largely undefined knowledge types (scientific, local/lay, expert knowledge). Integration of different knowledge types is often pre-understood or implied through the general collaborative and participatory settings and through information exchange (in UP). The processes of integration often remain undiscussed or assumed behind “participation”/“collaboration”. This makes it difficult to see what role collaborative and participatory processes that aim at knowledge integration actually play in conflict resolution.

In cases where knowledge types are part of the discussion in NRM and UP they often remain largely undefined. It is often unclear what authors mean by “knowledge” or specific knowledge types. This highlights the question of what is being integrated in the resolution processes presented in the reviewed studies. The question of how knowledge is used and integrated in the resolution of conflicts in NRM and UP also remains. Overall, our review shows that more elaborated knowledge typologies that could be relevant for conflict resolution in NRM and UP are relatively few (e.g., Raymond et al. 2010 ; Stepanova 2013 ; Rydin 2007 ).

While conflict studies in NRM and UP are somewhat less concerned with the mechanisms of knowledge integration or elaborated knowledge typologies, TDR offers in-depth analyses of and reflection on participatory and learning processes, on process of knowledge integration their goals and forms (e.g., Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2007 ; Burger and Kamber 2003 ; Pohl 2011 and others mentioned in section on TDR). Conflict studies within NRM and UP could therefore benefit from some of the approaches to knowledge integration developed within TDR to refine the analysis of knowledge use in different types of conflict resolution. Below we present a first attempt to such an interdisciplinary knowledge typology, which combines approaches from NRM, collaborative planning within UP, and TDR (Fig. 1 ).

Source: Stepanova 2013 and references therein, Rydin ( 2007 ) and Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn ( 2007 )

Interdisciplinary typology of dominant knowledge types in conflict resolution. Dashed arrows symbolize the tentative distinction between different knowledge types, as in practice they are often intertwined and difficult to separate. Thick, overarching/colored arrows mean that different levels of the typology are interrelated and inform each other. The color is used to facilitate readability and does not have specific meaning.

Synthesis: interdisciplinary knowledge typology for the analysis of conflict resolution

The interdisciplinary knowledge typology, in Fig. 1 , presents a combination of knowledge typologies by Stepanova ( 2013 ) for conflict resolution in NRM, Rydin ( 2007 ) for UP, and by Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn ( 2007 ) for TDR. It includes both knowledge types and analytical levels from the respective areas.

Regarding knowledge types, Stepanova identifies informal, formal, local/lay, scientific, administrative/managerial knowledge types, differentiating between different contexts and actors in NRM (Stepanova 2013 ). Rydin distinguishes five types of planning knowledge based on functional characteristics and knowledge sources. These include process, predictive, normative, empirical, and experiential knowledge types (Rydin 2007 ). We also add knowledge jointly co-produced by stakeholders in collaborative and participatory settings as an additional type of knowledge that can be traced in resolution processes (Polk 2015a , b ; Albrechts 2012 ). Rydin’s process, predictive and normative knowledge are used in our typology as practice related sub-categories of formal and informal knowledge of different actors, while her categories of empirical/experiential knowledge are merged with the broader category of informal knowledge that is context bound. Footnote 6 Rydin’s categories of process, predictive and normative knowledge also correspond well with the functional knowledge categories suggested by Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn ( 2007 ). As outlined earlier, their knowledge types include systems , target and transformative knowledge . We combine these two sets of knowledge categories as they complement each other in their definitions and have strong connections to practice related level of analysis. These knowledge types represent the specific challenges of sustainability regarding uncertainties, normativity and institutional and contextual complexity, and can be traced in practice routines, e.g., documents, visions.

Combining typologies from different fields, shows the different ways that knowledge can be conceptualized and analyzed. In our typology, these different conceptualizations are positioned on different analytical levels: in broader contexts (formal and informal), in institutional affiliations and mandates (individual actors, planning professionals, decision-makers, academics) and in practice related processes, (planning and implementation routines, decision-making processes). The levels of context , actors and practice are the analytical distinctions we will use to structure the analysis of complex conflicts and resolution practices. These analytical levels transform a simple typology into an integrated analytical tool. The different levels of analysis mirror those found in NRM, TD and UP, making it possible to compare knowledge types across discourses and categories and potentially identify gaps in knowledge use and integration in conflict resolution process.

When applied to conflict analysis, the practice level of the typology could serve as a starting point. The practice level is where different knowledge claims that different actors bring into conflicts can be traced, identified and compared (e.g., scientific, professional, local/lay) in relation to practical, predictive and process components of practice. For each practice related knowledge type, one can further identify the more specific knowledge types that actors bring into the discussion (actors level types), because the basis for the claims made explicit on the practice level is different according to the different actors involved. For example, one can compare the target goals from different actors as expressed through the knowledge claims they operate with. Practice related knowledge types are easier to trace in the documents and other sources, which also makes this level a convenient point to start the analysis from. The analytical levels mirror the complexity of conflicts and to some extent thus address the wickedness of the problem at hand. The three analytical levels also embody the theoretical (or analytical) approach that conflict resolution is about how context and actors play out in practice through different types of knowledge claims; that is, in practices of conflict development and resolution.

Positioning these knowledge typologies in terms of levels thus increases our ability to compare the diversity of knowledge conceptualizations and better understand how they relate to the different levels of analysis presented in the reviewed studies.

Presenting the different knowledge types in the form of a typology has its limitations as knowledge types can overlap, be held by different actors, and be integrated into one another. Such limitations become visible for example in case of local and indigenous knowledge. Local knowledge includes indigenous knowledge, but it is difficult to locate it to one specific knowledge type or level. Indigenous knowledge may be local, based on practice, observation, experience, but also professional as it can be concentrated with local “experts”. Footnote 7 It can be about rules, procedures and laws; it can also serve as a basis for decision-making, for example in case of small-scale fisheries, biological conservation, sustainable land use, etc. (Deepananda et al. 2015 ; Ens et al. 2015 ; Mistry and Berardi 2016 ). The fact that indigenous knowledge may also be professional (expert), allows looking at it not only from informal, but also from a formal knowledge perspective. In the case of indigenous knowledge, we recognize it as imbedded in different knowledge systems, which makes it difficult to place in a single knowledge type (Tengö et al. 2017 ). This example shows how complex knowledge types, while problematic, can still be adequately positioned in multiple places in our typology.

The framework presented in Fig. 1 , importantly, is not suited for and does not strive to access the validity of knowledge claims; rather, it aims to help identify the dominant knowledge types articulated by stakeholders during the course of conflict development and resolution. We accentuate “dominant” knowledge types because different stakeholders hold multiple types of knowledge and employ them simultaneously (Negev and Teschner 2013 ). Nevertheless, knowledge typologies are helpful for identification of the dominant knowledge types articulated by stakeholders in conflict. Whether or not different knowledge types get integrated can only be traced indirectly, through the outcome component of knowledge integration (see Methodology section). This may be seen, for instance, through the change in positions of stakeholders that leads to a jointly accepted solution which may be reflected in documents, policies, alternative management plans, etc. (for examples see e.g., Stepanova 2013 ; Redpath et al. 2013 ; Butler et al. 2015 ; Reed et al. 2011 ).

The interdisciplinary knowledge typology presented above could serve as a point of departure in mapping the knowledge types used in practices of conflict resolution. When identified, they may be followed further in horizontal collaborative, participatory processes and in vertical processes of integration into decision-making. When tested in practice, the typology must clearly be refined and specified according to contextual needs, because “processes of conflict development, resolution and knowledge use are complex social phenomena which require attention to the context where experiences and meanings are largely bound to time, people and setting” (Baxter and Eyles 1997 ).

Complementary integration of typologies (such as one suggested in Fig. 1 ) might help to better analyze what knowledge is marginalized, excluded from or underrepresented in the participatory/collaborative processes, what implications this could have on the outcomes of participation/collaboration, and what implications this could have for long-term oriented conflict resolution and management.

Discussion and conclusions

The aim of this paper is to better understand the mechanisms that underlie conflict resolution through a focus on the use and integration of different knowledge types in three discourses: NRM, TDR and UP. We seek to understand what knowledge refers to in the different examples and contexts, and how knowledge is and can be used and integrated to resolve conflicts. First, based on the thematic review of the literature, we compare conflict resolution approaches in the respective fields and identify common features in relation to how conflict resolution is practiced. In all three discourses, the centrality of participatory and collaborative approaches that promote knowledge exchange and joint learning for conflict resolution is widely acknowledged. Overall, knowledge use centered approaches are seen as facilitating a common understanding of a problem and creating a necessary base for more productive collaboration. However, in some of the reviewed studies, we also identify a general lack of attention to concrete mechanisms and processes that constitute the notions of participation and collaboration of conflict resolution (with a few exceptions of studies that point out that formal participation organized in a mechanistic way is no guarantee for productive learning or collaboration). What is happening during these processes or what needs to happen in participatory processes in order for stakeholders to develop a common understanding of a problem remains under-discussed in NRM and UP where the focus is rather on the outcomes than on processes. In contrast, TDR provides a more in-depth discussion and reflection over the processes that are meant to lead to knowledge integration and co-production. It focuses on phases of knowledge integration, on the integration process itself, its’ premises, mechanisms, forms and goals. TDR also pays more attention to the role the different knowledge types have in this process and in how they affect the outcomes (what they contribute to conflict resolution and decision-making).

Second, we look into how knowledge is seen, defined and used in resolution processes. The thematic review allowed to explore how different knowledges are defined, used and integrated for conflict resolution, planning and solving complex problems in the three scholarly areas of NRM, TD and UP. In the studies analyzed, the practices of knowledge use and integration often remain on a discursive level with largely undefined or pre-understood knowledge types. This limits our ability to see what role different knowledges play in participatory processes and how they specifically contribute to conflict resolution. In some instances (e.g., with TD literature), their use for conflict resolution required interpretation.

We identified some general trends and common practices of knowledge use that directly or indirectly facilitate conflict resolution. For example, it is often unclear what knowledge means in the studies analyzed. When different knowledge types are discussed, the classifications often seem pre-understood and tend to fall into the general and largely undefined categories of scientific, local/lay and managerial/expert knowledge (i.e., it is often not explained what local/lay knowledge is in particular studies and contexts). This lack is to some extent balanced by the discussion of the more or less comprehensive knowledge typologies found in each discourse that go beyond the general knowledge types and provide clearer definitions.

Our interdisciplinary knowledge typology for conflict resolution (Fig. 1 ) serves as an attempt to integrate approaches from different fields. It is an example of a possible starting point for further research and discussion on how conflict analysis and resolution may be enriched through developing more refined interdisciplinary tools for the analysis of knowledge use practices. Our findings call for more research on knowledge integration processes and mechanisms, and more attention to the evaluation of the role that different knowledge types have in resolution of conflicts. By paying more attention to the question of what knowledge is referring to and how knowledge is used and integrated in resolution practices, more light may be shed on the possible shortcomings of the resolution processes, which might in turn serve as a base to improve conflict resolution towards more lasting, long-term oriented and therefore more sustainable solutions/planning.

In conclusion, these three literatures inform and enrich each other across disciplinary boundaries on the way to developing more refined approaches to conflict analysis and resolution. This in turn has the potential to develop the focus on collaboration and to contribute to more informed and sustainable management practice (SDGs, UN 2015 ).

Other mechanisms for conflict resolution, which are outside the scope of this paper include, for example, building trust, increasing institutional capacity, and developing new policy, laws and routines (Bruckmeier 2005 , Stepanova 2015 ).

We use this definition of knowledge to facilitate our analysis of the reviewed studies; however, this does not mean that definitions of knowledge used in the reviewed studies are similar to ours.

Such a period is appropriate since the research within communicative planning theory and collaborative planning, where conflict and its resolution is central, started gaining momentum during this time. The NRM and TDR fields are also adequately represented in this period.

For an example of a more comprehensive knowledge typology within environmental management see, e.g. Raymond et al. ( 2010 ).

Although scholars representing this line of thought acknowledge that full consensus may not be always possible, such focus has received criticism. The criticism regards collaborative planning orientation towards consensus as being ignorant of inevitable tensions of power in planning realities (Margerum 2002 ; Owens and Cowell 2011 ). Collaborative planning scholars meet this criticism arguing that communication power is inherent to collaboration and thus is not and cannot be ignored in collaborative planning discourse (for detailed discussion see Innes and Booher 2015 ).

Rydin conflates claims that come from practice and different actors. In contrast, we separate those claims and place them according to the three levels of analysis—context, actors, and practice.

We thank the anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to this point.

Adams WM, Brockington D, Dyson J, Vira B (2003) Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302(5652):1915–1916

CAS Google Scholar

Albrechts L (2012) Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Plan Theory 12(1):46–63

Google Scholar

Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Trans Inst Br Geogr 37(1):89–103

Andersson P (2015) Scaffolding of task complexity awareness and its impact on actions and learning. ALAR J 21(1):124–147

Antonson H, Isaksson K, Storbjörk S, Hjerpe M (2016) Negotiating climate change responses: regional and local perspectives on transport and coastal zone planning in South Sweden. Land Use Policy 52:297–305

Ballard HL, Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Sturtevant VE (2008) Integration of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecol Soc 13(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art37/

Baxter J, Eyles J (1997) Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Trans Inst Br Geogr 22(4):505–525

Beierle TC, Konisky DM (2000) Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. J Policy Anal Manag 19(4):587–602

Berger-González M, Stauffacher M, Zinsstag J, Edwards P, Krütli P (2016) Transdisciplinary research on cancer-healing systems between biomedicine and the Maya of Guatemala: a tool for reciprocal reflexivity in a multi-epistemological setting. Qual Health Res 26(1):77–91

Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Article Google Scholar

Blackmore C (2007) What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas?: a theoretical overview. Environ Sci Policy 10(6):512–525

Blythe JN, Dadi U (2012) Knowledge integration as a method to develop capacity for evaluating technical information on biodiversity and ocean currents for integrated coastal management. Environ Sci Policy 19:49–58

Bohensky EL, Maru Y (2011) Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”. Ecol Soc 16(4):6

Bracken LJ, Bulkeley HA, Whitman G (2015) Transdisciplinary research: understanding the stakeholder perspective. J Environ Plan Manag 58(7):1291–1308

Brand R, Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Plan Theory 6(3):282–313

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang D, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson D, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

Bremer S, Glavovic B (2013a) Mobilizing knowledge for coastal governance: re-framing the science–policy interface for integrated coastal management. Coast Manag 41(1):39–56

Bremer S, Glavovic B (2013b) Exploring the science–policy interface for Integrated Coastal Management in New Zealand. Ocean Coast Manag 84:107–118

Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) (2010) Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London

Bruckmeier K (2005) Interdisciplinary conflict analysis and conflict mitigation in local resource management. AMBIO 34(2):65–73

Bruckmeier K, Höj Larsen C (2008) Swedish coastal fisheries—from conflict mitigation to participatory management. Mar Policy 32:201–211

Burger P, Kamber R (2003) Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: knowledge as a key notion. Issues Integr Stud 21:43–73

Butler JRA, Young JC, McMyn IAG, Leyshon B, Graham IM, Walker I, Baxter JM, Dodd J, Warburton C (2015) Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: learning from seals and salmon. J Environ Manag 160:212–225

Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

Collins K, Blackmore C, Morris D, Watson D (2007) A systemic approach to managing multiple perspectives and stakeholding in water catchments: some findings from three UK case studies. Environ Sci Polic 10(6):564–574

Coppens T (2014) How to turn a planning conflict into a planning success? Conditions for constructive conflict management in the case of Ruggeveld-Boterlaar-Silsburg in Antwerp, Belgium. Plan Pract Res 29(1):96–111

Davoudi S (2015) Planning as practice of knowing. Plan Theory 14(3):316–331

Deepananda KA, Amarasinghe US, Jayasinghe-Mudalige UK (2015) Indigenous knowledge in the beach seine fisheries in Sri Lanka: an indispensable factor in community-based fisheries management. Mar Policy 57:69–77

Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13(5):458–466

Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907–1912

Domingo I, Beunen R (2013) Regional planning in the Catalan Pyrenees: strategies to deal with actors’ expectations, perceived uncertainties and conflicts. Eur Plan Stud 21(2):187–4313

Edelenbos J, van Buuren A, van Schie N (2011) Co-producing knowledge: joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ Sci Policy 14:675–684

Emery SB, Perks MT, Bracken LJ (2013) Negotiating river restoration: the role of divergent reframing in environmental decision-making. Geoforum 47:167–177

Enengel B, Muhar A, Penker M, Freyer B, Drlik S, Ritter F (2012) Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landsc Urban Plan 105(1–2):106–117

Ens EJ, Pert P, Clarke PA, Budden M, Clubb L, Doran B et al (2015) Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: review and insight from Australia. Biol Conserv 181:133–149

Fainstein SS (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Aff Rev 35(4):451–478

Flyvbjerg B, Richardson T (2002) Planning and Foucault. In search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger IP, Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, London and New York, pp 44–63

Godemann J (2008) Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environ Educ Res 14(6):625–641

Golobiĉ M, Maruŝiĉ I (2007) Developing an integrated approach for public participation: a case of land-use planning in Slovenia. Environ Plan B Plan Des 34(6):993–1010

Halla F (2005) Critical elements in sustaining participatory planning: Bagamoyo strategic urban development planning framework in Tanzania. Habitat Int 29(1):137–161

Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Rev 53:23–40

Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press, Vancouver

Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Plan Theory 2(2):101–123

Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D, Moritz RF, Niemelä J, Rebane M, Wascher D (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124(1–2):60–71

Henry AD (2009) The challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to theory. Hum Ecol Rev 16(2):131–140

Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering JG (2017) Methods and procedures of transdisciplinary knowledge integration: empirical insights from four thematic synthesis processes. Ecol Soc 22(1)

Innes JE, Booher D (2003) The impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity. Working Paper 2003/03, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley

Innes J, Booher D (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, London

Innes JE, Booher D (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Plan Theory 14(2):195–213

Jahn J, Keil F (2015) An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:195–208

Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity. Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10

Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33(4):553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002

Jordan T (2014) Deliberative methods for complex issues: a typology of functions that may need scaffolding. Group Facil Res Appl J 13:50–71

Klenk N, Meehan K (2015) Climate change and transdisciplinary science: problematizing the integration imperative. Environ Sci Policy 54:160–167

Kombe WJ (2010) Land acquisition for public use, emerging conflicts and their socio-political implications. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 2(1–2):45–63

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Mol P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43

Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):19

Madden F, McQuinn B (2014) Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol Conserv 178:97–106

Margerum RD (2002) Collaborative planning: building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. J Plan Educ Res 21(3):237–253

Martín-Cantarino C (2010) Environmental conflicts and conflict management: some lessons from the WADI experience at El Hondo Nature Park (South-Eastern Spain). In: Scapini F, Ciampi G (eds) Coastal water bodies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 61–77

McGuirk PM (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and knowledge. Environ Plan A 33(2):195–217

Mistry J, Berardi A (2016) Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352(6291):1274–1275

Morton LW, Eigenbrode SD, Martin TA (2015) Architectures of adaptive integration in large collaborative projects. Ecol Soc 20(4)

Mostert E, Pahl-Wostl C, Rees Y, Searle B, Tàbara D, Tippett J (2007) Social learning in European river-basin management: barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecol Soc 12(1)

Mouffe C (2005) On the political. Routledge, New York

Munoz-Erickson (2014) Co-production of knowledge action systems in urban sustainable governance: the KASA approach. Environ Sci Policy 37:182–191

Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plan Manag 51(3):325–344

Negev M, Teschner N (2013) Rethinking the relationship between technical and local knowledge: toward a multi-type approach. Environ Sci Policy 30:50–59

Nursey-Bray MJ, Vince J, Scott M, Haward M, O’Toole K, Smith T, Harvey N, Clarke B (2014) Science into policy? Discourse, coastal management and knowledge. Environ Sci Policy 38:107–119

Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manag 34(1):75–90

Owens S, Cowell R (2011) Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

Paavola J (2007) Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol Econ 63(1):93–103

Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21(1):49–62

Patterson ME, Montag JM, Williams DR (2003) The urbanization of wildlife management: social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban For Urban Green 1(3):171–183

Peltonen L, Sairinen R (2010) Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: experiences from Finland. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30(5):328–337

Plummer R, Crona B, Armitage DR, Olsson P, Tengö M, Yudina O (2012) Adaptive comanagement: a systematic review and analysis. Ecol Soc 17(3):11

Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Armitage D, Bodin Ö, Schultz L (2017) Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecol Econ 140:79–88

Pohl C (2011) What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 43(6):618–626

Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. Oekom, Munich, p 124

Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Nat Sci Soc 16(2):111–121

Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281

Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9(4):439–451

Polk M (2015a) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122

Polk M (ed) (2015b) Co-producing knowledge for sustainable cities: joining forces for change. Routledge, London

ProClim (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss researchers. CASS/SANW, Bern. http://www.proclim.ch/Reports/Visions97/Visions_E.html . Accessed 3 Dec 2006

Putnam LL, Burgess G, Royer R (2003) We can’t go on like this: frame changes in intractable conflicts. Environ Pract 5(3):247–255

Raco M, Lin WI (2012) Urban sustainability, conflict management, and the geographies of postpoliticism: a case study of Taipei. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 30(2):191–208

Ratner BD, Meinzen-Dick R, May C, Haglund E (2013) Resource conflict, collective action, and resilience: an analytical framework. Int J Commons 7(1):183–208

Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stinger LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91:1766–1777

Redpath SM, Arroyo BE, Leckie FM, Bacon P, Bayfield N, Gutierrez RJ, Thirgood SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human–wildlife conflict: a raptor–grouse case study. Conserv Biol 18(2):350–359

Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JDC, Watt A, Gutierrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109

Reed M, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Nevig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer L (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/

Reed MS, Buenemann M, Atlhopheng J, Akhtar-Schuster M, Bachmann F, Bastin G, Bigas H, Chanda R, Dougill J, Essahli W, Evely C, Fleskens L, Geeson N, Glass J, Hessel R, Holden J, Ioris AAR, Kruger B, Liniger P, Mphinyane W, Nainggolan D, Perkins J, Raymond M, Ritsema J, Schwilch G, Sebego R, Seely M, Stringer C, Thomas R, Twomlow S, Verzandvoort S (2011) Cross-scale monitoring and assessment of land degradation and sustainable land management: a methodological framework for knowledge management. Land Degrad Dev 22(2):261–271

Ross D (2009) The use of partnering as a conflict prevention method in large-scale urban projects in Canada. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2(3):401–418

Rydin Y (2007) Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Plan Theory 6:52–68

Sandercock L (2003) Out of the closet: the importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Plan Theory Pract 4(1):11–28

Schauppenlehner-Kloyber E, Penker M (2015) Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: how to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development? Futures 65:57–71

Schmidt L, Neuburger M (2017) Trapped between privileges and precariousness: tracing transdisciplinary research in a postcolonial setting. Futures 93:54–67

Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Futures 10:527–544

Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II—what constraints and obstacle do we meet in practice? Futures 10:653–671

Schusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 16(4):309–326

SDGs, UN (2015) General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming Our World, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

Shmueli DF (2008) Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 39(6):2048–2061

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287

Stepanova O (2013) Knowledge integration in the management of coastal conflicts in urban areas: two cases from Sweden. J Environ Plan Manag 57(11):1658–1682

Stepanova O (2015) Conflict resolution in coastal resource management: comparative analysis of case studies from four European countries. Ocean Coast Manag 103:109–122

Stepanova O, Bruckmeier K (2013) The relevance of environmental conflict research for coastal management. A review of concepts, approaches and methods with a focus on Europe. Ocean Coast Manag 75:20–32

Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2)

Sun L, Yung EHK, Chan EHW, Zhu D (2016) Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of stakeholders: a case study in Shanghai. Habitat Int 53:133–141

Sze MNM, Sovacool BK (2013) Of fast lanes, flora, and foreign workers: managing land use conflicts in Singapore. Land Use Policy 30(1):167–176

Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinsons J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38:379–390

Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO 43(5):579–591

Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F et al (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:17–25

Von Der Dunk A, Grêt-Regamey A, Dalang T, Hersperger AM (2011) Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts—a case study from Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 101(2):149–156

Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects—design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plan 30(4):325–338

Watson V (2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning—the difference. Plan Theory Pract 15(1):62–76

Westberg L, Polk M (2016) The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustain Sci 11(3):385–397

Wickson F, Carew A, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38(9):1046–1059

Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Band FS, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5–24

Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:117–132

Wouters R, De Fraine B, Simons M (2018) What is at stake in deliberative inquiry? a review about a deliberative practice. Syst Pract Action Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9457-8

Zhang YJ, Li AJ, Fung T (2012) Using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis for conflict resolution in land use planning. Procedia Environ Sci 13:2264–2273

Zierhofer W, Burger P (2007) Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Sci Technol Stud 20(1):51–74

Download references

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas (Grant number 2016-00349).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 700, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden

Olga Stepanova, Merritt Polk & Hannah Saldert

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Stepanova .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Handled by: Christian Pohl, D-USYS TdLab Universitätsstrasse, Switzerland.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stepanova, O., Polk, M. & Saldert, H. Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: an interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice. Sustain Sci 15 , 263–279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00690-z

Download citation

Received : 21 September 2018

Accepted : 23 March 2019

Published : 04 April 2019

Issue Date : January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00690-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Urban planning
Natural resource management
Transdisciplinary research
Interdisciplinary
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Resolving Conflict in the Workplace Free Essay Example
(PDF) Media and Conflict Resolution: A Framework for Analysis
Conflict Resolution in a Nutshell Poster
Conflict Resolution Guide
Reflection Essay on Conflict Resolution
(PDF) Conflict Resolution and a Framework for Collaborative Interactive

VIDEO

Harvest of Harmony: A Tale of Conflict Resolution Techniques
Effective Conflict Resolution in the Workplace
Guess Paper Of Conflict And Peace Building || BG 3RD Sem || KU || Batch 2022 || Skill ||
Conflict Resolution in a Relationship #psychology #evolutionarypsychology #conflictresolution
Conflict Resolution Work Related Teamwork Skills
Study Conflict Resolution & Reconciliation (M.Phil.) at Trinity College Dublin

COMMENTS

A Systematic Approach to Effective Conflict Management for ...
This research takes a systematic view on the organizational structure of a complex construction program to explore the effective approach to manage conflict in program. The objectives of the research include (a) examining the involvement of key stakeholders in program conflicts, the types of conflicts in program, and their causes and impacts ...
(PDF) Conflict Resolution in Team: Analyzing the Cause of ...
The findings of this research study provide valuable insights into the diverse array of conflict resolution skills applicable to managing and resolving conflicts within the team. Discover the ...
(PDF) Conflict Resolution - ResearchGate
Conflict occurs in situations in which two or more interdependent parties (either individuals or groups) have interests, outcomes, and/or goals that are incompatible in some way (Deutsch, 1973 ...
Conflict Management: Difficult Conversations with Difficult ...
Research demonstrates that training in conflict resolution skills can result in improved teamwork, productivity, and patient and employee satisfaction. Strategies to address a disruptive physician, a particularly difficult conflict situation in healthcare, are addressed.
An Analysis of Conflict Resolution Techniques: From Problem ...
These workshops serve two functions: research of the participant-observer variety, allowing researchers to observe real-world conflict behavior; and service, providing insight and training to the conflict participants regarding peaceful resolution of their conflict.
Conflict Management | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology
The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016).
Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the ...
Recent research has found initial support for Proposition 3 (Sherstyuk et al., 2016) by showing that adding the dimension of intergenerational conflict over time to the dimension of intragenerational conflict renders conflict resolution between parties more short-sighted.
Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond ...
Conflicts over land use and their resolution are one of the core challenges in reaching sustainable development today. The aim of this paper is to better understand the mechanisms that underlie conflict resolution. To do so we focus on the use and integration of different knowledge types for conflict resolution in three fields: natural resource management, transdisciplinary research and urban ...
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CONTEMPORARY WORK ...
of this paper, is the research on conflict management and resolution. Notable streams of recent research on this topic can be found in both the OB and IR literatures (Lewicki, Weiss, and Lewin 1992). For those interested in the integration (or reintegration) of this research, the challenge is to assess the

Article contents

Definition of Conflict

Characteristics of Conflict

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict Behavior

Dual-Concern Model

Accommodating

Compromising

Problem Solving or Integrating

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

Constructive Controversy

Conflict Resolution

Negotiation

Conflict Coaching

Arbitration

Decision Making by Authorities

Further Reading

Related Articles

Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Matthias Barth

Marie van Treek

Introduction

The Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Individual Level

Intrapersonal Conflicts Over Time

The Negotiation Perspective

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Inter- and Intrapersonal Conflicts

Interpersonal and Intertemporal Devaluation

Outcome Interdependence and Decisional Control

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

Prioritizing the Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

Effects of Priorities in the Consideration of Conflicts on the Quality of Agreements

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Conflicts

Applying the Intervention Approach to the Transformation Toward Sustainability

Tools for Implementing the Intervention Approach

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Level of Social Groups: The Interplay Between Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

Intergroup Conflicts (i.e., Intragenerational Conflict)

Intragroup Conflicts Over Time (i.e., Intergenerational Conflict)

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

Intergenerational Devaluation (i.e., Intergroup- and Intertemporal Devaluation)

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

Prioritizing Interdependent Conflicts Within and Between Generations

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

General Discussion

Data Availability Statement

Conflict of Interest

Acknowledgments

Understanding mechanisms of conflict resolution beyond collaboration: an interdisciplinary typology of knowledge types and their integration in practice

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Co-producing Knowledge for Sustainable Development in Telecoupled Land Systems

Joint problem framing: a transdisciplinary methodology for a sustainable future in mountain areas

Critical Mapping for Researching and Acting Upon Environmental Conflicts – The Case of the EJAtlas

Introduction

Conceptual base

Materials and methods

Knowledge use and conflict resolution in natural resource management (NRM)

Knowledge types and knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research (TDR) and their contributions to conflict resolution

Knowledge use and conflict resolution in urban planning (UP)

Comparing knowledge use practices for conflict resolution in NRM, TDR and UP

Synthesis: interdisciplinary knowledge typology for the analysis of conflict resolution

Discussion and conclusions

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS