There is a lot of conflict in the
world these days, and it seems like it is getting harder than ever to find
compromises. In the United States,
Democrats stake out a position, and Republicans immediately claim the opposite. The middle east is a constant source of
tension. Palestinians and Arabs cannot
find common ground to support a peaceful settlement of a conflict that has
raged for decades.
What would be required to open up
the possibility of a dialogue?
This question was addressed in a
fascinating set of studies by Tamar Saguy and Eran Halperin in the June, 2014
issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
They used the conflict between
Israelis and Palestinians as a starting point.
They suggested that when someone hears a member of an opposing group
criticizing their own group, that increases people’s hope that the conflict
might be resolved and that leads people to be more open to discussion.
In one study, Israelis read a copy
of a (fictitious) report discussing the conflict between Israelis and
Palistinians. One group read a passage
that also included a quote from a Palestinian official criticizing Palestinians
for the violence. The other group read a
passage without this quote. After
reading the passage, participants rated their hope and optimism for the future
and their openness to considering the opposition’s point of view. Those Israelis who read the passage with this
self-critical quote were more hopeful for the future and more willing to
consider the opposition view.
A second study obtained the same
effect, but this time the self-critical quote by the Palestinian official was
unrelated to the violence. The official
was criticizing the Palestinians attention to education. Again, those who read the passage with the
self-critical quote were more hopeful for the future and more open to
considering the opposition view.
A third study also included
measures of people’s beliefs about change.
The work of Carol Dweck and her colleagues (which I have written about
several times in this blog)
suggests that people are most likely to trust others who have hurt them in the
past when they believe that people can change their behavior than when they
believe that people can’t change.
In this third study, people’s
tendency to be hopeful for the future and to be willing to consider an
opponent’s message after hearing self-criticism was influenced by their beliefs
about change. Those who believe that others can change were more hopeful for
the future and more willing to listen to the opposition when they heard
self-criticism by the opposition than when they didn’t. Those who believe that people cannot change
were not influenced significantly by self-criticism by the opposition.
One final group extended this
finding by demonstrating that after people hear self-criticism by a member of
the opposition, they are also more interested in compromise. Essentially, people who read an opponent’s
self-criticism who also believe that other people can change were more hopeful
about the future, which led to a greater openness to consider the opposition
viewpoint, which related to a greater willingness to consider a political
compromise.
What does all this mean? There are a variety of signals that people
send during conflicts. When people
criticize themselves, they send a signal that they do not agree with everything
that their group has done. That opens
the door to thinking about ways to move beyond the conflict. In general, resolving conflicts does require
some degree of compromise.
Ultimately, when you are engaged
in some kind of conflict (which presumably is less thorny and longstanding as
the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians), you are also sending signals
about your willingness to settle the disagreement. It is worthwhile thinking about the signals
you are sending to see whether you are reinforcing people’s opposition or
whether you are opening doors to resolving your conflicts.
