Relationships Among Levels

There are several types of relationships in mul­tilevel approaches. First, multilevel approaches require theorists, researchers, and practitio­ners to consider the degree to which concepts at multiple levels are parallel or discontinuous (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Upton & Egan, 2010).

Throughout this Handbook, two predomi­nant themes are apparent. First, the various chapters throughout each of the contexts/ levels consider the antecedents to conflict communication and dynamics or the factors (e.g., cultural, individual, situational, time) that help explain why people managed conflict as they do. Second, the chapters emphasize the importance of conflict communication dynamics for relational, organizational, com­munity, and sociopolitical outcomes. We use these two themes to illustrate various types of relationships across levels.

Parallels and Discontinuities. One potentially parallel relationship that is identified in the chapters in this volume is that collaborative conflict approaches (e.g., problem-solving, dialogue, and cooperative conflict behaviors) have positive outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, peace, joint gains, and relationship/commu- nity building). A quick review of the chapters in this volume demonstrates this relationship; for example, in interpersonal conflict, integra­tive conflict management is related to with more satisfactory marital and family relation­ships (Canary, Lakey, & Sillars, Chapter 10; Koerner, Chapter 8); in organizational con­flict, integrative conflict tactics are associated with positive outcomes such as joint gains in negotiation or group performance (Teucher, Brett, & Gunia, Chapter 11; Garner & Poole, Chapter 12); in community conflicts, dialogue is heralded as a key consensus and commu­nity-building tool (Littlejohn & Cole, Chapter 22; Barge & Andreas, Chapter 23); in intercul- tural conflicts, collaborative problem solving is critical to improved relationships among culturally diverse people (Dorjee, Chapter 26; Orbe, Everett, & Putman, Chapter 25).

At first glance, this appears to be an isomor­phic relationship. However, this assumption has not been directly tested. In fact, consensus building/collaboration may have some nega­tive impacts. Peterson and Feldpausch-Parker (Chapter 19) present arguments about the potential weaknesses of consensus building for environmental policy. Specifically, they iden­tify scholars who believe that at times consen­sus building often leads to conflict avoidance and inferior environmental policy. Similarly, Lutgen-Sandvik and Fletcher (Chapter 13) discuss how collaboration in a bullying con­flict situation does not adequately solve the problem, particularly when the bully has legitimate power, or the organizational struc­ture supports the bullying behavior. Whether isomorphic relationships exist at these mul­tiple levels may be contingent on the type of outcome sought (e.g., relationship versus substantive, satisfaction versus compliance) or contextual constraints that make the processes look discontinuous.

To address parallels or discontinuities, conflict researchers and practitioners should consider two questions. First, do similar concepts mean the same thing at multiple levels? For example, does dialogue in inter­group conflicts (Broome, Chapter 28; Dorjee, Chapter 26) mean the same thing as in moral conflict (Littlejohn & Cole, Chapter 22), situations with citizenship and democratic deficits (Barge & Andreas, Chapter 23), or applying dialogue to ethics and community engagement (Cheney, Beck, & Cline, Chapter 18)? Second, is the nature of the relation­ships among variables and people consistent across levels? For example, is the relationship between antecedents and conflict processes in microlevels the same as that of the exo- or macrolevel? Future practice and research need to consider carefully the meaning of these various constructs to help identify whether the actual conflict patterns are parallel or dis­continuous in the embedded conflict contex­tual frames.

Top-Down Effects. There are numerous examples of top-down effects throughout this integrative synthesis, and we present two examples of antecedents of conflict commu­nication and two examples of conflict com­munication influencing outcomes. In terms of antecedents at the organizational level, McAllum and Simpson (Chapter 17) describe three philosophies or clusters of conflict strategies for conflict management systems in organizations: (1) law based, (2) manage­ment based, and (3) participation based. These higher level philosophies shape the conflict management strategies of individu­als and the organizations. At the community level, Croucher (Chapter 21) describes the tenets of three major religions in the world: Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity. These tenets influence the way that individuals in these religions think about and manage conflict. In terms of conflict communication influencing outcomes at the interpersonal level, Spitzberg (Chapter 7) reviews the lit­erature on intimate partnership violence and aggressive communication. One key point he illustrates is that the nature of the rela­tionship as aggressive/violent has impacts on individuals’ psychological outcomes. At the organizational level, Jones (Chapter 15) illustrates the influence of conflict resolution education programs on school climate and individual conflict resolution strategies. The programs help improve social and emotional competence of youth.

To address top-down effects, future research should consider several facets of multilevel theorizing (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Upton & Egan, 2010). Researchers need to determine whether conflict communi­cation changes across levels. If it does change, they need to consider the manner in which the processes are linked, including consider­ing temporal reference points.

Bottom-Up Effects. There are also a vari­ety of examples of bottom-up effects in this Handbook, and again we present two exam­ples of antecedents of conflict communication and two examples of conflict communication influencing outcomes. In terms of antecedents at the interpersonal level, Roloff and Wright (Chapter 5) describe how various types of social knowledge (e.g., beliefs, scripts, and frames) shape conflict dynamics and affect relationships. At the intercultural/national level, Kim (Chapter 24) addresses several ques­tions that illustrate the impact of individuals’ identities is a factor shaping intercultural con­flict dynamics: What role or roles do identity play when individuals of dissimilar cultural backgrounds come together in a communica­tive relationship? Under what conditions is identity prone to be a force behind intercul- tural conflict or peace building? In terms of outcomes, at the community level, Lucero and Wallerstein (Chapter 20) discuss how academic and community members develop­ing trusting partnerships might lead to larger level system changes and increase in com­munity and university capacity. At the inter- cultural/international level, Broome (Chapter 28) argues that dialogue is an instrument for creating a culture of peace among larger enti­ties in protracted conflicts.

To address bottom-up effects, future research should consider many of the same factors as top-down effects (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Upton & Egan, 2010). Two differences are apparent. First, researchers and practitioners need to look at the lower levels first astutely and then the higher levels.

Interactive Effects. While theorizing about top-down and bottom-up effects is still in its nascency, there are a number of research findings illustrating interactive effects in other contexts (e.g., in health care settings). In comparison, there are minimal findings about interactive effects in the conflict communica­tion literature. Teucher et al. (Chapter 11) dis­cuss one example of interactive effects. They explore (among other issues) the influence of culture on negotiation strategy and joint gains. They illustrate how different types of negotia­tion strategies produce different outcomes for different cultures. Specifically, they review literature illustrating that Japanese use sub­stantiations and offers (rather than questions and answers) to achieve joint gains, while U.S. Americans use questions and answers (rather than substantiation and offers) to achieve joint gains. Thus, culture moderates the relation­ship between communication and outcomes. Similarly, Stohl et al. (Chapter 27) discuss how globalization alters conflict communi­cation dynamics in work teams and creates paradoxes in identity negotiation (between individual, national, and global identities) that influence conflict dynamics. Thus, globaliza­tion moderates the relationship between iden­tity and conflict communication.

Multilevel theorists (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Upton & Egan, 2010) suggest that scholars consider time processes and phe­nomena change across contexts to explore interactive effects. Earlier, we presented that the findings in Lutgen-Sandvik and Fletcher (Chapter 13) and Peterson and Feldpausch- Parker (Chapter 19) may illustrate discontinu­ous process. However, these may be reflective of interactive effects that change the nature of the relationship between conflict process and outcome. For example, in bullying contexts, the organizational policies and regulations may change the nature of the interpersonal relationships such that cooperation does not result in positive outcomes. In this manner, the policy moderates the relationship between conflict communication and outcomes. Thus, multilevel theorizing can help us determine whether processes are isomorphic/discontinu- ous or consistent with interactive effects and also help us be more judicious and reflexive in our analysis of a particular conflict case history.

In sum, multilevel theorizing and approaches has numerous benefits for understanding and practicing conflict communication. First, mul­tilevel approaches help us better understand complex phenomena that seem to change in different conditions and over time. Second, multilevel approaches can help explain why there sometimes are inconsistent findings in the research (i.e., an unmeasured/unexam- ined level is influencing the phenomenon of interest). Third, multilevel theorizing helps avoid disciplinary sectarianism by encourag­ing us to think about different levels from a combined holistic and differentiation view­point. Often, different levels are the domain of different types of scholars/practitioners, and we can obtain a fuller, richer understanding of conflict by reflecting about the complex conflict case holistically and diachronically. Fourth, conflict practitioners can also benefit by adopting a multilevel theorizing lens as individual conflict communication resolution may be constrained by factors that are not readily apparent. Likewise, conflict solutions or intervention strategies may exist in multiple levels of complexity (see, e.g., Bolton Oetzel, Chapter 9). While this section has explored multilevel approaches for two predominant themes of conflict communication—anteced­ents and outcomes—the next section consid­ers some prominent emerging themes in this Handbook and or conflict practice.