REPRESENTATIVE MODELS OF PERSONALITY

There are two major approaches to the study of personality: idiographic, the belief that human behavior cannot be broken down into its constituent parts; and nomothetic, the view that some general dimension of behavior can be used to describe most people of a general age group (Martin, 1988, p.

Psychodynamic Theories

The work of Sigmund Freud, during the period from the late 1880s to the late 1930s, marks the beginning of the psychodynamic study of human personality. His intellectual descendants are numerous: Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, Anna Freud, Erik Erikson, Erich Fromm, Harry S. Sullivan, Melanie Klein, W.R.D. Fairbairn, Donald Winnicott, Heinz Hartmann, Jacques Lacan, and Heinz Kohut.

Inevitably, Freud’s descendants have modified, revised, extended, and in other ways changed his original ideas. The changes have mainly been to place greater emphasis on the social (cultural, class, gender, familial, and experiential) determinants of psychodynamic processes, to develop detailed characterization of the structural components involved in the dynamic intrapsychic processes, and to seek adequate conceptualization of the cognitive and self-processes that are central to the individual’s relation to reality. Despite the changes, there are some key elements that characterize most of the psychodynamic approaches.

An Active Unconscious. People actively seek to remain unaware (unconscious) of those of their impulses, thoughts, and actions that make them feel very disturbing emotions (for example, anxiety, guilt, or shame).

Internal Conflict. People may have internal conflict between desires and con­science, desires and fears, and what the “good” self wants and what the “bad” self wants; the conflict may occur outside of consciousness.

Control and Defense Mechanisms. People develop tactics and strategies to control their impulses, thoughts, actions, and realities so that they will not feel anxious, guilty, or ashamed. If their controls are ineffective, they develop defense mechanisms to keep from feeling these disturbing emotions.

Stages of Development. From birth to old age, people go through stages of development. Most current psychodynamic theorists accept the view that the developmental stages reflect both biological and social determinants, even though they may differ in their weighting of the two, their labeling of the stages, and how they specifically characterize them. Freudian theory focuses mainly on the three earliest stages of development—the oral, anal, and phallic— because it was believed that the main features of personality development were set early in childhood. Freud employed these anatomical terms to characterize the early stages because he thought these bodily zones were successively infused with libidinal energy.

Later psychoanalysts were apt to characterize them psychosocially in terms of the social situation confronting the developing child. In the oral stage, infants are primarily concerned with receiving feeding and care from a parenting figure; in the anal stage, they are faced with the need to develop control over their excretions as well as other forms of self-control; and in the phallic stage, they face the need to establish a sexual identity as a boy or girl and to repress their sexual striving toward the parent of the opposite sex. Associated with these stages are normal frustrations, a development crisis, and typical defense mechanisms. However, certain forms of psychopathology are likely to develop if severe frustration and crisis face the child during a partic­ular stage, with the result that the child becomes “fixated” at that stage; in addition, some adult character traits are thought to originate in each given stage.

Table 15.1 presents, in summary form, some of the features that Freud and the earlier psychoanalysts associated with the three early stages.

The Layered Personality. How someone has gone through the stages of devel­opment determines current personality. One can presumably discover the residue of earlier stages of development in current personality and behavior. Thus, a paranoid/schizoid adult personality supposedly reflects a basic fault in the earliest stage of development in which the infant did not experience the minimal love, care, and nurturance that would enable him to feel basic trust in the world. The concept of layered personality does not imply that earlier faults cannot be repaired. However, it does imply that an adult personality with a repaired fault is not the same as one that did not need repair. Under severe frus­tration or anxiety, such a personality is apt to regress to an earlier stage. Also, the concept of layered personality does not imply that an unimpaired adult personality is able to completely resist becoming temporarily or permanently suspicious and paranoid if the current social environment is sufficiently dire and hostile for a prolonged period. It is natural and adaptive to become hyper­vigilant and suspicious if one is immersed in a dangerous hostile environment.

In this section, we discuss several important ideas, deriving from the work of psychodynamic theorists that are particularly relevant to the conflict practi­tioner. Undoubtedly, many more ideas could be expressed in a detailed and comprehensive exposition of psychodynamic viewpoints than we attempt to present in this chapter.

Conflict with Another Can Lead to Intrapsychic Conflict and Anxiety. People may feel anxious because they sense they are unable to control their destruc­tive or evil impulses toward the other in a heated conflict. Or the conflict may lead to a sense of helplessness and vulnerability if they feel overwhelmed by the power and strength of the other. Freud called the first type of internal conflict id-superego conflict (between a primitive impulse and conscience) and the second type an ego-reality conflict (between an immature self and a threat­ening reality).

If the anxiety aroused by the conflict with another is intense, the individual may rely on unconscious defense mechanisms to screen it out in an attempt to reduce the anxiety. Anxiety is most apt to be aroused if one’s basic security, self-conception, self-worth, or social identity is threatened. Defense mechanisms are pathological or ineffective if they create the conditions that produce anxi­ety, thus requiring continued use of the defense. For example, a student who may be anxious about his intellectual abilities avoids studying and as a conse­quence does poorly in his course work. He rationalizes his poor grades are due

Table 15.1. Normal Frustrations, Typical Defense Mechanisms, Developmental Crises, Psychopathology, and Adult Character Traits with Several Early Stages of Psychosexual Development.

Source: Authors.

to lack of motivation and effort. His grades further his anxiety about his ability, which in turn fuel his defenses of avoidance and rationalization. The defenses would not be pathological if, in fact, external circumstances prevented him from studying and, given the opportunity, he put much effort into his studies.

The defense mechanisms that people use are determined in part by their layered personality, which may have given rise to a characterological tendency to employ certain defense mechanisms rather than others, and also in part by the situation they confront. Psychoanalysts have identified many defense mech­anisms; they are usually discussed in relation to intrapsychic conflict. We believe that they are also applicable in interpersonal and other external conflict. We have space to discuss only a number of the important ones for understanding conflict with others. (See Fenichel, 1945, and Freud, 1937, for fuller discussions.)

Denial occurs when it is too disturbing to recognize the existence of a con­flict (as between husband and wife about their affection toward one another, so they deny it—repressing it so that it remains unconscious, or suppressing it so they do not think about it).

Avoidance involves not facing the conflict, even when you are fully aware of it. To support avoidance, you develop ever-changing rationalizations for not facing the conflict (“I’m too tired,” “This is not the right timing,” “She’s not ready,” “It won’t do any good”).

Projection allows denial of faults in yourself. It involves projecting or attribut­ing your own faults to the other (“You’re too hostile,” “You don’t trust me,” “You’re to blame, not me,” “I’m attacking to prevent you from attacking me”). Suspicion, hostility, vulnerability, hypervigilance, and helplessness, as well as attacking or withdrawing from the potential attack of the other, are often asso­ciated with this defense.

Reaction formation involves taking on the attributes and characteristics of the other with whom you are in conflict. The conflict is masked by agreement with or submission to the other, by flattering and ingratiating yourself with the other. A child who likes to be messy but is very anxious about her mother’s angry reactions may become excessively neat and finicky in a way that is annoying to her mother.

Displacement involves changing the topic of the conflict or changing the party with whom you engage in conflict. Thus, if it is too painful to express openly your hurt and anger toward your spouse because he is not sufficiently affec­tionate, you may constantly attack him as being too stingy with money. If it is too dangerous to express your anger toward your exploitative boss, you may direct it at a subordinate who annoys you.

Counterphobic defenses entail denial of anxiety about conflict by aggressively seeking it out—by being confrontational, challenging, or “having a chip on your shoulder.”

Escalation of the importance of the conflict is a complex mechanism that entails narcissistic self-focus on your own needs with inattention to the other’s, histrionic intensity of emotional expressiveness and calling attention to your­self, and demanding needfulness. The needs involved in the conflict become life-or-death issues, the emotions expressed are very intense, and the other person must give in. The function of this defense is to get the other to feel that your urgent needs must have highest priority.

In intellectualization and minimization of the importance of the conflict, you do not feel the intensity of your needs intellectually, but instead experience the conflict with little emotion. You focus on details and side issues, making the cen­tral issue from your perspective in the conflict seem unimportant to yourself and the other.

The psychoanalytical emphasis on intrapsychic conflict, anxiety, and defense mechanisms highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between internal conflict and the external conflict with another. Thus, if an external con­flict elicits anxiety and defensiveness, the anxious party is apt to project onto, transfer, or attribute to the other characteristics similar to those of internalized significant others who, in the past, elicited similar anxiety in unresolved earlier conflict. Similarly, the anxious party may unconsciously attribute to himself the characteristics he had in the earlier conflict. Thus, if you are made very anxious by a conflict with a supervisor (you feel your basic security is threatened), you may distort your perception of the supervisor and what she is saying so that you unconsciously experience the conflict as similar to unresolved conflict between your mother and yourself as a child.

If you or the other is acting defensively, it is important to understand what is making you or her anxious, what threat is being experienced. The sense of threat, anxiety, and defensiveness hamper developing a productive and coop­erative problem-solving orientation toward the conflict. Similarly, transference reactions—for example, reacting to the other as though she were similar to your parent—produces a distorted perception of the other and interferes with realis­tic, effective problem solving. You can sometimes tell when the other is pro­jecting a false image onto you by your own countertransference reaction: you feel that she is attempting to induce you to enact a role that feels inappropriate in your interactions with her. You can sometimes become aware of projecting a false image onto the other by recognizing that other people do not see her this way or that you are defensive and anxious in your response to her with no apparent justification.

Summary and Critique of the Psychodynamic Approach. In the preceding pages, we do not attempt to present an exposition of the specific theories of the many contributors to the development of psychoanalytical theory, from Freud to the present day. Rather, we seek to abstract from these theories some of the major ideas that are useful to a conflict practitioner and that can be briefly pre­sented. Psychoanalysis has been criticized—particularly the earlier Freudian version, which no longer seems appropriate in light of the changes made by later theorists: it is too biologically deterministic, too sexist, too pessimistic, and too focused on sex and aggression as the motives of behavior, as well as not oriented at all to positive motivations, to the learning and development of cogni­tive functions, or to the broader societal and cultural determinants of personal­ity development. Nevertheless, it is a useful framework for understanding issues that we all confront during development (security, control and power, sexual identity, transformation from childhood to adulthood) and the problems and personality residues that may result from inadequate care and harsh circum­stances during our early years.

Psychoanalysis is not a scientific theory that was developed and tested in a scientific laboratory, as is the case for most of the theories presented elsewhere in this book. Rather, it is a mosaic of subtheories mainly developed in clinically treating psychopathology. Many of its concepts are not defined so as to indicate how they can be observed and measured. It is instead an encompassing intel­lectual framework for thinking about personality and its development, one that has given rise to a variety of useful subtheories and ideas, many of which are testable and indeed have been tested in research.

Need Theories

Under this heading, we consider some of the ideas of Henry A. Murray and Abraham Maslow, the most influential of the need theorists.

Murray's Need Theory of Personality. Murray's approach to personality was much influenced by the work of Jung, Freud, and their successors, and he was one of the first psychologists to translate psychodynamic concepts and ideas into testable hypotheses. Unlike their concern with the abnormal, Murray's focus was on the normal personality. The most distinctive feature of his theory is its complex system of motivational concepts. In his theory, needs arise not only from internal processes, but also from environmental forces.

Murray's most influential contribution to personality theory is the concept of the individual as a striving, seeking being; his orientation reflects primarily a motivational psychology. As he states it, “the most important thing to discover about an individual... is the superordinate directionality (or directionalities) of his activities, whether mental, verbal, or physical” (1951, p. 276). This con­cern with directionality led him to develop the most complete taxonomy of needs ever created.

Need is a force in the brain region that organizes perception, thought, and action so as to change an existing unsatisfactory condition. Needs can be evoked by environmental as well as internal processes. They vary in strength from person to person and from situation to situation. Murray hypothesized the exis­tence of about two dozen needs and characterized them in some detail. He insisted that adequate understanding of human motivation must incorporate a sufficiently large number of variables to reflect, at least in part, the tremendous complexity of human motives.

Working from Murray’s theory, McClelland and his colleagues (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell, 1953; McClelland, 1971) did extensive research on four basic needs: achievement, affiliation, power, and autonomy. Those high in need of achievement are concerned with improving their performance, do best on a moderately challenging task, prefer personal responsibility, and seek performance feedback. Persons rated high in the need for affiliation are concerned with main­taining or repairing relationships, are rewarded by being with friends, and seek approval from friends and strangers. Those in need of power are concerned with their reputation and find themselves motivated in a situation presenting hierar­chical conditions. In their desire to attain prestige, they are likely to engage in com­petition more than the other types do. Finally, those having high autonomy needs want to be independent, unattached, and free of restraint.

Murray’s theory is a rich and complex view of personality. It can help prac­titioners become aware of the diversity of human needs and their expression as well as the external circumstances that tend to evoke them and the childhood experiences that lead individuals to varied life striving. Its major deficiency is the lack of a well-defined learning and developmental theory of what deter­mines the acquisition and strength of an individual’s needs.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Although Maslow, early in his professional career, coauthored an excellent textbook on abnormal psychology with a psy­choanalyst, he came to feel that a psychology based on the study of the abnor­mal was bound to give a pessimistic, limited view of the human personality and not take into account altruism, love, joy, truth, justice, beauty, and other positive features of human life. Maslow was one of the founders of the humanistic school of psychology, which emphasizes the positive aspects of human nature.

Maslow is best known for his postulation of a hierarchy of human needs; our discussion in this chapter is limited to this area of his work. In order of priority, he identified these types of needs:

• Physiological needs: for air, water, and food, and the need to maintain equilibrium in the blood and body tissues in relation to various sub­stances and the type of cell. Frustration of these needs leads to apathy, illness, disability, and death.

• Safety needs: for security, freedom from fear and anxiety, shelter, protection from danger, order, and predictable satisfaction of one’s basic needs. Here, frustration leads to fear, anxiety, rage, and psychosis.

• Belongingness and love needs: to be part of a group (a family, a circle of friends), to feel cared for, to care for someone, to be intimate with someone, and so forth. Frustration produces alienation, loneliness, and various forms of neurosis.

• Esteem needs: for self-esteem (self-confidence, mastery, worth, strength, and the like) and social esteem (respect, dignity, appreciation, and so on). Feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, helplessness, incompetence, shame, guilt, and the like are associated with frustration of these needs.

• Self-actualization needs: to become the kind of person one is most suited to become; to realize one’s full potential in relation to others, in developing talents and in participating in one’s community. The need for self-actualization also includes such metaneeds as truth, curiosity, justice, beauty, aliveness, playfulness, and the like.

Maslow considered the first four in this list to be deficiency needs, arising from a lack of what is needed. Once these basic needs are all reasonably satisfied, we get in touch with our needs for self-realization and pursue their satisfaction. Although Maslow initially postulated needs as hierarchically ordered, he later accepted the view that in reality some people violate the hierarchy—say, putting themselves in danger and going hungry to protect someone they love or a group with whom they identify.

Maslow’s theory, or a variation of it, is the foundation of the “human needs” theory of John Burton (1990) and his colleagues and students. The fundamental thesis of this approach is that a conflict is not resolved constructively unless the parties’ basic human needs are brought out and dealt with to the satisfaction of each party. The application of this idea to conflict is called the “problem-solving workshop.” Burton initially developed it while he was serving as a consultant in the Cypress conflict between the Greeks and Turks; subsequently, it was system­atically developed by Kelman (1986) and his colleagues. It entails creating condi­tions that enable the participants to express their real needs openly and honestly, and then try to work out a resolution that meets the basic needs of both sides. (See also mention of this in Chapter Eight.)

Social Learning Theory

In Bandura’s interactionist approach to personality (Bandura, 1986), the indi­vidual is a thinking person who can impose some direction on the forces from within and the pressures from the external environment. Bandura asserts that behavior is a function of a person in her environment; cognition, other personal traits, and the environment mutually influence one another. People learn by observing the behavior of others and the differential consequences attending these behaviors. Learning requires that the person be aware of appropriate responses and value the consequences of the behavior in question.

Unlike a number of other theorists, Bandura does not believe that aggres­sion is innate. Through imitation of social models, people learn aggression, altruism, and other forms of social behavior as well as constructive and destructive ways of dealing with conflict. The ability to imitate another’s behavior depends on the characteristics of the model (whether or not the model makes his behavior unambiguous and clearly observable), the attention of the observer (whether or not the observer is sharply focused on the model’s behavior), memory processes (whether or not the observer is intelligent and able to recall what has been observed), and behavioral capabilities (whether or not the observer has the physical and intellectual capability to reproduce the behavior observed).

Assuming that one has the capability, readiness to reproduce the behavior of the model is determined by factors such as whether the model has been per­ceived to obtain positive or negative consequences as a result of behavior, the attractiveness and power of the model, the vividness of the behavior, and the intrinsic attractiveness of the behavior that has been modeled. Thus, a boy may be predisposed to engage in aggressive behavior (using a handgun to threaten a rival) if he has seen a prestigious older figure (his father, older brother, a group leader, a movie star) engage in such behavior and feel good about doing so. He is capable of doing so (as well as predisposed) if he has access to a handgun.

Developing a sense of self-efficacy or confidence in these competencies requires one to (1) use these skills to master tasks and overcome the obstacles posed by the environment, (2) cultivate belief in the capacity to use one’s com­petencies effectively, and (3) identify realistic goals and opportunities to use one’s skills effectively. Realistic encouragement to achieve an ambitious but attainable goal promotes successful experience, which in turn, aids developing the sense of self-efficacy; social prodding to achieve unattainable goals often produces a sense of failure and undermines self-efficacy.

We selectively emphasize Bandura’s concepts of observational learning and self-efficacy because of their relevance to conflict. Given that most people acquire their knowledge, attitudes, and skills in managing conflict through observational learning, some people have inadequate knowledge, inappropriate attitudes, and poor skills for resolving their conflicts constructively while oth­ers are better prepared to do so. It is very much a function of the models they have been exposed to in their families, schools, communities, and the media. It is our impression that many people have been exposed to poor models. Change in how they deal with conflict requires much relearning.

Relearning involves helping people become fully aware of how they currently behave in conflict situations, exposing them to models of constructive behavior and extending repeated opportunities in various situations to enact and be rewarded for constructive behavior. In the course of relearning, people should become uncomfortable and dissatisfied with their old, ineffective ways of man­aging conflict and also develop a sense of self-efficacy in new, constructive methods of conflict resolution.

Social Situations and Psychological Orientations

Although Deutsch is not classified as a personality theorist, his concept of sit- uationally linked psychological orientations is a useful and somewhat different perspective. He employs the term psychological orientation to refer to a more- or-less consistent complex of cognitive, motivational, and moral orientations to a given situation that serve to guide one’s behavior and response in that situa­tion. He assumes that the causal arrow between psychological orientation and social situation is bidirectional; a given psychological orientation can lead to a given type of social relation or be induced by that type of social relation (Deutsch, 1982, 1985). With Wish and Kaplan (Wish, Deutsch, and Kaplan, 1976), he identified five basic dimensions of interpersonal relations:

1. Cooperation-competition. Social relations such as “close friends,” “teammates,” and “coworkers” are usually on the cooperative side of this dimension, while “enemies,” “political opponents,” and “rivals” are usually on the competitive side. See Chapter One for further discussion.

2. Power distribution (equal versus unequal). “Business partners,” “business rivals,” and “close friends” are typically on the equal side, while “parent and child,” “teacher and student,” and “boss and employee” are on the unequal side. See Chapter Five for further discussion.

3. Task-oriented versus social-emotional. Interpersonal relations such as “lovers” and “close friends” are social-emotional, while “task force,” “negotiators,” and “business rivals” are task-oriented.

4. Formal versus informal. Relations within a bureaucracy tend to be formal and regulated by externally determined social rules and conventions, while the relationship norms between intimates are informally determined by the participants involved.

5. Intensity and importance. This dimension has to do with the intensity or superficiality of the relationship. Important relationships, as between parent and child or between lovers, are on the important side, while unimportant relationships, as between casual acquaintances or between salesperson and customer, are on the superficial side.

The character of a given social relationship can be identified by locating it on all the dimensions. Thus, an intimate relationship between lovers is typically char­acterized in the United States as relatively cooperative, equal, social-emotional, informal, and intense. Similarly, a sadomasochistic relationship between a bully and his victim is usually identified as competitive, unequal, social-emotional, informal, and intense. Deutsch indicates that a distinctive psychological orienta­tion is associated with the particular location of a social relationship along the

five dimensions. Positing that there are three components of a psychological orientation that are mutually consistent, he describes them as follows.

Cognitive orientation consists of structured expectation about oneself, the social environment, and the people involved. This makes it possible for one to interpret and respond quickly to what is going on in a specific situation. If your expecta­tion leads to inappropriate interpretation and response, then the expectation is likely to be revised. Or, if the circumstances confronting you are sufficiently mal­leable, your interpretation and response to them may help to shape their form. Thus, what you expect to happen in a situation involving negotiations about your salary with your boss is apt to be quite different from what you expect in a situation in which you and your spouse are making love.

Motivational orientation alerts one to the possibility that in the situation cer­tain types of need may be gratified or frustrated. It orients you to questions such as what do I want here, and how do I get it? What is to be valued or feared in this relationship? In a business negotiation, you are oriented to satisfaction of financial needs, not affection; in a love relationship, the opposite is true.

Moral orientation focuses on the mutual obligations, rights, and entitlements of the people involved in the relationship. It implies that in a relationship you and the other(s) mutually perceive the obligations you have to one another and mutually respect the framework of social norms that define what is fair or unfair in the interactions and outcomes of everyone involved.

To illustrate Deutsch’s ideas, we contrast the psychological orientations in two relations: friend-friend and police officer-thief. For practical purposes, we limit our discussion to the cooperative-competitive, power, and task-oriented versus social-emotional dimensions.

Friends have a cooperative cognitive orientation of “We are for one another”; the motivational orientation is of affection, affiliation, and trust, and the moral orientation is one of mutual benevolence, respect, and equality. In contrast, the police officer and thief have a competitive cognitive orientation (what’s good for the other is bad for me); the motivational orientation is of hostility, suspicion, and aggressiveness or defensiveness; the moral orientation involved is that of a win-lose struggle to be conducted either under fair rules or a no-holds-barred one in which any means to defeat the other can be employed.

Friends are of equal power and employ their power cooperatively. Their cog­nitive orientation to power and influence relies on its positive forms (persua­sion, benefit, legitimate power); their motivational orientation supports mutual esteem, respect, and status for both parties; their moral orientation is that of egalitarianism. In contrast, the police officer and thief are of unequal power. The officer is cognitively oriented toward using negative forms of power (coer­cion and harm), with a motivational orientation to dominate, command, and control. Morally, the officer feels superior and ready to exclude the thief from the former’s moral community (those who are entitled to care and justice). In cognitive response to the low-power position, the thief either tries to improve power relative to the police officer or submits to the role as one who is under the officer’s control. Thus, the thief’s motivational orientation may be rebellious and resistant (expressing the need for autonomy and inferiority avoidance) or passive and submissive (expressing the need for abasement). This moral ori­entation is either to exclude the officer from the thief’s own moral community or to “identify with the aggressor” (Freud, 1937), adopting the moral authority of the more powerful for oneself.

The friends have a social-emotional orientation, while the police officer and thief have a task-oriented relationship to one another. In the latter, one is cog­nitively oriented to making decisions about which means are most efficient in achieving one’s ends; the task-oriented relationship requires an analytical atti­tude to compare the effectiveness of various means. One is oriented to the other impersonally as an instrument to achieve one’s ends. The motivational orien­tation evoked by a task-oriented situation is that of achievement, and the moral orientation toward the other is utilitarian. In contrast, friends have a cognitive orientation in which the unique personal qualities and identity of the other are of paramount importance. Motivations characteristic of such relations include affiliation, affection, esteem, play, and nurturance-succorance. The moral oblig­ation to a friend is to esteem the other as a person and to help when the other is in need.

Deutsch’s view of the relation between social situation and psychological ori­entation is not only that a particular situation induces a particular psychologi­cal orientation, but also that individuals vary in their psychological orientation and personality. Based on their life experiences, some people tend to be coop­erative, egalitarian, and social-emotional in their orientation, while others tend to be competitive, power seeking, and task-oriented. For example, in many cul­tures, compared to men, women tend to have relatively strong orientations of the former type (cooperative and so on), while men have relatively stronger ori­entations of the latter (competitive) type.

Personality disposition influences the choice of social situation and the social relations that one seeks out or avoids. Given the opportunity, people select social relations and situations that are most compatible with their dominant psy­chological orientations. They also seek to alter or leave a social relation or sit­uation if it is incompatible with their disposition. If this is impossible, they employ the alternative, latent psychological orientations within themselves that are compatible with the social situation.

Knowledge of the dimensions of social relation can be helpful to a conflict practitioner in analyzing both the characteristics of a situation as well as the psychological orientations the parties are apt to display in the circumstances. It is also useful in characterizing individuals in terms of their dominant psycho­logical orientations to social situations. It should be noted, however, that Deutsch’s ideas are not well specified about what happens if the individual’s disposition and the situational requirements are incompatible.