Situational Appraisals

While primary orientation factors are the predominant patterns that individuals bring into a conflict, they lead to specific con­flict processes through the appraisal of the situation.

Micro. At the microlevel, the updated CBSECM considers conflict goals assessments and conflict intensity. The assessments of our goals and those of others, along with the intensity of the conflict, are key factors for how we choose to engage in conflict. For example, Lee and Park (2011) studied more than 1,000 Korean and U.S. Americans in their use of particular strategies to address face goals. When making a request of a favor, Koreans were more likely to apologize than U.S. Americans because of their concern with positive face (i.e., their concern for approval from or connection with the other person). In contrast, U.S. Americans were more likely to say thanks than Koreans because of their concern with both positive and negative face (i.e., the imposition on the other).

Meso. The mesolevel situational appraisals center on relationship parameters such as competition-cooperation, affiliation-control, and trust-distrust. Relationship parameters can also include the level of closeness and status in a relationship. All of these relation­ship parameters can be factors that individuals appraise and then use to make determinations of the most appropriate and effective way to manage the conflict.

Exo. The exo factor we consider is the in­group-out-group distinction. In-group and out-group distinction can be a mesolevel and exolevel factor; we treat it as exolevel because of the broader impact it can have. That is, in- group/out-group operates at a larger societal level in that privilege and access to resources is often ingrained within the social structures and within institutions (e.g., institutional racism).

We tend to use different conflict styles when we are in conflict with in-group and out-group members. T. Leung and Kim (2007) surveyed 270 university students about their conflict style usage with in-group and out-group mem­bers. They found that people in conflict with in-group members were more likely to oblige, integrate, and compromise and less likely to dominate and deceive than people in conflict with out-group members. Similarly, Peng and Tjosvold (2011) studied 132 Chinese employ­ees who avoided a conflict with a Chinese manager or a Western manager. The strength of the association between avoiding and social face concern was stronger for those employees working for a Chinese manager in compari­son to a Western manager. This indicates that the participants made a clear in-group and out-group distinction in reasons for avoiding conflict.

Macro. Macrolevel situational appraisals tend to be about migration patterns and his­tory of unresolved conflict. Globalization has led to increased movement of people around the world. The movement of people is not always the choice of the individuals involved. Refugees are forced to leave their homelands due to exposure to, or threat of, extreme trauma. Jaeckle and Georgakopoulos (2010) interviewed 10 Dinka refugees from Sudan now living in Jacksonville, Florida, to deter­mine the factors that influence and shape the management of conflict.

Landis (2008) argued that the presence of more multicultural populations has led to the increased opportunity for intercultural conflict, particularly in urban centers. He noted that migration can be problematic: “Modern communications technology can produce conflict and increased poverty unless the nation provides direct aid to the least able in the population” (p. 339). Essentially, the migration patterns bring people from differ­ent cultural groups together in conditions that focus on competition for jobs and resources. Under such conditions, initial interactions can be fraught with conflict, given competing goals and the salience of cultural differences.

Migration patterns can also exacerbate deep-seated conflicts that have a historical foundation and have been unresolved. Such conflicts may involve religious undertones (e.g., Israel and Palestine) or previous colonial rule (e.g., France and Algeria) along with eco­nomic disparities. Such conditions can result in conflict in several ways. First, under condi­tions of economic disparities and migrations, cultural groups in power have more resources than other cultural groups. The disadvantaged group(s) begins to feel disenfranchised and forms the basis of two key roots of conflict: (1) disadvantaged people perceived that the system is inherently oppressive and discrimi­natory, and (2) disadvantaged people lack confidence in the public and private institu­tions to provide adequate redress for their grievances (Warfield, 2006). These two key roots generally fester until a triggering event brings the conflict to a boil.

Second, members of the dominant culture, particularly those at a lower socioeconomic status, feel that immigrant groups are begin­ning to take resources that rightfully belonged to their cultural group.

Summary. In summary, individuals and enti­ties in conflict appraise the conflict situation at multiple levels. At the microlevel, the appraisal involves thinking about individual conflict goals and the intensity of the conflict situation. At the mesolevel, the appraisal involves the parameters that define the rela­tionship of those involved. At the exolevel, the appraisal involves the distinction between in­groups and out-groups. At the macrolevel, the appraisal relates to migration patterns and his­tory of unresolved conflict. These appraisals are connected in myriad ways. For example, it is easier for an affluent member to identify collaborative relational goals and define the conflict relationship in a cooperative frame if he or she does not perceive the existence of scarce economic resources. It also seems quite possible to understand a self-identified “frustrated, oppressed” person’s viewpoint in blaming all the economic ills on recent immigrations due to free trade agreements. Thus, the situational features place certain constraints and facilitators in shaping how we actually view or “frame” the conflict situation and, subsequently, perceive the most effective and appropriate manner to interact during the conflict process.