- Introduction
Ideally, conflicts can be resolved amicably, where parties shift from blaming to supporting and restoring each other’s interests. However, achieving that idea seems challenging because the conflict itself has a complex dimension, including perception, feeling, and action.[1] The first dimension is a cognitive state when people see their needs, interests, or values as incompatible with others’. The second is what people feel when they know something is incompatible. This aspect would affect someone’s behaviour towards the conflict. The last is a state of action when someone in conflict expresses their perception in facing the conflict.
The three-dimensional aspect of the conflict is closely related. For instance, the perception that is arising emotion and the emotion leading to some expressive action. This also could work as a vicious cycle when others’ actions raise the perception of another. Then, again, the perception stimulates emotion. That is why Mayer explained that the conflict is dynamic.
If the conflict is dynamic, then the situation towards conflict may be changed. Some anthropologists have explained that the change could escalate and de-escalate.[2] If so, what is the factor, and could the situation be intervened to reduce or release the tension? According to Mayer, the factor is emotions. And it is the key to de-escalating the conflict. Even though that conflict is three-dimensional, however, changes in one dimension could be reshaping the whole situation. It is often the development of one aspect returning to the de-escalation of another aspect. For Instance, when emotion is calming or changing from anger to sympathy, the expression of blaming could be changed to approaching another to find a solution. As Fisher and Ury explained, people are prone to get angry, depressed, and offended.[3] Relating to the nature of humans, Mayer also stated that one of the challenges in resolving conflict for dispute interveners is finding appropriate ways to deal with disputant emotions so they will not be out of control.[4]
As explained earlier, emotion affects the actions of disputant parties. It is a signal resulting from a change in the environment, whether the world around people or inner thoughts.[5] Emotions help humans prepare and organise their actions. If communication is a state of action, this aspect could be determined by what feelings people experience in some situations. As interest is often known from expression, the clarity of interest can be determined by the emotions of both the sender and the receiver. As Mayer has explained, interest can be perceived as clear or hidden.[6] Therefore, one reason why managing emotions is crucial is because it affects the clearance of interest. Ideally, a conflict can be resolved by fulfilling the interests of each party.
In dispute settlement, a neutral third party, a mediator, often helps disputant parties find solutions to the problem. Traditionally, a mediator could be from various backgrounds, including a lawyer, therapist, or specialist in one aspect.[7] However, not all mediators (and other dispute practitioners) are equipped with certain skills and knowledge to manage emotions in handling conflict situations. For instance, a lawyer might only learn about the legal aspect of the conflict. Even if they had knowledge from educational activities, it is often insufficient to stratify an adequate ability to manage emotions. It also requires experience and practice. Regardless of the condition, it is interesting to explore 1.) what emotions are involved in conflict and how they relate to human action, 2.) what abilities are needed to understand feelings, and 3.) what abilities are needed to manage emotions. In sum, this article will try to describe the three questions above and find whether it is viable for conflict or dispute resolution through research on literature sources, including academic writings as well as writings produced by conflict resolution practitioners.
- Emotions in conflict and disputant behavioural tendency
Research about conflict and emotion has been widely available. One example is the research conducted by Bell and Song, which revealed that various emotions are involved in conflict and that each emotion leads to several probabilities of behaviour. [8] Related to the matter, Bell and Song suggest that emotions have two dimensions of demarcation.[9] The first is a demarcation between feeling upon self, and the second is feeling upon the other party as the subject of emotions. The second is the demarcation, which motivates persons to either approach or withdraw. Each demarcation could arise as a combination that shapes disputant behaviour.[10] The probability of a combination includes a Self-focused approach, Self-focus withdrawal, Other-focused approach, and Other-focus withdrawal.[11] The explanation of various emotions is as follows:
- Self-focus approach:
This is an emotion with a tendency to hostility. The sub-components of it are anger, anxiety, and frustration.[12] From this emotion, a person may not be reluctant to convey what is his/her concern, and it often leads to a protective gesture of interest. However, the communication could be harsh, so instead of information being delivered well to others, it may offend the counterpart. Thus, a third person or dispute settlement practitioner may be able to reinterpret what has been stated or claimed by one party to another party using another word or ways that are likely acceptable. The same approach would work for those who play the role of representative.
- Self-focus withdrawal:
This type of emotion is related to self-consciousness. Someone with this emotion tends to evaluate themselves. Various feelings may occur, including shame, guilt, and humiliation, which are mainly stressed in self-evaluation. As cited by Bell and Song, Roseman suggests that these kinds of emotions may inflict the desire to apologise.[13] Thus, it can be predicted that these emotions lead a person to have an obliging strategy. Because of their self-consciousness, a person may also be willing to compromise his/her interest in others. An appointed third party or intervener could act as a messenger in situations where a person may feel too ashamed to meet the counterpart.
- Other-focus Approach:
This type of emotion is closely related to the concern of relational positivity. The components of this emotion could include sympathy, respect, and liking for the other party. Bell and Song hypothesise that people with these emotions tend to have ‘compromising’ or ‘integrating’ conflict strategies.[14] Thus, it can be argued that in this state of emotions, the disputant may be most ready to resolve conflict by amicable means. However, human emotions are different and dynamic. Despite the current situation being adequate, it is crucial to maintain it to avoid any changes in emotions towards unproductivity.
- Other-focus withdrawal:
This type of emotion is characterised by a reluctance to trouble or hurt another party—in other words, fear. Frija and his colleagues found that fear is closely related to running away from the worst outcome.[15] Bell and Song predicted this emotion as an avoiding strategy. As Julie McFarlane et al. explained, the grievance of injurious experience turns into a dispute when it has been claimed but rejected.[16] Thus, in the context of people with fear emotion, they may find it hard to claim what they want because they are afraid their counterpart will be offended. On one side, a dispute may be prevented; on the other, the problem is not solved. In this situation, the role of dispute practitioners as a representative might be useful.
How people feel about situations affects their actions. Understanding the tendency to action that may come from emotions gives data for interveners to take specific measures in the situation. For instance, when people feel angry about conflict, there is a sign that people want to resolve the conflict, even though the communication may not be clear. In this situation, the practitioners could take advantage by hearing out their complaints. As Fisher and Ury explained, sometimes emotions need to flow before people are ready to think clearly and continue the mediation process.[17] Thus, the knowledge about what kind of emotions play a role in the conflict is crucial to dispute practitioners to understand situations.
- Emotional Intelligence
To understand someone’s emotions is not easy. It requires special abilities to be possessed. This is important in two ways: understanding both one’s own emotions and others’ emotions. Joseph and Newman also stressed the importance of emotion recognition as the foundational aspect of emotional intelligence.[18] Thus, emotional intelligence is an ability and capacity. It allows someone with the skill and knowledge to accurately perceive the emotions of others and build connections between them.[19] Mayer et al. have mapped four abilities that are important to emotional intelligence.
The first ability is perception and identification. This ability allows people to understand what people feel from their broad expression, including words, gestures, and voice.[20] In other words, emotions can be perceived by taking into account not only words. Social information such as power and intimate relationships may play a crucial role in being scrutinised.[21] Related to the ability, Saarni also stresses the awareness of the emotional state, including the recognition of multiple emotions at the same time.[22]
The second is the ability to use emotional information in thinking. Someone needs to be able to make decisions based on emotional information.[23] This could be about deciding whether to keep listening to someone’s rant or interrupt them if the objective is to release emotions. It could also include the ability to choose the matching vocabulary or gesture that is ‘emotionally acceptable’ for the respondent.
Another important ability is reasoning about emotions. This includes emotional appraisal, labelling, and language. Appraising emotions is like predicting what is behind the emotions. Mayer et al. explained that this could be the examination if someone is feeling fear; it is likely that he/she is facing a threatening situation.[24] In other words, this includes the ability to describe one’s own and other’s feelings.
The last ability is emotion management itself. Mayer explains that clinical findings suggest that one’s emotions can be changed towards more positive ways by reframing perceptions and situations.[25] His explanation implied that emotional management is an ability to control emotions. This is important for practitioners who need to explain someone else’s interest in an acceptable manner. Or trying to give clarification so one party’s feelings toward the other party may be changed so the disputant is willing to contribute to the amicable settlement process.
As explained earlier, emotional intelligence plays a major role in the conflict settlement process. Basically, it is a skill set for discerning and using emotions as a variable in making decisions (including strategies) during conflict settlement processes, including negotiations, mediations, or any form other than the adjudication process. Richards suggests that emotional intelligence is one aspect that usually contributes to the success of mediation.[26] The interveners are expected to create a supportive, respective, and receptive condition during negotiation.[27] That is why the impression of sincerity is important and it could be constructed by the abilities related to emotional intelligence.
- Emotional Regulation
Another relevant concept about managing emotion is emotional regulation. This ability is related to emotional intelligence. However, it emphasised a different objective. If emotional intelligence emphasises why someone feels certain emotions in a given situation, emotional regulation emphasises how to modify the trajectory of one or more components of an emotional response.[28] In other words, this is a strategy to steer the wheel of emotions. Therefore, this concept seems more practical than the earlier one. Many scholars believe that the combination of emotional intelligence and emotional regulation would result in a better outcome of conflict settlement.[29] Thus, knowing about this concept might be beneficial for dispute settlement practitioners.
The process model for regulating emotions was first developed by James Gross in 1998.[30] Then, it becomes the most dominant and influential model in that field. The framework starts following the stage of emotional phases from situation, attention, appraisal, and response.[31] According to Gross, in each stage, a modification strategy could be taken.
- Situation:
The first step is in a situation where someone enters into an emotional condition. In this phase, efforts can be made to alter its emotional impact.[32] Illustrating the strategy, Halperin provided an example: when someone is watching a horror movie on television and feeling afraid, he/she could turn on the light or tune down the volume to lower or change the ‘afraid’ feeling.[33] In other words, changing the situation could help to change emotions.
Sometimes, negotiation can be frightening. This could be inflicted from a place of negotiation that may only favour one party and risk the other. For instance, during the period of armed conflict between the Free Aceh Movement and the Republic of Indonesia, both parties refused to dialogue. Indonesia at the time were too confident with its military operation in Aceh and, from the movement side, appeared to be afraid of being tricked by the Republic of Indonesia, which is certainly more powerful in terms of power.[34] It was possible at the time for the leader of the Aceh movement to be captured if they agreed to meet the Indonesian Government for discussion. However, the condition changed when the former Finland President, Martii Ahtisaari, proposed a facilitative mediation in Helsinki.[35] Both conflicting parties agreed to open dialogue in Helsinki and signed a peace agreement several years later. From the history of Aceh, it can be learned that the presence of a third party and a neutral location could be changing the situation.
- Attention:
The second is attentional deployment. The basic idea of this strategy is altering emotions by selecting and focusing the information relevant to the expected outcome.[36] To do the strategy may be available in various ways, including distraction, rumination, mindfulness, and positive reappraisal.[37] Halperin gave an example of someone watching a horror movie and getting scared after; he/she could try to focus on another aspect of the movie other than the plot, like a costume or a funny joke from the movie.
Another practical suggestion from practitioners may relate to this strategy. Ury and Fisher, in their book ‘Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Getting In,’ emphasise the importance of ‘facing the problem, not the people’.[38] They remind people that when negotiating, the most important thing to address is the interest itself, not the person. Someone might be annoying to deal with, but the goal is not to teach them a lesson, but to solve our problem.
In his book, Aernound Bourdrez, a copyright lawyer and negotiator, also suggests a similar concept: ‘hard on the problem, soft on the people’.[39] It is hard to achieve the substantive interest, seeking resolution yet maintaining the relation with the people. Separate the personal issue from the substance interest. By focusing the mind on the goal, emotions can be more stable, and one can think clearly.
- Appraisal:
According to Roesman, after the situation has received attention, it continues to be an emotional response; after that, people tend to rethink the situation through a cognitive evaluation.[40] At this stage, emotional intervention could be made by re-evaluating the situation. Halperin gives an example by taking an outsider’s view of a situation and reappraising the situation with a greater distance.[41] This allows us to look beyond self-perception, eliminate subjective information, and prevent personal reason from interfering with emotions.
Conflict interveners could play a crucial role using this method. During a conflict situation, people often become angry with others because of misunderstandings. An intervener could help the party listen to what actually happened, reframe the condition, and tell another party what the condition is with a more positive perspective. Basically, intervention could be made by helping the disputant party to understand another dimension of conflict, focusing on things that could resolve the problem.
- Response:
The last one is response modulation. It may occur in the late emotion generative stage. This strategy involves following up on (unwanted) emotions with actions that are believed to reduce those emotions.[42] Some examples include sharing about it with others, exercising, or acting as if you don’t have those emotions.[43] Although, research findings suggest the latter example is not actually decreasing the unwanted emotions.[44] However, it may be useful during the negotiation process in a way to control the expression to prevent a violent quarrel.
Emotional regulation emerges as a vital aspect of managing emotions, offering actionable strategies for conflict resolution practitioners. Distinct from emotional intelligence, it focuses on steering emotional responses, complementing the understanding of why emotions arise in a given situation.
From altering emotional impacts by changing circumstances to fostering a positive perspective through cognitive reappraisal, emotional regulation strategies offer practical tools for navigating conflict situations. Incorporating these strategies alongside emotional intelligence enhances conflict settlement outcomes, promoting clearer thinking and stable emotions. In summary, mastering emotional regulation is essential for dispute settlement practitioners seeking effective and sustainable resolutions amidst emotionally charged environments.
- Conclusion
In conclusion, scholars found a relationship between conflict and emotions. Emotions are the fuel of conflict and also the key to de-escalation. In doing so, two abilities are relevant to master, including 1.) emotional intelligence and 2.) emotional regulation. The first one could answer the question, ‘What emotions do people feel? And what causes them?’ while the second relates to the question, ‘What should we do to control emotions?’. The two aspects could be combined to get a better outcome during the process of conflict (or dispute) settlement outside the adjudication process.
Emotional intelligence is useful for dispute practitioners to assess situations. From the assessment, someone can take it as a variable before planning. The decision can follow the framework model of emotional regulation. However, the combination of strategies may vary, depending on circumstances. The most important thing is that the objective of conflict resolution can be achieved, and the disputant party is satisfied with the outcome. During the process, it is crucial to make them feel respected, heard, and validated.
Lastly, it is also important to know the type of emotions that play a role in conflict situations, including a self-focus approach, a self-focus withdrawal, an other-focus approach, and an other-focus withdrawal. Each spectrum of emotions tends to result in different behavioural outcomes. By assessing what emotion is involved, dispute practitioners could determine a suitable strategy to encourage disputant parties to open dialogue.
Disclaimer: The articles published on this website (dhaksa.com) are intended for general information purposes only and should not be considered as legal opinions, legal advice, or a representation of legal services by our firm and its counsels. This publication does not create, nor does its receipt constitute, a professional relationship or an attorney-client relationship between the reader and our law firm its counsels. If you require specific legal advice, we strongly recommend that you consult directly with a trusted legal advisor.
[1] Mayer, Bernard S, The Dynamics of Conflict a Guide to Engagement and Intervention (Jossey-Bass, 2nd ed., 2012), 4
[2] Albiston, Catherine R, Lauren B Edelman and Joy Milligan, “The Dispute Tree and the Legal Forest” (2014) 10 (1) Annual review of law and social science, 110. See also Mayer (n 1) 14.
[3] Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes : Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (Penguin, Third edition, revised edition., 2011), 21.
[4] Mayer (n 1), 14.
[5] Galluccio, Mauro (ed), Handbook of International Negotiation : Interpersonal, Intercultural, and Diplomatic Perspectives (Springer International Publishing, 2015), 182.
[6] Mayer (n 1), 24.
[7] Alexander, Nadja, “The Mediation Metamodel: Understanding Practice” (2008) 26(1) Conflict resolution quarterly, 101.
[8] Richard (n 16), 224.
[9] Bell, Chris and Fei Song, “Emotions In The Conflict Process: An Application of The Cognitive Appraisal Model Of Emotions To Conflict Management” (2005) 16(1) The International journal of conflict management, 34.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 35.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Julie Macfarlane (ed), (Emond Montgomery Publications, 2003) 2nd ed., 3.
[17] Fisher, et al., (n 3), 31.
[18] Mayer, John D., et al., “Human Abilities : Emotional Intelligence” (2008) 59(1) Annual review of psychology, 512.
[19] Mauro (ed) (n 5), 184.
[20] Mayer, John D., et al. (n 8), 512.
[21] Ibid., 512.
[22] Mauro (ed) (n 5), 176.
[23] Mayer, John D., et al. (n 8), 512.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Sophia Richards, “Facilitative Mediation: An Exploration of Mediator Effectiveness, Interventions and Available Evidence” (2023) 32(4) Australasian dispute resolution journal, 224.
[27] Mauro (ed) (n 5), 183.
[28] Peña-Sarrionandia, et al., “Integrating Emotion Regulation and Emotional Intelligence Traditions: A Meta-Analysis” (2015) 6 Frontiers in psychology, 1.
[29] Halperin, Eran, Emotions in Conflict : Inhibitors and Facilitators of Peace Making (Routledge, 2016), 180.
[30] Ibid.,159.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.,160.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Morfit, Michael, “The Road To Helsinki: The Aceh Agreement and Indonesia’s Democratic Development” (2007) 12 (1) International negotiation (Hague, Netherlands), 112-142.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Peña-Sarrionandia, et al. (n 18), 3-4.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Fisher, et al. (n 3), 40.
[39] Aernoud Bourdrez, “Think Like a Lawyer Don’t Act Like One”, (Bispublisher, 2018), 7.
[40] Halperin, Eran, (n 19), 160.
[41] Ibid., 161.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Peña-Sarrionandia, et al. (n 18), 5.