What is Conflict Escalation?
Escalation refers to an increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of tactics used in pursuing it. It is driven by changes within each of the parties, new patterns of interaction between them, and the involvement of new parties in the struggle.[1] When conflicts escalate, more people tend to become involved. Parties begin to make bigger and stronger threats and impose harsher negative sanctions. Violence may start, or if violence has already occurred it may become more severe and/or widespread as the number of participants involved in the conflict increases, and a greater proportion of a state's citizens actively engage in fighting.[2]
Conflict theorists Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin list five changes that occur as a conflict escalates. First, parties move from light tactics to heavy tactics. Light tactics include such things as persuasive arguments, promises, efforts to please the other side, while heavy tactics include threats, power plays, and even violence. Second, the conflict grows in size. The numbers of issues in contention expands, and parties devote more resources to the struggle. Third, issues move from specific to general, and the relationship between the parties deteriorates. Parties develop grandiose positions, and often perceive the other side as "evil." Fourth, the number of parties grows from one to many, as more and more people and groups are drawn into the conflict. Fifth, the goal of the parties changes from "doing well" to winning, and finally, to hurting the other.
Under certain circumstances, escalation is the rational thing to do. If a party has overwhelming power over its opponent, it makes sense to use this power to overcome the opponent's resistance.[3] Parties might also intentionally escalate the conflict in order to pressure the other side, involve third parties, or rally more people to their cause. In many cases, this sort of tactical escalation can have positive effects and help move parties toward a mutually beneficial relationship.[4]
However, a great deal of conflict escalation is inadvertent, and occurs without the parties having fully considered the implications of their actions. Sometimes this is a result of perceived crises and time pressures that compel the parties to act before they have considered alternative courses of action or have a full understanding of the situation. The use of force and threats, if regarded as too extreme, can ultimately backfire and provoke retaliation.[5] It is in these cases that conflicts have the potential to spiral out of control and have terribly damaging effects. Destructively waged conflicts typically involve great losses for one or more of the contending parties, and tend to persist for a long time.[6] To avoid these negative consequences, a better understanding of the dynamics of escalation is needed.
As the initial conflict between the Soviets and the West grew, more and more issues were drawn into the conflict.
After WWII, the USSR attempted to gain control of adjoining nations in order to increase its security. This made East-West cooperation difficult and increased the parties' mutual suspicion and mistrust.
In response to expanding Soviet influence, the United States attempted to strengthen Western European states and rebuild West Germany. Worried that Germany would return to power, the Soviets brought stronger tactics to bear.
Already the conflict was escalating into what is now known as the Cold War. -- Pruitt and Rubin, 88-89
|
Conditions that Encourage Escalation
Some conflict escalation is driven by incompatible goals. Many note that destructive social and inter-personal conflicts always begin with the emergence of contentious goals of two adversaries. If the parties do not see a possibility of finding a mutually beneficial solution, and one believes that it has the power to substantially alter the aspirations of the other, it may try to bully the other side into submission.[7] As the adversaries begin to pursue their incompatible goals, they may issue threats or otherwise attempt to coerce the opposing side into giving them what they want.[8] Each side typically believes that the other is driven by power and will increase its coercive behavior unless it is prevented from doing so by greater coercion.[9] But if one party is harmed or threatened by another, it is more likely to respond with hostility. The greater number of issues in contention and the more intense the sense of grievance, the more fuel there is to encourage escalation.[10]
In many instances, the parties view each other as having relatively high aspirations or regard the issues under dispute as ones that cannot be compromised. For example, matters regarded by adversaries as being integral to their personal or collective identities are more prone to conflict escalation. When faced with groups that exhibit radically different attitudes, values, and behaviors, parties may feel criticized, demeaned, or threatened.[11] Threats to identity tend to arouse feelings of anger and fear, which can in turn fuel conflict escalation. Similarly, moral conflicts often lead to conflict escalation because the opponent is viewed as wrong in principle and not merely on the wrong side of some specific issue.[12] Disputes involving ideological or moral issues tend to attract more parties and to be resistant to compromise.
Past grievances, feelings of injustice, and a high level of frustration may also provoke escalation. Hostility-driven escalation is typically caused by grievances or a sense of injustice, and may ultimately be rooted in events of the distant past. One party feels that it has been treated unfairly by its opponent, and angrily blames its opponent for the suffering it has endured.[13] Deprivation, inequitable treatment, and pain and suffering thereby lead to a desire to punish or injure the other.[14] If there are no "norms of redress" in place, the aggrieved party may feel compelled to strike back in response to this perceived provocation.[15] However, their feelings of anger and frustration may lead them to overreact. And if their actions are seen as overly severe and exceed the normative expectations of the other side, these actions may provoke outrage and simply intensify the struggle.[16]
Indeed, hostility-driven conflicts tend to escalate for trivial reasons, and also become unnecessarily violent.[17] Once victims have made exaggerated assessments of the severity of the harm they have suffered, they are likely to seek revenge. Their hostile actions often simply lead to further injustice, which grants victim status to the original wrongdoer.[18] This not only generates new conflict issues, but also provokes fresh feelings of anger and injustice. Both parties may come to view revenge as an end in itself.[19]
Three Process Models
Various frameworks can be used to better understand the dynamics of conflict escalation. Pruitt, Rubin, and Kim discuss three broad models of escalation: the aggressor-defender model, the conflict-spiral model and the structural-change model.[20] Taken together, these three accounts of what occurs during escalation can help to make sense of a wide variety of conflicts.
Aggressor-Defender Model
Jannie Botes says journalists frequently escalate conflicts. This can be positive or negative, depending on the situation.
|
In the "aggressor-defender" model, the "aggressor" is viewed as having a goal that places it in conflict with the "defender." The "aggressor" begins with mild tactics and moves on to heavier tactics if these don't work. The defender reacts, escalating its efforts in response to the aggressor's escalatory actions.[21] While this model reflects some cases of escalation, it suggests that escalation moves simply in one direction, with the defender always reacting to the action of the aggressor. In many cases, escalation is better understood as a circular process, in which each side reacts to the other's behavior.
Conflict Spiral Model
According to the conflict-spiral model, escalation results from a vicious circle of action and reaction. Because each reaction is more severe and intense than the action that precedes it, each retaliation or defensive action in the spiral provides a new issue or grievance.[22] These dynamics explain the movement from lighter tactics to heavier tactics, as well as the expansion of issues in conflict. As the spiral rises, each party's list of grievances grows longer, producing a growing sense of crisis.
Conflict spirals can be either retaliatory or defense. In a retaliatory spiral, each party punishes the other for actions it finds hurtful. Retaliation may be in response to events of the distant past, or to the opponent's most recent atrocious acts.[23] These events lead one party to blame the other for harm suffered, and to desire punishment. Central to this desire for retaliation are feelings of anger and the perceived need to "teach" the other a lesson. In addition, it is common for one party to miscalculate the likely reaction of the other, and inadvertently commit acts that result in further escalation.[24] For example, one side may try to intimidate its opponent, and instead provoke a harsh counteraction.
In a defensive spiral, on the other hand, each party reacts so as to protect itself from a threat it finds in the other's self-protective actions.[25] While retaliatory spirals are typically driven by blame and anger, defensive spirals are driven by fear. Though one side may simply wish to protect itself, its actions may be perceived as threatening by its opponent. One example of this sort of spiral is the arms race. (This is called the security dilemma and is discussed in the essay on security.)
Structural Change Model
Carolyn Stephenson says that both escalation and de-escalation are need to resolve conflicts.
|
Finally, according to the structural-change model, the experience of conflict and the tactics used to pursue it produce residues that affect and change the parties and communities involved.[26] As a fight escalates, the means of waging it become more and more removed from the substantive issues that first gave rise to conflict.[27] The psychology of the adversaries, as well as the relationship between them, undergoes fundamental changes. These enduring structural changes encourage further contentious behavior and fuel escalation. Thus, the structural-change model has the unique ability to explain why escalation tends to persist and recur.[28]
Psychological Dynamics
Escalation is both a cause and a result of significant psychological changes among the parties involved. In addition to anger and fear discussed above, negative attitudes, perceptions, and stereotypes of the opponent can drive escalation, as well as being caused by it (another spiral). Parties have a tendency to blame the other side for any harms suffered, and want at least restitution, if not retaliation. They may also form ideas about the dispositions, basic traits, and motives of the other side. For example, each side may believe that the other is fundamentally selfish, unfriendly, and hostile to its welfare.[29] As a result, actors often come to regard revenge and punishing the other side as an end in itself. Discussions about substantive issues and grievances give way to personal attacks upon the other.
Another psychological process that drives escalation is the sacrifice trap, also commonly known as entrapment. In some conflicts, a party may expend seemingly unjustified amounts of time, energy, and resources because they cannot admit they were wrong in what they did. So they continue or even increase their commitment to a failing course of action in order to justify their previous investments.[30] As time passes, the cost of continuing increases, but so do the prospects of reaching one's goal.[31] In addition, because they do not regard total withdrawal as an option, they come to regard total commitment as the only choice. Combatants thereby become trapped into an escalatory path of ever-increasing commitment.
Another psychological process that contributes to negative attitudes is selective perception. Once parties have expectations about the other side, they tend to notice the behavior that fits these expectations. But this tendency to make observations that fit their preconceptions simply makes those preconceptions stronger.[32] As a result, the actions of distrusted parties are seen as threatening, even when their actions are ambiguous. There is a tendency to misinterpret their behavior, and to give them little benefit of the doubt.[33] This may give rise to fear and defensive escalation. Even when an adversary makes some conciliatory actions, this conduct is likely to go unnoticed, or to be discounted as deceptive.[34] Not surprisingly, selective perceptions often get in the way of effective negotiation and problem-solving processes.
This process of selective perception is further enforced by attributional distortion. Once one party has formed preconceptions about the other, any information that supports this hypothesis will be attributed to the opposing side's basic disposition. Any observations that do not fit their expectations, such as friendly behavior, will be attributed to situational causes or regarded as a fluke.[35] As a result, there is almost nothing that the opponent can do to dispel the party's negative expectations. These negative evaluations allow parties to rationalize their own hostile behavior, which simply intensifies the conflict.
Selective perception is likewise reinforced by self-fulfilling prophecies. One party's negative views about the other may lead that party to behave in hostile ways towards its opponent. This typically evokes a hostile response from the opponent, and in effect prods the opponent to behave in ways that fulfill the party's initial expectations.[36] In this way, parties' worst suspicions of each other lead them to act in ways that confirm their negative views.
Changes in Relations
Mari Fitzduff suggests that the violent way a struggle is waged often simply perpetuates conflict.
|
After conflict has begun, the relations between the adversaries change in certain fundamental ways. In light of the psychological changes discussed above, their interaction becomes contentious, the number of issues in contention expands, and the parties become polarized.[37] The adversaries become increasingly isolated from each other, and their harsh actions tend to reinforce each other's negative stereotypes.
Development of hostile goals increases the divergence of interest among parties. As one side imposes negative sanctions upon another, any harm suffered become new issues of contention. New issues come to the fore as a result of each side's desire to defeat the other. The number of issues in conflict is likely to expand, and deep conflicts over values may surface.[38] Legitimate distrust develops among the adversaries, and what might otherwise be a relatively minor issue takes on great symbolic significance.
In many cases, groups are bifurcated into "us" versus "them," and differences between the "in-group" and the "out-group" are emphasized. Psychological or physical barriers may be put up to reduce interaction.[39] Group members define themselves by their joint opposition to a common enemy, which increases group solidarity and polarization.
In addition, people have a tendency to stop interacting with those that they do not like or respect. Once communication has been interrupted, it becomes very difficult to resolve the substantive issues that first gave rise to the conflict. This absence of communication may lead to the embellishment or distortion of facts, and damaging rumors may provide more fuel for escalation.[40]
As a result of escalation, formerly neutral or moderate parties are pulled toward one side or the other, and communities become severely polarized. Third parties who would otherwise urge moderation and attempt to mediate the controversy disappear and are forced to take sides.[41] Such polarization further reduces the opportunities for communication and contributes to the general deterioration of the relationship between the adversaries.
Parties may also begin to deindividuate persons from the opposing side. Through deindividuation, persons come to be seen as members of a category or group rather than as individuals.[42] This state of mind makes it easier for parties to take more severe measures against their opponents and to view them as less than fully human. In some cases, parties humiliate their enemies to make them appear less than human, and thus further justify their degradation.[43]
This process of dehumanization makes any moral norms against harming other human beings seem irrelevant. Those excluded from moral norms can be viewed simply as inferior or as evil, perverted, or criminal.[44] Harsh and violent action not only becomes psychologically plausible, but also may seem necessary.[45] There is a disengagement of morals, and restraints against harming or exploiting certain "kinds" of people are reduced. This can lead to severe violence, human rights violations, sometimes even genocide.
Such severe violence and hatred produces negative attitudes and perceptions that tend to persist even after the substantive issues of the conflict are settled. These "residues" then encourage the development of further conflict and the use of severe tactics when conflict arises again in the future.[46]
Group Dynamics
Internal changes that groups undergo during escalation include not only the social-psychological changes discussed above, but also changes at the group or collective level. Dynamics at the individual level are often accentuated by collective discussion and tend to become group norms. Collective goals of defeating the enemy develop, as well as increased group cohesiveness.[47] Once people realize that others share their views and hear new arguments favoring them, their own perceptions are validated and reinforced. Group discussion can in this way cause individual members to become more extreme in their hostile attitudes. The number of moderates in the group thus begins to diminish as more and more people come to hold extreme views.[48]
The development of group solidarity, or cohesiveness, can likewise contribute to escalation. Many note that groups with little internal diversity tend to escalate conflicts rapidly.[49] This is in part because cohesiveness encourages conformity to group norms and strengthens negative perceptions among group members.[50] With group cohesiveness also comes heightened commitment to the goal and a stronger conviction that is attainable. Individuals typically become more invested in the conflict, and look to other members of the group to justify their violence and reinforce their beliefs. Without a diversity of views, no one questions the advisability of extreme actions. This may also contribute to an effect whereby groups become convinced that glorious victory is assured and attempt to mobilize the community for conflict.
As conflict escalates, new, more militant leadership often develops. Leaders who fear that they will be replaced by challengers will not want to be seen as weak or submissive. As a result, they will often refuse to admit that any past actions were mistaken and are likely to grow in militancy and become more "hardline."[51] Furthermore, conflicts that already involve contentious activity are likely to fall into the hands of militants who have strong negative attitudes and tend to use extreme tactics.[52] In many instances, these leaders seek to ritualize the conflict and exhibit a complete lack of interest in resolution.[53] All of this contributes to conflict escalation.
In addition, new and more militant subgroups sometimes develop, as well as committees or departments to deal with the struggle. Radical spokespersons and extremists emerge, and participation widens to include those who are willing to use more intense means.[54] These newly aroused will tend to form less moderate struggle groups that grow rapidly in size and form goals to defeat their opponent. This social endorsement of aggression can increase the likelihood that severe tactics will be used.
These competitive goals and aggressive actions tend to outlive the reasonable purposes for which they were intended.[55] Norms of contentious interaction develop, and any individuals who challenge these norms tend to be ostracized by other group members. Those who doubt the legitimacy of certain tactics may stay quiet out of fear of being labeled traitors. Or, any "dissident murmurs" will simply be drowned out by the majority.[56] Leaders are likely to foster such homogeneity by portraying the enemy as a grave threat and instituting policies that build support for the struggle.
Militant subgroups may also endure as a result of vested interests. Group membership and participation in the struggle can give individuals status, wealth and even a sense that life is meaningful.[57] Members may not wish to surrender these benefits, and therefore work hard to ensure that their group lives on. Similarly, leaders who have gained their positions because of their militancy and military men who gained status as generals and admirals have a vested interest in the perpetuation of conflict. Such individuals have incentives to resist conflict resolution and make sure that the war effort continues.
Finally, the involvement of other parties may increase a group's capacity to escalate conflict. Outside parties may see an opportunity to gain some benefit or weaken an old enemy if they join the conflict.[58] In other cases, parties will join a struggle out of obligation to their friends or allies. They may become directly engaged, or simply provide weapons or extra funds. Such aid often enables combatants to escalate their level of fighting. During the Cold War, for example, many local conflicts were exacerbated by the larger conflict between the USSR and the United States. Each superpower would lend support to its favored side and thereby provide more fuel for local conflict.
These changes among individuals, groups, and communities result from prior escalation and contribute to further escalation. Once these transformations have taken place, escalation tends to persist and recur, and there is lasting damage to the relationships between the parties. In order to limit the destructive effects of escalation, parties must find a way to limit or reverse this process. Strategies to limit escalation or de-escalate conflict are needed and are discussed at length in the essays on those topics.
[1] Louis Kriesberg, Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, Inc., 1998), 152.
[2] Kriesberg, 152.
[3] Otomar Bartos and Paul Wehr, Using Conflict Theory. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 99.
[4] Kriesberg, 152.
[5] Bartos and Wehr, 99.
[6] Kriesberg, 152.
[7] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 48.
[8] Kriesberg, 24.
[9] Kriesberg, 157.
[10] Kriesberg, 166.
[11] Jessica Jameson, "The Escalation and De-escalation of Intractable Conflict." Communicating War and Terror, N.C. State University Department of Communication, available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/cwt/jameson.htm
[12] Kriesberg, 166.
[13] Susan Opotow, "Aggression and Violence," in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, eds. Morton. Deutsch and Peter Coleman, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 2000), 411.
[14] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 15.
[15] Opotow, 413.
[16] Kriesberg, 169.
[17] Bartos and Wehr, 102.
[18] Sung Hee Kim and Richard Smith, "Revenge and Conflict Escalation," in Negotiation Journal, (9:1) 37-44. (New York: Plenum Press, 1993), 41.
[19] Kriesberg, 157.
[20] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 73.
[21] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 73.
[22] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 74.
[23] Bartos and Wehr, 100.
[24] Kriesberg, 158.
[25] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 79.
[26] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 82.
[27] Kriesberg, 160.
[28] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 83.
[29] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 85.
[30] Kriesberg, 153.
[31] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 113.
[32] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 102.
[33] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 86.
[34] Kriesberg, 153.
[35] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 105.
[36] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 100.
[37] Kriesberg, 157.
[38] Kriesberg, 158.
[39] Jameson, available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/cwt/jameson.htm
[40] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 108.
[41] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 110.
[42] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 88.
[43] Kriesberg, 158.
[44] Opotow, 417.
[45] Kriesberg, 158.
[46] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 110.
[47] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 90.
[48] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 93.
[49] Kriesberg, 167.
[50] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 94.
[51] Kriesberg, 155.
[52] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 95.
[53] Jameson, available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/communication/www/cwt/jameson.htm
[54] Kriesberg, 155.
[55] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 108.
[56] Kriesberg, 167.
[57] Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 108.
[58] Kriesberg, 159.
Use the following to cite this article:
Maiese, Michelle. "Destructive Escalation." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/escalation/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
"Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts--Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10075/.
This summary describes Joel Brockner and Jeffrey Rubin's book, Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts. This work will be of interest to those who seek a better social-psychological understanding of the factors and processes which produce entrapment, and promote conflict escalation.
Carment, David and Patrick James. "Escalation of Ethnic Conflict: A Survey and Assessment." ,
Available at: http://http-server.carleton.ca/~dcarment/papers/escalati.html.
This article attempts to answer the question: Why are some multi-ethnic states susceptible to violent escalation, state breakdown and collapse while others are not? In doing so, the authors use a framework consisting of five analytical components. First, they assess basic structural determinants of violence. The second section examines interactions between ethnic groups as a source of violent behavior. Third, is an evaluation of the role of international factors. Fourth, and finally, the conclusion reviews the factors that contribute most significantly to the violent escalation of ethnic conflict.
General Information on Escalation.
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/escalation.htm.
This web page presents some general information on conflict escalation and outlines its dynamics and negative effects. It suggests that escalation alone is sufficiently powerful to transform what should be a tractable dispute into one that is virtually impossible to resolve.
Glaser, Tanya. "Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement - Book Summary." University of Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, 1900.
Available at: http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10477/.
This is a summary of the book Social Conflict, by Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim. In the work, the authors describe how people engage in social conflicts. The authors describe the sources of conflict, identify five basic conflict strategies, and explore processes of conflict escalation and resolution. (This summary refers to the first edition of the book.)
Jameson, Jessica K. "The Escalation and De-escalation of Intractable Conflict." Communicating War and Terror ,
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article examines Terrell Northrup's theory of conflict escalation, and raises important questions that must be asked if we want to gain insights into the events of September 11th.
Wehr, Paul. "Uncontrolled Escalation and Runaway Responses." , 1999
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/wehr7494.htm.
Paul Wehr in his article Uncontrolled Escalation and Runaway Responses, states that a primary characteristic of emerging conflict is escalation. Conflict parties begin to treat one another with more and more suspicion, distance, hostility, fear. The aggressive actions each takes toward the other are returned in kind but increased in intensity. Thus, in each round of exchanges, the parties become more belligerent, more hostile, less cooperative.
Offline (Print) Sources
Kriesberg, Louis. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, April 1, 1998.
This books discusses how conflict can be waged constructively at each stage of its course--from emergence, escalation, de-escalation, termination, and finally, to resolution. Kriesberg also explores the bases of social conflict, types of inducements, conflict strategies, and the contributions of intermediaries. Click here for more info.
Ury, William L. and Richard Smoke. "Anatomy of a Crisis." Negotiation Theory and Practice , 1991.
"Ury and Smoke describe the basic elements of a crisis. They explore crisis escalation, and ways to defuse crises." -Tanya Glaser, reviewer
Russett, Bruce and D. Kinsella. "Conflict Emergence and Escalation in Interactive International Dyads." Journal of Politics 64:4, November 2002.
This highly academic paper addresses theoretical concerns regarding whether the conditions affecting initial expressions of hostility are similar to the conditions that spur militarized conflicts. By examining dyadic interactions between 1951 and 1992, the authors apply their findings regarding conflict causation to theoretical models of the conflict process.
Pruitt, Dean G., Jeffrey Z. Rubin and Sung Hee Kim. "Conflict Escalation." In Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill College Division, January 1, 1994. Pages: 68-116.
In chapters five through eight, the authors explore various models that can be used to better understand conflict escalation and discuss the different types of transformation that occur in both individuals and groups as a result of escalation. They discuss the various conditions that can contribute to escalation or stability, and maintain that escalation is both antecedent and consequent of significant structural and psychological changes within communities. These changes affect both individuals and groups, and often lead to community polarization and the deterioration of relationships. Click here for more info.
Borisoff, Deborah and David A. Victor. Conflict Management: A Communication Skills Approach. Allyn and Bacon, October 14, 1997.
Conflict Management presents a communication skills approach toward managing conflicts. It analyses the role communication plays in exacerbating conflicts, and offers communication strategies which promote productive conflict management. Click here for more info.
Brockner, Joel and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
This work is a social-psychological investigation into the phenomena of entrapment. The authors attempt to synthesize findings from a number of studies into a general account of entrapment. Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts will be of interest to those who seek a better theoretical understanding of the factors and processes which produce entrapment, and promote conflict escalation. This work is divided into eleven chapters, with subject and author indices.
Click here for more info.
Kriesberg, Louis. "Escalating Conflicts." In Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, April 1, 1998. Pages: 151-180.
In chapter one, Kriesberg explores the various stages of conflict and suggests that the dynamics of escalation often contribute to a conflict's destructiveness. He also presents a simplified conflict cycle in which conflicts typically emerge, escalate, de-escalate, and then eventually get resolved. In chapter six, the author discusses the escalation stage of conflict in more detail and out lines the processes, conditions, and policies that often generate destructive struggles. Click here for more info.
Bartos, Otomar J. and Paul Wehr. "Escalation and De-Escalation." In Using Conflict Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, January 1, 2002. Pages: 98-121.
In chapter 7, the authors discuss unilateral escalation, reciprocated escalation, and hostility-driven escalation. They argue that three forces drive a party's escalatory actions: its own interests, acts of its opponent, and its hostility. Various psychological processes, including cognitive dissonance, selective perception, and entrapment, act as positive feedbacks that increase conflict solidarity and contribute to escalation.
Kim, Sung Hee and Richard H. Smith. "Revenge and Conflict Escalation." Negotiation Journal 9:1, January 1993.
Revenge is the attempt to inflict harm in return for harm, which typically leads conflict on an escalatory path. One party's acts of vengeance tend to provoke the other party's counter-revenge, causing a reciprocal chain of harsh behavior. But although vengeance is typically destructive in this way, it is not always irrational. In many cases, it arises out of a genuine sense of injustice. Parties must strive to deal with their vengeful feelings in productive ways.
Fisher, Ronald J. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and International Conflict Resolution. New York, NY: Spring-Verlag, January 1990.
The Social Psychology of Inter-group and International Conflict Resolution explores the "causation, escalation, de-escalation, and resolution" of inter-group conflicts from the perspective of social-psychology. Click here for more info.
Teger, A. I. Too Much Invested to Quit: The Psychology of the Escalation of Conflict. New York: Pergamon Press, 1980.
This book explores the social-pscyhological processes that motivate parties to commit themselves to intense and destructive social conflicts.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Campbell, Kurt M and Derek J. Mitchell. "Crisis in the Taiwan Strait?." Foreign Affairs Magazine , July 2001
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article examines the growing tension between Taiwan and China. It further explores the United States' role in preventing or controlling violence between the two.
Weiss, Joshua N. "Disastrous Balancing Act: The Beginning of Cambodia's Misery." Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1, No. 1 , March 1998
Available at: http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/1_1weiss.htm.
The purpose of this paper is to seek to explain how the beginning of the Cambodian conflict under Prince Norodom Sihanouk set the stage for some of the worst mass violence the world ever witnessed -- that of the Khmer Rouge (KR) era. Throughout the course of this paper critical questions will be addressed, in hopes of gaining an understanding of how intractable conflicts begin and sustain themselves over long periods of time.
Nissan, Elizabeth. "Historical Context: War and Negotiation In Sri Lanka." Accord, Vol. 4 , August 1998
Available at: Click here for more info.
Scroll down the page to this article that provides historical background on the situation of conflict in post-colonial Sri Lanka. The article focuses on the origins and rise of Tamil nationalism and the escalation of armed conflict in the country since the 1970's.
Hong, Kessely, Keith Allred and Joseph Kalt. Partisan Misperceptions and Conflict Escalation: Survey Evidence from a Tribal/Local Government Conflict.
Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304586.
Abstract: Prior research demonstrates that partisans to a conflict tend to have an exaggerated sense of the extremism of their opponents' opinions regarding the issues under dispute. In this study, we examine an ongoing conflict between the Nez Perce Tribe and local non-Tribal governments that operate within the boundaries of the Nez Perce Reservation.
Lamwaka, Caroline. "Peace Process in Northern Uganda 1986-1990." Accord, Vol. 11: Protracted Conflict, Elusive Peace Uganda , 2002
Available at: Click here for more info.
This page chronicles the escalation of violence in Uganda, beginning with the Uganda People's Democratic Movement/Army becoming the first armed opposition to President Yoweri Museveni and his government. As the UPDMA fights the governmental military, Acholiland, in the northern part of the country, is decimated. By the end of 1986, the first steps toward peace had been made. Various peace talks are covered, and the specific terms of the 1988 Peace Accord are laid out. However, just a short while later the fighting had resumed. Today, the fighting continues, despite all the peace attempts. The author suggests dialogue and reconciliation as alternatives to continued military action.
Noll, Douglas E. "The Dollar Auction Game: A Lesson in Conflict Escalation." ,
Available at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/noll1.cfm.
This article sets the stage to learn about conflict escalation by playing a game. The game is called The Dollar Auction, and the lesson is: "Beware of entrapment in conflict escalation as it will cause you to prolong conflict unnecessarily."
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
Philippines: The Price of Power. Directed and/or Produced by: Chester, Jeffrey and Charles Drucker. First Run Icarus Films. 1986.
This film focuses on the Igorots, indigenous Filipino farmers, who moved from nonviolent to violent action in their pursuit to stop development activities that threatened their way of life. Click here for more info.
The War at Home . Directed and/or Produced by: Brown, Barry. First Run Icarus Films. 1979.
This documentary film explains how the Vietnam protest movement emerged in the US and subsequently escalated into a domestic conflict that embroiled all members of this nation. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
|
