CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

16 DE DREU AND GELFAND
Recent work has pointed out that individual differences in the stability
and clarity of the self-concept play a critical role in the extent to which
ego-defensive tendencies are enacted. Put simply, the less stable and the
more unclear the self-concept is, the less well the individual deals with
hostility and negative feedback, and since hostility and negative feedback
are part and parcel of social conflict, the more likely the conflict is to
escalate (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister 1998; De Dreu & Van Knippenberg,
2005; Stucke & Sporer, 2002). For example, individuals with high explicit
self-esteem but low implicit self-esteem tend to be more hostile and prone
to prejudice compared with individuals in whom explicit and implicit
self-esteem correspond (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, &
Correll, 2003). Kernis, Granneman, and Barclay (1989) found that persons
with unstable, high self-esteem had the highest propensity for anger, as
assessed by self-report, whereas those with stable, high self-esteem had
the lowest (see also Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Similar findings have
been obtained in work on the individual’s self-concept clarity—the extent
to which the contents of an individual’s self-concept are clearly and confidently
defined, internally consistent, and temporally stable (J. D. Campbell,
1990). Ratings on the self-concept clarity scale negatively correlate
with ratings on the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Von Collani &
Werner, 2005). Likewise, there is evidence that those with low rather than
high self-concept clarity tend toward more aggressive responses following
negative feedback (Stucke & Sporer, 2002) and toward greater hostility
after being provoked by their conflict counterpart (De Dreu & Van Knippenberg,
2005).
Because individuals desire to develop, improve, and maintain a positive
sense of themselves, in conflict situations, they tend to develop an
inflated view of their own cooperativeness and their counterpart’s hostility.
This self-serving bias increases the likelihood of impasse in labor–
management disputes (Babcock, Loewenstein, Issacharoff, & Camerer,
1995), increases negative perceptions and evaluations of counterparts and
their conflict resolution behavior in intergroup conflicts (Mo’az, Ward,
Katz, & Ross, 2002), and reduces the quality of settlements in interpersonal
negotiations (De Dreu, Nauta, & Van de Vliert, 1995; Thompson &
Loewenstein, 1992). Moreover, this general and quite fundamental human
tendency leads individuals to react with hostility and competitiveness to
any real or imagined threat to their positive self-view (Baumeister, 1998;
see also Pruitt, chapter 8, this volume). Because conflict inherently involves
a threat to the self-concept, increasing levels of hostility and competitiveness
in response to one’s counterpart are more likely than de-escalatory
and constructive conflict behaviors (e.g., De Dreu & Van Knippenberg,
2005; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004).
Social Identity Theory and Group-Level Value Conflict. The central assumption
underlying social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1978) is that while people
may think of themselves as independent individuals and define themselves