DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 2

Abstract

The process of determining an individual’s interests during a conflict is critical to the
process of negotiation and conflict resolution. The mediator understands other underlying factors
that may not be outright causes of the conflict but that could directly impact the success of the
process of resolving the conflict. This paper explores three main factors: gender, culture, and
power or position and how they influence an individual’s interests and, consequently, behavior
during conflicts.
Keywords: conflict, gender, resolution, negotiation, culture, power

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 3

Determining interests through observable behavior

Conflicts are inevitable elements of a close relationship. Conflicts can be productive or
unproductive, negative or positive. There are different factors that affect behavior during a
conflict. Also, the interests of the involved parties are affected by certain factors that influence
how they react or conduct themselves during the conflict. This case study explores factors that
pinpoint the highest probability of assessing one’s interests, theoretical models that explain these
factors, their explanatory power as well as different ways in which the theories are limited.
One of the key factors that pinpoint the highest probability of assessing a party’s interests
during a conflict is gender. Gender tends to influence one’s interests during a conflict. Studies
show that women tend to prioritize relationships during conflicts (Birchall, 2019). During
conflicts, women are more likely to engage in collaborative behavior while their male
counterparts are more likely to be avoidant. While women tend to be more inclined towards
peace, men show a high propensity for violence. The view then implies that if women are better
at negotiations and making peace, then their leadership during and post-conflicts is
indispensable. Their involvement is required during reconciliations.
In conflict resolution theory, Kolb states that there are two divergent models: valuing
difference model and the deficit model. Kolb holds that the deficit model is inclined more on
what women lack and what men have (Kolb & Coolidge, 1991). The valuing difference model,
on the other hand, points out the possibility of insights that women may have but which may not
have been noticed. Both models tend to essentialize women, and they stereotype female and male
character traits. They point to the fact that if these traits exist, they are not equal. However,
gender identities cannot be viewed as fixed categories. Instead, they are categories that tend to

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 4
shift over time as one goes through the interactive processes involved either in conflict resolution
or the process of negotiation (Brahnam et al., 2005). The theory holds that women are more
accommodating and less competitive in the event of conflicts. Men, on the other hand, are more
dominating and less cooperative in similar circumstances.
The theory has certain limitations. First, during conflict resolution and processes of
negotiation, there is a higher likelihood of placing more emphasis on feminine values. Secondly,
the theory conflates the role of gender with biological sex, and this causes inconsistencies in how
gender affects interests and behavior during conflict (Brahnam et al., 2005). One may be
interested in being more dominating in a conflict and behave like so by being less cooperative
and less accommodating, and this may not have anything to do with their gender. Also, the
theory assumes the fact that some people tend to be gender-typical while others are androgynous.
Individuals during conflict who are more androgynous are more inclined to using more
collaborative and constructive strategies. These individuals do not necessarily adhere to gender
expectations, and thus their gender does not affect their interests during conflicts.
A second factor is a culture which is an integral part of society. It affects how people
interact, behave, and even react during conflicts. People whose culture is individualistic tend to
view conflict as a natural part of human interaction (Cai & Fink, 2002). They tend to view
disputes as unavoidable when people with different interests interact. The cultural factor affects
their behavior during conflicts. They are confrontational and will most likely be high
communicators. They will not avoid the confit but will face it and seek to be heard. They will
have a preference for professional mediators. They will be interested in seeking help from a
qualified third party. Their communication will be open and directed towards addressing and
resolving the issue.

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 5
According to the rational choice theory, individuals in a conflict know what they want,
will order or act according to fulfil the wants and will choose the best means possible to arrive at
their wants (LeFebvre & Franke, 2013). This theory explains how different people will behave in
a conflict depending on the culture. It assumes that a person, whether from an individualistic or
collectivist culture, will know what they want, will order their wants and will make the best
decision to reach the end that they desire. For example, from an individualistic perspective,
seeking the help of a professional mediator will reach the desired end. On the other hand, from a
collectivist perspective, low communication and an avoidant stand will help them reach the
desired end. One of the limitations of this theory is that people have perfect ability and
information to calculate the risks and costs associated with making a decision in a conflict
(LeFebvre & Franke, 2013). However, whether from an individualistic or collectivistic culture,
most times, people lack the necessary information to make decisions to lead to desired ends.
An individual’s power or position is another factor that can influence their interests
during the conflict. Power is the means and capacities that a person has at their disposal. Power
may present itself in terms of personal influence, time, budgetary discretion, dependence on
others and staff size (Anicich et al., 2016). When assessing a person’s interests in a conflict, it is
important to look at power because it is likely to influence behavior. For instance, a person may
be interested in taking the upper hand in the direction of conflict resolution because they feel that
they are in a position of power (Anicich et al., 2016). People may respond differently to a similar
situation because they are in different positions of power. For instance, a low-ranking official
may be more accommodating and more cooperative in a conflict because they are interested in
keeping their job. On the other hand, a different person in a higher position may be interested in
dominating and exerting authority and thus take a dominating position. They will want to have

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 6
their way in a conflict because their interest is to dominate the other party.
The conflict theory holds that various groups in a community are in a constant power
struggle. They are continuously competing for resources that are limited, including power, and
this leads to a situation where those in positions of power dominate those whose positions render
them powerless (Moshiri, 2019). The conflict theory holds that humans in power act as
oppressors, and their positions of power affect their behavior during conflicts. They tend to
oppress the other party because their interest is to remain in power and ensure that their positions
are not threatened either by the conflict or the individual with whom they are disagreeing. Thus,
according to this theory, people in power always take the upper hand in a conflict because they
use their positions to influence the outcome (Moshiri, 2019). However, the theory does not
explain a scenario where both individuals occupy the same power positions and how their
positions would affect their behavior and interests in a conflict.
Overall, the three factors hold explanatory power: they each explain how a person’s
interests would affect their behavior during conflicts. The explain why certain people would
behave during conflicts and the underlying issues or factors that would influence their behavior.
For instance, a person may be domineering because they feel that a man should behave in such a
manner during a conflict. On the other hand, a woman may be more accommodating because
they are more interested in maintaining peace hence want to put an end to the conflict. Factors
such as power positions and culture also influence people’s interests during conflicts. This
explains why negotiation processes should be conducted by people who are open-minded and
who are interested in understanding other factors not apparent during the conflict and their
likelihood of influencing the interests and behaviors of the involved parties.

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 7

Observable behaviors

Factor: Gender

1. Less talkative
2. More talkative
3. Interrupting another party as they are talking
   4.
   Factor: Culture
4. Confrontational
5. Violent
6. Less talkative
7. Using polite language
   Factor: Power/position
8. Using threatening language
9. Not talking, especially if they are in a low position of power
10. Talking more to try and sway the outcome to their favor
11. Withholding information for fear of being victimized.

DETERMINING INTERESTS THROUGH OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR 8

References

Anicich, E. M., Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). When the bases of social
hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization
Science, 27(1), 123-140.
Birchall, J. (2019). Gender as a causal factor in conflict.
Brahnam, S. D., Margavio, T. M., Hignite, M. A., Barrier, T. B., & Chin, J. M. (2005). A
gender‐based categorization for conflict resolution. Journal of management
development.
Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and
collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 67-87.
Kolb, D., & Coolidge, G. (1991). Her Place at the Table: A Consideration of Gender Issues in
Negotiation‖ in Negotiation Theory and Practice, edited by W. Breslin and J. Rubin.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Program on Negotiation.
LeFebvre, R., & Franke, V. (2013). Culture matters: Individualism vs. collectivism in conflict
decision-making. Societies, 3(1), 128-146.
Moshiri, F. (2019). Revolutionary conflict theory in an evolutionary perspective. In Revolutions
of the Late Twentieth Century (pp. 4-36). Routledge.