Escape: How Conflicts Can Be Transformed

  • Robin R. Vallacher
  • Peter T. Coleman
  • Andrzej Nowak
  • Lan Bui-Wrzosinska
  • Larry Liebovitch
  • Katharina G. Kugler
  • Andrea Bartoli
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)


Kurt Lewin (1948) famously observed, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.” This simple statement captures a truism regarding the interplay of understanding, prediction, and control that characterizes every area of science. Predicting how a phenomenon will be manifest under different conditions, let alone controlling the process, is intimately linked to a coherent and generalized understanding of the phenomenon at issue. Humans, after all, did not land on the moon or send satellites to other planets by focusing on how to do these things. Space exploration would have remained a flight of fancy had it not been for several centuries of scientific concern with basic principles of physics and chemistry. This realization is relevant to the understandable concern people have for resolving the difficult and protracted conflicts that characterize interpersonal, inter-group, and international relations in today’s world. Practitioners are motivated to tackle such conflicts head-on, but their likelihood of success is ultimately constrained by the degree of scientific understanding concerning far more basic and mundane aspects of psychology.


Coherent State Latent Attractor Conflict Resolution Strategy Negative Attractor Destructive Conflict 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Axelrod, R., Riolo, R. L., & Cohen, M. D. (2002). Beyond geography: Cooperation with persistent links in the absence of clustered neighborhoods. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflict. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automaticity in social psychology. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169–183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, B., & Oliver, R. L. (1996). Affect in dyadic negotiation: A model and propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 175–187.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, D. S. (1996). Security, bargaining, and the end of interstate rivalry. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bercovitch, J. (2005). Mediation in the most resistant cases. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the nettle: Analyzing cases of intractable conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  7. Blalock, H. M. (1989). Power and conflict: Toward a general theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, J. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  9. Cacioppo, J. T., & Bernston, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the development of a meta-framework—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, P. T. (2006). Conflict, complexity, and change: A meta-framework for addressing protracted, intractable conflicts—III. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12, 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, P. T. (2011). The five percent: Finding solutions to seemingly impossible conflicts. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  13. Coleman, P. T. (2012). The Essence of Peace? Toward a comprehensive and parsimonious model of sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychological Contributions to Sustainable Peace. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2006). Protracted conflicts as dynamical systems. In A. K. Schneider & C. Honeyman (Eds.), The negotiator’s fieldbook: The desk reference for the experienced negotiator (pp. 61–74). Chicago: American Bar Association Books.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, P. T., Fisher-Yoshida, B., Stover, M., Hacking, A., & Bartoli, A. (2008). Reconstructing ripeness II: Models and methods for fostering constructive stakeholder engagement across protracted divides. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman, P. T., Goldman, J. S., & Kugler, K. (2009). Emotional intractability: Gender, anger, aggression and rumination in conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Bartoli, A., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2011). Navigating the landscape of conflict: Applications of dynamical systems theory to addressing protracted conflict. In D. Korppen, N. Ropers, & H. J. Giessmann (Eds.), The non-linearity of peace processes: Theory and practice of systemic conflict transformation (pp. 39–56). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deihl, P., & Goertz, G. (2001). War and Peace in International Rivalry: How do enduring rivalries between states affect international relations? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  20. Klein, J., Goertz, G., & Diehl, P. F. (2006). The new rivalry data set: Procedures and patterns. Journal of Peace Research, 43, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (2001). War and peace in international rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dorner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Why things go wrong and what we can do to make them right. New York, NY: Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Fisher, R. J., & Keashly, L. (1991). The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention. Journal of Peace Research, 28, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goertz, G., & Diehl, P. F. (1993). Enduring rivalries: Theoretical constructs and empirical patterns. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gottman, J., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage: Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holland, J. H. (1995). Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kriesberg, L. (2005). Nature, dynamics, and phases of intractability. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the nettle: Analyzing cases of intractable conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lewicki, R., Literer, A. J., Minton, J., & Saundars, D. M. (2004). Negotiation (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  36. Marshall, M. G., & Gurr, T. R. (2005). Peace and conflict. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management.Google Scholar
  37. McNulty, J. K., O’Mara, E. M., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Benevolent cognitions as a strategy of relationship maintenance: “Don’t sweat the small stuff”…but it is not all small stuff. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 631–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nan, S. A., Mampilly, Z. C., & Bartoli, A. (Eds.). (2012). Peacemaking: From practice to theory (Vol. 2). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  40. Nowak, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Bartkowski, W., & Jochemczyk, L. (2010). Seeking sustainable solutions: Using an attractor simulation platform for teaching multi-stakeholder negotiation in complex cases. Negotiation Journal, 26, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nowak, A., & Lewenstein, M. (1994). Dynamical systems: A tool for social psychology? In R. R. Vallacher & A. Nowak (Eds.), Dynamical systems in social psychology (pp. 17–53). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1998). Dynamical social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Praszkier, R., Nowak, A., & Coleman, P. T. (2010). Social entrepreneurs and constructive change: The wisdom of circumventing conflict. Peace and Conflict, 16, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruelle, D. (1989). Elements of differentiable dynamics and bifurcation theory. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Sandole, D. J. D. (1999). Capturing the complexity of conflict: Dealing with violent ethnic conflicts in the post-cold War Era. New York, NY: Pinter.Google Scholar
  47. Schuster, H. G. (1984). Deterministic chaos: An introduction. Weinheim, Germany: Physik-Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., & Park, N. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Staub, E. (2011). Overcoming evil genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Dynamical foundations of intractable conflict: Introduction to the special issue. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vallacher, R. R., & Selz, K. (1991). Who’s to blame? Action identification in allocating responsibility for alleged rape. Social Cognition, 9, 194–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Action identification theory. In P. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 327–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Von Bertalannfy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York, NY: Braziller.Google Scholar
  56. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., Macomber, G., Wood, R., & Arps, K. (1984). The emergence of action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Zartman, I. W., & Faure, G. O. (2005). Escalation and negotiation in international conflicts (1st ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin R. Vallacher
    • 1
  • Peter T. Coleman
    • 2
  • Andrzej Nowak
    • 3
  • Lan Bui-Wrzosinska
    • 4
  • Larry Liebovitch
    • 5
  • Katharina G. Kugler
    • 6
  • Andrea Bartoli
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.International Center for Complexity and ConflictWarsaw School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Division of Mathematics and Natural SciencesCity University of New York Queens CollegeNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Economic and Organisational PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians-Universitaet MuenchenMunichGermany
  7. 7.School for Conflict Analysis and ResolutionGeorge Mason UniversityArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations