Tackling the Great Debate

  • Peter T. Coleman
  • Robin R. Vallacher
  • Andrzej Nowak
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS, volume 11)


This chapter frames the ambitious agenda of Deutsch’s theory of psychological orientation and interdependence as a constructive response to the nature-nurture controversy in science and details it implications for situating our understanding of psychological phenomena within the context of a basic model of social relations. The theory’s utility is illustrated through its application to social conflict.


Social relations Orientations Conflict Power Interdependence 


  1. Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Hermann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1969). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, Chapter 1, pp. 1–80). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory-the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197–208.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulding, K. E. (1959). National images and international systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 120–131.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A., Vallacher, R., & Kugler, K. G. (Working paper). Getting down to basics: An integrative framework for conflict dynamics in social relations.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, P. T., & Kugler, K. G. (2010). Tracking adaptivity: Developing a measure to assess leader smart power in organizations. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Musallam, N., Mitchinson, A., & Chung, C. (2010). The view from above and below: The effects of power asymmetries and interdependence on conflict dynamics and outcomes. Negotiation and Conflict Management Journal, 3, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mitchinson, A., & Foster, C. (working paper). Navigating power and conflict at work: The effects of power asymmetries and Interdependence on conflict in organizations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, P. T., Mitchinson, A., & Kugler, K. G. (2010). Conflict, power and leadership: The value of adaptivity over the long-haul. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., Ross, L., & Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008). Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  12. Deising, P. (1962). Reason in society: Five types of decisions and their social conditions. Urbana; IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  13. Depret, E. F., & Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, & K. Marsh (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 176–202). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deutsch, M. (1982). Interdependence and psychological orientation. In V. Derlega & J. L. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 15–36). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Deutsch, M. (2007). Two important but neglected ideas for social psychology as they relate to social justice. Paper presented at the Conference on Social Justice, New York, NY, April 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Deutsch, M. (in press). A theory of cooperation and competition and beyond. In A. E. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Theory in social psychology.Google Scholar
  19. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 678–692). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Kelley, H. H. (1984). The theoretical description of interdependence by means of transitions lists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 956–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelley, H. H. (1991). Lewin, situations, and interdependence. Journal of Social Issues, 47, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley, H. H. (1997). The “stimulus field” for interpersonal phenomena: The source of language and thought about interpersonal events. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 140–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.  Google Scholar
  25. Kugler K. G., & Coleman, P. T. (2010). Independence, conflict and autonomy: An experimental study. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. Lewicki, R., Saunders D. M., & Minton, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). Individual differences. In Negotiation, (3rd ed., pp. 353–378). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  28. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Ed.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Mischel, W. (1981). Current issues and challenges in personality. In Ludy Benjamin Jr. (Ed.), The G. Stanley Hall lecture series (Vol. 1., pp. 85–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ross, E. A. (1908). Social psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Rouhana, N. N., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Perception of power, threat and conflict intensity in asymmetric intergroup conflict: Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.  Google Scholar
  35. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  36. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2007). Dynamical social psychology: Finding order in the flow of human experience. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 734–758). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (Eds.). (2002). The dynamical perspective in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (special issue).Google Scholar
  38. Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., DeBruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zartman, I. W., & Rubin, J. Z. (2002). Power and negotiation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter T. Coleman
    • 1
  • Robin R. Vallacher
    • 2
  • Andrzej Nowak
    • 3
    • 2
  1. 1.Teachers College, International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  3. 3.Warsaw UniversityWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations