THE COMPARATIVE UTILITY OF 3RD PARTY CONSULTATION AND MEDIATION WITHIN A COMPLEX SIMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT

Third party interventions designed to dc-escalate intergroup conflict can be differentiated by their underlying assumptions regarding conflict. Process-oriented approaches such as third-party consultation try to de-escalate conflict by taking a subjective emphasis and focusing on the basic relationship between parties, their attitudes, and their perceptions. Traditional third-party interventions, particularly mediation, try to de-escalate conflict by focusing more on the substantive issues in dispute. This study examines how mediation and consultation operate differently within an intergroup conflict simulation. The intergroup Conflict Simulation (Grant, Fisher, Hall, & Cochlea, 1990) creates a moderately intense resource and value conflict which involves two equal power groups negotiating for points in a dispute over land divisions. A consultation or a mediation intervention was introduced midway through intergroup negotiations. The results showed that the two interventions did not have a differential impact on settlement of land divisions. Consultation and mediation groups achieved similar point outcomes and were equally committed to and satisfied with the settlement. In contrast, the consultation intervention changed the relationship between the groups. In particular, the groups expressed more positive attitudes and perceptions about the other group and perceived the intergroup relationship as more positive and collaborative after intervention. The implications of these results for third party intervention in intergroup conflict are discussed.