Harinck and Ellemers (2014) classify interpersonal conflicts into two types: conflicts based on the distribution of interests (or resources) and conflicts based on differences in values. The former is essentially caused by disagreements over the distribution of scarce resources, such as time, space, money, and possessions, while the latter is often related to identity and personal stance. In terms of the underlying motives of the conflicting parties in constructing a situation, interpersonal conflict of interest involves the distribution of resources, with the root of the conflict lying in the satisfaction of each party's interest claims. In contrast, when an individual constructs a conflict situation based on differences with other people's values, the interpersonal conflict often involves the issue of right and wrong, and thus is more abstract and complex. Interest-based interpersonal conflicts can often be mitigated or resolved through negotiation, resource reallocation, and compromise. However, when interpersonal conflicts involve values, the differences at issue can easily be seen as non-negotiable and non-transactional: not only is it difficult to reach a consensus, but the conflict can easily lead to tensions and further escalation. Moreover, mediation strategies that are effective in conflicts of interest, such as give-and-take, compromise, or trade-offs, do not work in interpersonal value conflicts.
Based on a systematic review of previous studies, this paper will first clarify the specific manifestations of interpersonal values conflicts that make it difficult to reach a consensus by comparing them with interpersonal conflicts of interest. Then the relevant theoretical explanations and corresponding mediation strategies will be introduced, with a view to providing theoretical inspiration for both basic research and practical applications in this field.
Compared with interpersonal conflicts based on the distribution of benefits or resources, interpersonal conflicts arising from differences in values are more difficult to resolve. This difficulty is mainly manifested in the following two aspects. First, people in interpersonal value conflicts seem to be unwilling to take the initiative to solve the problem. This psychological and behavioral tendency is also reflected in the corresponding physiological indicators; specifically, in the face of interpersonal value conflicts, people will exhibit obvious signs of pressure or even perceive that they are under threat. Second, compared with conflicts of interest, individuals in value conflicts will experience more negative perceptions and emotions, and even display hostile behaviors towards their opponents, which increases the interpersonal distance between them. Thus, people are unwilling to solve the problem through contact and communication.
Currently, researchers mainly focus on two aspects - self-threat and the illusion of personal objectivity - to explain why it is difficult to reach consensus in interpersonal value conflicts. The former suggests that individuals may develop self-threat perceptions during value confrontations with others, the avoidance of which makes people reluctant to compromise and accept mediation on their originally held values. The latter suggests that the main reason why interpersonal value conflicts are so difficult to resolve is that individuals suffer from a cognitive bias of the illusion of personal objectivity. Specifically, individuals overestimate the rationality and correctness of their own views, perceiving opponents who disagree with them as uninformed, irrational, or biased, and subsequently are unwilling to compromise on or revise the values they hold.
Based on current research, self-affirmation and other-affirmation are the more common and proven mediation strategies for interpersonal values conflicts. Self-affirmation theory suggests that people are motivated to maintain self-integrity. Specifically, individuals believe that the self is positive overall and that they have the ability to control a socially adaptive image. Thus, when an aspect of the self-concept is threatened, individuals can restore their perceptions of self-integrity and sense of worth by utilizing a resource base that includes values. Relevant empirical research suggests that self-affirmation mitigates interpersonal values conflict through two main pathways. On one path, the source of an individual's sense of self-worth is broadened beyond the specific domain of self-threat through the process of self-affirmation. In other words, the perceived threat to the self-concept due to the values clash is “decoupled” from the current self-concept, and thus the negative impact of the perceived self-threat is diminished. On the other possible path of action, self-affirmation interventions can be effective in reducing adversarial bias and hostility during interpersonal value conflicts. Other-affirmation, or asking individuals in an interpersonal conflict to think about the positive qualities of their opponents (that are not directly related to the conflict), has been suggested as an alternative strategy for mitigating interpersonal values conflict. On one hand, other-affirmation can effectively weaken the ego threat posed by the adversary in the process of interpersonal values conflict. On the other hand, it can effectively enhance people's perception of common identity and thus improve conflict adjustment strategies.
As shown in the previous discussion, current research on the theoretical explanations of and mediation strategies for interpersonal values conflict comprise a single step forward and should be further explored. First, the theoretical explanation of interpersonal values conflict needs to be further verified and expanded. Second, the influencing factors and their effects in the process of interpersonal values conflict are also worthy of attention. Finally, the mediation strategies and related applications to interpersonal values conflict need to be further expanded.
