A major challenge for research and practicing psychologists is to better understand and help solve intergroup conflicts, including in non-Western societies. This study uses quantitative and qualitative methods to explore intergroup dynamics between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, as they attempt to reach a peace pact. The utterances of both parties, as found in the media, were text mined, then analyzed qualitatively through the application of Positioning Theory. Mathematical models successfully classified statements that belong to the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Principal components analyses show the Philippine government as highlighting the importance of a legislated final peace agreement that is faithful to the Philippine constitution, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as underscoring the establishment of a Bangsamoro state. Qualitative analysis complements the mathematically derived themes as results consistently show the two negotiating parties underlining different sentiments. The Philippine government positions itself as a pursuer of peace for the Filipinos, while the Moro rebel group positions itself as a champion of peace for the Bangsamoro. Findings demonstrate the illustrative power of mixed methods and the potency of Positioning Theory in explaining intergroup relations and intergroup dialogue. Public Significance StatementThe study shows that in Bangsamoro peace talks, the Philippine government aims for a legislated peace agreement that is faithful to the Philippine constitution, while the Moro Islamic Liberation Front pursues one that champions the cause of the Bangsamoro. Understanding how groups discursively advance their party's interest in a peace negotiation gives insights on their pattern of reasoning and positioning and points to how negotiations can be effectively moved forward.

T his research examined the role of humour in power-differentiated wage bargaining conversations. We collected transcripts of wage bargaining between the local labour union and management negotiators of a multinational beverage company operating in the Philippines. Through conversation analysis, we determined how both parties utilised humor to challenge or maintain power relations even as both labour and management worked towards a wage bargaining agreement. Findings show that humour was used to maintain intergroup harmony, subvert authority and control the negotiation. Our findings may be useful for labour organisations and multinational corporations that operate in Southeast Asian countries with historically tumultuous labour relations such as the Philippines. Studies have shown how humour can play a significant role in various social interactions, such as business meetings (RogersonRevell, 2007) Our research examines the role of humour in powerdifferentiated wage bargaining conversations between company management on one side and a labour union on the other. We start this article with a brief overview of the dynamics of power relations in negotiations and how humour is utilised by unequal parties in interactions. We then argue why the lens of conversation analysis is particularly useful in examining how humour emerges and shapes the dynamics of power-differentiated wage bargaining conversations. Negotiations and Power Relations

No abstract

No abstract

Using a social representations lens, we examined subjective meanings of land entitlements in Central Mindanao among Muslims and Christians. In Study 1, we collected survey data from 231 students from the University of Southern Mindanao in Central Mindanao, asking them: ‘If you were to tell the story of land ownership in Cotabato, what three topics would you want to include in your story?’ Results of our hierarchical evocation analysis show that Christians are concerned with direct conflicts or actual intergroup confrontations while Muslims emphasise land issues. Study 2 implemented Focauldian Discursive Analysis to evaluate two separate focused group discussions by Muslim and Christian village leaders on the question: ‘Who really owns the land in Cotabato, specifically here in Midsayap?’ Findings indicate that Christians hold on to a legal story while Muslims use the ancestral domain narrative to cohere subjective claims to the contested territory. We discuss our results in the light of the role of legalese in an asymmetric territorial conflict and more specifically, the Framework Agreement signed last October 2012 by both the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.