Lesson number one: "Empathize with your enemy."

Blight, James G.; Lang, Janet M.

doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1004_6

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1There is a substantial debate in the literature about the definition and terminology of perspective taking and empathy; for example, see Blight and Lang (2004) or Deutsch and Madle (1975).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict.

Gutenbrunner

Wagner

2016

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although conflict mediation is implemented in many societal fields by now, it is still uncertain as to which mediation techniques are effective and which are not. Although there is some research concerned with interpersonal conflicts, hardly anything is known about mediation in intergroup conflicts. This study addresses this lack of knowledge. We conducted an experiment on the mediation of an intergroup conflict (N ϭ 103 mediations) in which we evaluated the effectiveness of the combined perspective-taking techniques Controlled Dialogue and Role Reversal. The results confirmed the hypothesis that perspective-taking techniques increase interpersonal liking between group representatives. In accordance with the theory, the effect was statistically mediated by interpersonal empathy and the feeling to be heard. However, there was no effect on intergroup empathy and attitudes. Possible explanations for the missing effects on intergroup relations, as well as the theoretical and practical implications of the study, are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict.

Gutenbrunner

Wagner

2016

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many have traced the peaceful resolution of the ultimate crisis—the Cuban Missile Crisis—to the fact that Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to see the situation from the other’s point of view and reach a solution that would be mutually acceptable (see especially Blight and Lang 2004; and McNamara 2003). Kennedy adviser Tommy Thompson, who had become friends with Khrushchev and his wife, raised during the deliberations the issue of Khrushchev’s domestic political position.…”

Section: Poliheuristic Theory and Strategic Interaction: A Dyadic Nonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathy and Strategic Interaction in Crises: A Poliheuristic Perspective

Keller

Yang

2009

Foreign Policy Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence supports the poliheuristic (PH) theory of decision making, which states that leaders typically employ a two-stage noncompensatory decision-making process. In stage one leaders reject options that do not meet some minimum criteria of acceptability on one or more dimensions, and in stage two they choose among the remaining options using a more rational utility-maximizing rule. While PH theory has primarily been applied at the monadic level, to explain the process and content of states' decisions, we contend it has important implications for strategic interaction and can help to explain outcomes in world politics. Specifically, we argue that a crucial variable shaping crisis outcomes is the degree to which leaders' non compensatory decision criteria in stage one include options' acceptability to the opponent. When leaders empathize with their opponent and screen out those options the opponent considers unacceptable, crises will be resolved more quickly and with a lower likelihood of escalation. Empathy introduced during the second, utility-maximizing stage, may also dampen conflict but is less effective than stage one empathy. We illustrate this dyadic non compensatory model by examining two cases involving the U.S.-China and U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationships.

show abstract

“…Antagonists each must be able to understand the perspective of the other party—not agree or sympathize with the other but merely understand why they think and react the way they do. Robert S. McNamara considers realistic empathy “Lesson Number One” from his experience as U.S. Secretary of Defense in the 1960s (Blight & Lang, 2004). To build peaceful relations, it is necessary for people to respond in ways appropriate to meeting each other's needs, as proposed by the dual‐concern model of conflict (Pruitt & Kim, 2004).…”

Section: Responding To Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrorism: A Peace Psychological Analysis

Wagner

2006

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peace psychologists emphasize the importance of recognizing both direct and structural bases of peace and conflict. In the peace psychological analysis of terrorism presented here, I attempt to further our understanding of the bases of terrorism in the context of how inequities in political, economic, and social structures may feed into or exacerbate terrorism. I analyze the effectiveness of responses to terrorism in terms of the tripartite peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding model of nonviolent response to violence.Prior to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, peace psychologists interested in international themes of peace, conflict, and violence focused primarily on conflicts outside the borders of the United States. The principal arenas that caught their attention were Palestine and Israel, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia, Northern Ireland, Angola, South Africa, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan.The 9/11 attack, however, pushed international terrorism to the fore (Wagner, 2002). U.S. psychologists began to focus on the causes and effects of terrorism, from both practical and scholarly perspectives. Psychology's initial concern was, understandably, with treating the psychological aftermath of 9/11: the mental health of injured survivors, families of victims, people living close to the sites of the attacks, as well as the fire and police personnel and emergency relief workers who responded to the catastrophe. Reports indicate that in this realm, psychologists provided invaluable assistance to those affected by the attacks (see, for example, articles in the November 2001 issue of the American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology, which describe a range of psychologists' services).Some peace psychologists were among those who provided services to direct and indirect victims. Some others, however, have found themselves in a professional quandary, actively questioning how best to respond to terrorist attacks. Peace

show abstract

Lesson number one: "Empathize with your enemy."

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict.

Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict.

Empathy and Strategic Interaction in Crises: A Poliheuristic Perspective

Terrorism: A Peace Psychological Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About