Sociocognitive Conflict Regulation: How to Make Sense of Diverging Ideas

Abstract

The concept of conflict has a lengthy history in psychological science, albeit with different interpretations. From early studies on intergroup conflict (Sherif, 1966) to more recent work on oppression (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), social psychology has traditionally focused on destructive conflicts (Sommet, Quiamzade, & Butera, 2017) based on competition between individuals and between groups. On the contrary, from Piaget's studies on the equilibration of cognitive structures (1975/1985) to work on conceptual change (Chi, 2008), cognitive psychology and the learning sciences have focused on constructive conflicts based on individual exposure to contradictory information (Limón, 2001). The present article presents the integrative framework of sociocognitive conflict stemming from research on sociocognitive development (Doise & Mugny, 1984) and social influence (Pérez & Mugny, 1996). This line of research has demonstrated that conflict can be either constructive or destructive depending on the way it is regulated (Butera, Darnon, & Mugny, 2011).

The Cognitive-Affective-Social Theory of Learning in digital Environments (CASTLE)

“…Piaget’s conception of cognitive conflict views information inconsistent with an individual’s cognitive structures as an initiator for assimilation and accommodation processes (Piaget 1977 ). However, when the information is assigned to a (digital) social entity, the perceived conflict may have a social as well as a cognitive component and thus be socio-cognitive in nature (Butera et al 2010 ), which may trigger various forms of conflict regulation (e.g., epistemic, competitive-relational, protective-relational; Butera et al 2019 ) and learning-relevant processes according to the CASTLE. The conflict elaboration theory proposed by Mugny and colleagues (Mugny et al 1995 ) aims at integrating research on social influence from various traditions focusing on conflicts emerging during an interaction.…”

Studying Alignment in a Collaborative Learning Activity via Automatic Methods: The Link Between What We Say and Do

“…1). However, work on collaborative learning suggests that individual cognitive development (in our case, positive learning outcomes) happens via socio-cognitive conflict (Mugny and Doise, 1978;Doise and Mugny, 1984), and its regulation (Butera et al, 2019). In our task, this means a verbalised instruction could be followed by a corresponding or a different action; as a different action could result in collaboratively resolving conflicts and together building a solution -resulting in task success.…”

Can street-level bureaucrats be nudged to increase effectiveness in welfare policy?

“…System 2 nudges are therefore at an intermediate position in the space that John and colleagues (2011) identified between nudge (in their view, system 1 nudging) and think, the fully controlled deliberative process during which people reflect upon the reasons for and the meaning of their choices. In other words, a system 2 nudge is a 'thought provoking' nudge (John, 2018: 129) that creates some level of cognitive conflict (Butera et al, 2019), requires individuals to decentre from their usual or preferred way of thinking (Butera and Buchs, 2005), and leads individuals to attend to the relevant knowledge involved in the task at hand (Butera et al, 2018). A nudge that creates a life-course mindset is therefore a nudge, in that it attracts the targets' attention to a specific aspect of their environment, but it is a system 2 nudge, to the extent that a mindset requires some level of reasoning (Dweck, 2017).…”