Publikationsserver der Universitätsbibliothek Marburg

Titel:Mediation in Intergroup Conflict: The Role of Empathy Between Conflict Parties
Autor:Gutenbrunner, Lisa
Weitere Beteiligte: Wagner, Ulrich (Prof. Dr.)
Veröffentlicht:2016
URI:https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2017/0114
URN: urn:nbn:de:hebis:04-z2017-01148
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/z2017.0114
DDC: Psychologie
Titel(trans.):Mediation in Intergruppenkonflikten: Die Rolle von Empathie zwischen den Konfliktparteien
Publikationsdatum:2017-03-15
Lizenz:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Dokument

Schlagwörter:
mediation, Konflikt, Mediation, evaluation, Evaluation, Inter-Gruppenbeziehung, social psychology, intergroup relations, conflict, Sozialpsychologie

Summary:
Conflict mediation is a structured intervention by an impartial mediator, which aims at the conflict resolution by facilitating communication between two or more conflict parties (e.g., Kressel, 2006; Moore, 2003). Impartiality of the mediator means that she or he is not involved and does not take sides in the conflict. The general aim of mediation usually encompasses a mutually satisfactory solution of the conflict, an improvement (or satisfactory termination) of the relation of conflict parties, and an empowering and satisfactory mediation process (e.g., Bush & Folger, 2004; Herrman, 2006; Wall & Dunne, 2012). Mediation is applied in various fields of intergroup conflict. The fields of labor conflict, environmental conflict, or international conflict are among the most prominent ones (e.g., Bercovitch & Fretter, 2007; Bingham et al., 2002; DeRouen et al., 2011; Hiltrop, 1989; LaPlant Turkiewicz & Allen, 2014). With three experiments in three different contexts, we confirmed the hypothesis that mediation increases positive attitudes between groups in conflict. While most of the prior research on mediation effectiveness lacked either internal or external validity, we evaluated mediation with strong concerns for both. Applying experimental designs under controlled conditions supported the internal validity of our results. Having professional mediators conduct semi-structured mediations in real conflicts supported the external validity of our results (cf. Shadish et al., 2002). By applying other success measures than the common agreement rate, we furthermore increased the construct validity (cf. McGillis, 1997). While in our studies the agreement rate did not differentiate between experimental and control condition, we could detect differences in intergroup relations. Finally, by conducting structural equation modeling, we increased the reliability of our results (cf. Brown, 2006). With the three studies, we used an experimental causal chain design (cf. Spencer et al., 2005), which applies the most rigorous test for causality – the experimental design (cf. Shadish et al., 2002) – in the test of statistical mediation hypotheses. Therewith, we provided strong evidence for the psychological process we assumed: Mediation increases mutual empathy between conflict parties and therewith supports more positive intergroup attitudes and liking. With our third study, we furthermore suggested that not only empathy for the other, but also feeling heard by her or him supports conflict resolution. This finding added to the severely understudied field of perspective giving (cf. Goldstein et al., 2014). Generally, our results shed valuable first light on the psychological processes of effective mediation in intergroup conflict (cf., Pruitt, 2011; Wall et al., 2001). Our research points toward several directions how to further investigate mediation in intergroup conflict: We discussed various possibilities to evaluate mediation with internally valid designs without losing concern for the external validity of results. Moreover, we strongly recommend extending our research by for instance investigating the effects of specific mediation styles or comparing the psychological processes and needs for minority and majority groups in mediation. Considering the divide of researchers investigating mediation in the field and in the laboratory, as well as the divide of mediation research and practice, we hope for a more cooperative and dialogical, shortly, a more mediation-like, approach to mediation in the future. Experience has shows that both sides can learn from each other and that cooperation is a profitable endeavor for all involved.

Zusammenfassung:
Mediation wird in vielen Gesellschaftsbereichen angewandt, um Konflikte zwischen Einzelpersonen oder Gruppen zu bearbeiten (z.B. Bastine & Wetzel, 2000; Bercovitch & Fretter, 2007; Bingham et al., 2002; Burrell, Grimes, & Allen, 2014; DeRouen et al., 2011; Hiltrop, 1989; LaPlant Turkiewicz & Allen, 2014). Mediation ist ein strukturiertes Verfahren der Konfliktbehandlung, das durch vermittelnde Tätigkeit einer oder mehrerer allparteilicher Drittparteien, den Mediatorinnen oder Mediatoren, eine gütliche Konfliktlösung anstrebt (z.B. Ballreich & Glasl, 2011; Mattenschlager & Meder, 2004). Insbesondere im Bereich der Intergruppenkonflikte (d.h. der wahrgenommenen Konkurrenz zwischen Gruppen, Tajfel & Turner, 1979) stehen überzeugende Nachweise zur Effektivität von Mediation jedoch noch aus (z.B. Pruitt, 2011). Mediation wurde sowohl im Rahmen von Feldforschung als auch im Rahmen von Laborexperimenten evaluiert (z.B., Esser & Marriott, 1995). Die Ergebnisse der Mediationsevaluation im Feld sind in aller Regel hoch extern valide. Die interne Validität ihrer Befunde ist jedoch häufig fraglich: Da größtenteils keine Kontrollgruppen-Designs verwendet werden, kann eine Konfliktlösung nicht kausal auf den Einsatz von Mediation zurückgeführt werden (z.B. Wall & Dunne, 2012). Die Ergebnisse der Laborexperimente hingegen sind überwiegend hoch intern valide, jedoch wurden diese für ihre mangelnde externe Validität kritisiert. In Laborexperimenten werden für gewöhnlich Konflikte simuliert und hoch standardisierte, vereinfachte Mediationsverfahren von Laien durchgeführt. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, ob sich die Ergebnisse auf eine professionelle Mediationspraxis übertragen lassen (z.B. Esser & Marriott, 1995; Ruble & Cosier, 1982). Insgesamt ist in der Forschung die Verein¬barungs¬rate (agreement rate, d.h. der Anteil der Mediationsfälle, der mit einer Vereinbarung endet) am weitesten verbreitet, um Mediationserfolg zu operationalisieren (z.B. Herrman, 2006). Da jedoch auch Mediationen ohne Vereinbarung wertvolle Prozesse zwischen den Konfliktparteien anstoßen können, wurde eine Verbesserung ihrer Beziehung als alternatives Erfolgskriterium vorgeschlagen (z.B. Bush & Folger, 2004; Hedeen, 2004; McGillis, 1997). Des Weiteren schränkt eine häufig mangelnde Reliabilität der eingesetzten Messinstrumente in Feld- und Laborstudien die Güte von Evaluations¬ergeb¬nissen ein. Mit der vorliegenden Arbeit möchten wir einen Beitrag leisten, die oben ange¬deuteten Forschungslücken zu bearbeiten. Im Rahmen dreier Experimente bestätigten wir die Hypothese, dass Mediation die positiven Intergruppeneinstellungen im Konflikt fördert. Dieser Effekt wurde über ein erhöhtes Maß an Empathie zwischen den Konfliktparteien vermittelt. Es ließ sich zeigen, dass der Einsatz einer Mediatorin oder eines Mediators dabei eine entscheidende Rolle spielte. Die Anwendung von Perspektivübernahmetechniken hatte darüber hinaus eine positive Wirkung auf die Einstellung und Empathie zwischen den Mitgliedern von Gruppen im Konflikt. Das experimentelle Design der drei Studien erlaubt hoch intern valide Rückschlüsse auf die Effektivität von Mediation in Intergruppenkonflikten (vgl. Shadish et al., 2002). Die Durch¬führung der Mediation durch eine professionelle Mediatorin oder einen professionellen Mediator in (teilweise) realen Konflikten erhöhte darüber hinaus die externe Validität der Ergebnisse. Schließlich wurden die Ergebnisse aller Studien mit Hilfe von Struktur¬gleichungs¬modellen ausgewertet, was eine reliable Testung der Effekte ermöglichte (vgl. Brown, 2006). Angesichts dieser Befundlage können wir Praktikerinnen und Praktiker dazu ermutigen, Mediation in Intergruppenkonflikten durchzuführen, um die Intergruppen¬beziehung zu verbessern. Dabei ist es empfehlenswert, Perspektiv¬übernahme¬techniken durch¬zuführen, um die wechselseitige Empathie zu unterstützen und positivere Intergruppeneinstellungen zu fördern. Im Kontext von Inter-gruppen¬konflikten mit asymmetrischen Machtverhältnissen zwischen den Gruppen erscheint es jedoch lohnenswert, in zukünftigen Studien den ersten Hinweisen nach¬zugehen, dass die Relevanz von Empathie und dem Gefühl, gehört zu werden, für Minoritäten und Majoritäten unterschiedlich ist (vgl. Bruneau & Saxe, 2012). Insgesamt könnte es sich darüber hinaus lohnen, weitere psychologische Prozesse erfolgreicher Konflikt¬mediation zu untersuchen. Beispielsweise weisen einige Autorinnen und Autoren auf die Bedeutung der Zunahme von Vertrauen zwischen den Konfliktparteien hin, um Inter¬gruppenkonflikte zu lösen (z.B. Kelman, 2005; Kramer & Carnevale, 2003).

Bibliographie / References

  1. Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016, July 11). Europeans fear wave of refugees will mean more terrorism, fewer jobs: Sharp ideological divides across EU on views about minorities, diversity and national identity. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/07/Pew-Research-CenterEU-Refugees-and-National-Identity-Report-FINAL-July-11-2016.pdf
  2. Pely, D. (2011). Where East not always meets West: Comparing the Sulha process to Western-style mediation and arbitration. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(4), 427-440. doi:10.1002/crq.20028
  3. Alexander, N. (2008). The mediation metamodel: Understanding practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(1), 97-123. doi:10.1002/crq.225
  4. Wing, L. (2009). Mediation and inequality reconsidered: Bringing the discussion to the table. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), 383-404. doi:10.1002/crq.240
  5. Bronson, S. (2000). Improving mediator competence through self-assessment. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 18(2), 171-179. doi:10.1002/crq.3890180206
  6. Love, L. P., & Stulberg, J. B. (1996). Practice guidelines for co-mediation: Making certain that “two heads are better than one”. Mediation Quarterly, 13(3), 179-189. doi:10.1002/crq.3900130304
  7. Hedeen, T. (2004). The evolution and evaluation of community mediation: Limited research suggests unlimited progress. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1-2), 101-133. doi:10.1002/crq.94
  8. Bingham, L. B. (2004). Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1-2), 145-174. doi:10.1002/crq.96
  9. Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1-2), 191-220. doi:10.1002/crq.98
  10. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
  11. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
  12. Salmon, E. D., Gelfand, M. J., Çelik, A. B., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Inman, M. (2013). Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness of mediator styles in intercultural disputes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 887-909. doi:10.1002/job.1870
  13. Morgan, P. M., & Tindale, R. (2002). Group vs individual performance in mixed-motive situations: Exploring an inconsistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 44-65. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2952
  14. Amy, D. J. (1983). Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sciences, 15(4), 345-365. doi:10.1007/BF00146007
  15. Druckman, D., Druckman, J. N., & Arai, T. (2004). e-Mediation: Evaluating the impacts of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(6), 481-511. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-2125-2
  16. Johnson, D. F., & Tullar, W. L. (1972). Style of third party intervention, face-saving and bargaining behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(4), 319-330. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(72)90022-4
  17. Moran, S., & Ritov, I. (2007). Experience in integrative negotiations: What needs to be learned? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 77-90. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.003
  18. Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of 'perspective-giving' in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855-866. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
  19. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558-577. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
  20. Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(1), 18-29. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.18
  21. Hiltrop, J. M., & Rubin, J. Z. (1982). Effects of intervention mode and conflict of interest on dispute resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 665-672. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.665
  22. Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Brodt, S. E. (1996). Team negotiation: An examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 66-78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.66
  23. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., … Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105-118. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105
  24. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495-509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.495
  25. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspectivetaking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657- 669. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
  26. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845-851. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
  27. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116-132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
  28. Trötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D. D., Schwartz, K., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 771-790. doi:10.1037/a0023801
  29. Goldstein, N. J., Vezich, I. S., & Shapiro, J. R. (2014). Perceived perspective taking: When others walk in our shoes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 941- 960. doi:10.1037/a0036395
  30. Johnson, D. W. (1967). Use of role reversal in intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2, Pt.1), 135-141. doi:10.1037/h0025001
  31. Vidmar, N. (1971). Effects of representational roles and mediators on negotiation effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 48-58. doi:10.1037/h0030464
  32. Fisher, R. J., Grant, P. R., Hall, D. G., Keashly, L., & Kinzel, R. (1990). The development and testing of a strategic simulation of intergroup conflict. The Journal of Psychology, 124(2), 223-240. doi:10.1080/00223980.1990.10543219
  33. Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615-631. doi:10.1080/08838150701626487
  34. Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socioemotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 93-125. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
  35. Kelman, H. C. (2008). Evaluating the contributions of interactive problem solving to the resolution of ethnonational conflicts. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 14(1), 29-60. doi:10.1080/10781910701839767
  36. Kelman, H. C. (2010). Interactive problem solving: Changing political culture in the pursuit of conflict resolution. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(4), 389-413. doi:10.1080/10781919.2010.518124
  37. Galin, A. (2014). What makes court-referred mediation effective? International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(1), 21-37. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-09-2012-0071
  38. Cross, S., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 561-580. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00133
  39. Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29(3), 351-367. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00634.x
  40. Teahan, J. E. (1975). Role playing and group experience to facilitate attitude and value changes among black and white police officers. Journal of Social Issues, 31(1), 35-45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00738.x
  41. Esser, J. K., & Marriott, R. G. (1995). Mediation tactics: A comparison of field and laboratory research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(17), 1530-1546. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02631.x
  42. Goldberg, S. B. (1989). Grievance mediation. Negotiation Journal, 5(1), 9-15. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1989.tb00490.x
  43. Goldberg, S. B. (2005). The secrets of successful mediators. Negotiation Journal, 21(3), 365-376. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2005.00069.x
  44. Goldberg, S. B., & Shaw, M. L. (2007). The secrets of successful (and unsuccessful) mediators continued: Studies two and three. Negotiation Journal, 23(4), 393-418. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00152.x
  45. McKersie, R., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2009). Labor-management relations: Understanding and practicing effective negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 499- 514. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00241.x
  46. Wall, J. A., Jr., & Dunne, T. C. (2012). Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal, 28(2), 217-244. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00336.x
  47. Rose, A. M. (1952). Needed research on the mediation of labor disputes. Personnel Psychology, 5(3), 187-200. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1952.tb01011.x
  48. Wall, J., & Kressel, K. (2012). Research on mediator style: A Summary and some research suggestions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), 403-421. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00117.x
  49. Pittinsky, T. L., & Montoya, R. M. (2016). Empathic joy in positive intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 72(3), 511523. doi:10.1111/josi.12179
  50. Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531-582. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002531
  51. Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190156
  52. Bercovitch, J., & Fretter, J. (2007). Studying international mediation: Developing data sets on mediation, looking for patterns, and searching for answers. International Negotiation, 12(2), 145-173. doi:10.1163/138234007X223267
  53. Shinar, D. (2000). Media diplomacy and 'Peace Talk': The Middle East and Northern Ireland. International Communication Gazette, 62(2), 83-97. doi:10.1177/0016549200062002001
  54. Keashly, L., Fisher, R. J., & Grant, P. R. (1993). The comparative utility of third party consultation and mediation within a complex simulation of intergroup conflict. Human Relations, 46(3), 371-393. doi:10.1177/001872679304600304
  55. Wall, J. A., Jr., Stark, J. B., & Standifer, R. L. (2001). Mediation: A current review and theory development. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 370-391. doi:10.1177/0022002701045003006
  56. Cohen, J. (1951). The technique of role-reversal: A preliminary note. Occupational Psychology, 25, 64-66. doi:10.1177/002200276801200305
  57. Bartunek, J. M., Benton, A. A., & Keys, C. B. (1975). Third party intervention and the bargaining behavior of group representatives. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(3), 532-557. doi:10.1177/002200277501900308
  58. Fisher, R. J. (1983). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup conflict resolution: A review of studies. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(2), 301-334. doi:10.1177/0022002783027002005
  59. DeRouen, K., Bercovitch, J., & Pospieszna, P. (2011). Introducing the Civil Wars Mediation (CWM) dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 48(5), 663-672. doi:10.1177/0022343311406157
  60. Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary's expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients' trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 459-470. doi:10.1177/0146167205276431
  61. Martinez, A. G., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2014). Can Perspective-Taking Reduce Crime? Examining a Pathway Through Empathic-Concern and Guilt-Proneness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1659-1667. doi:10.1177/0146167214554915
  62. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173-185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006
  63. Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149-153. doi:10.1177/0963721411408713
  64. Wolfsfeld, G. (1997). Promoting peace through the news media: Some initial lessons from the Oslo Peace Process. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(4), 52- 70. doi:10.1177/1081180X97002004005
  65. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109-124. doi:10.1177/1368430205051060
  66. Loschelder, D. D., & Trotschel, R. (2010). Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: Third-party intervention in intergroup negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 795-815. doi:10.1177/1368430210374482
  67. Drolet, A., Larrick, R., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Thinking of others: How perspective taking changes negotiators' aspirations and fairness perceptions as a function of negotiator relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 23-31. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2001_3
  68. Geis, A. (2001). Wirkungen des Frankfurter Mediationsverfahrens [Effects of the Frankfurt Mediation Procedure]. Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, 14(3), 115-119. doi:10.1515/fjsb-2001-0319
  69. Bingham, L. B., Kim, K., & Summers Raines, S. (2002). Exploring the role of representation in employment mediation at the USPS. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 17, 341-378. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1420228
  70. Muthén, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267. doi:10.2307/271070
  71. Johnson, D. W. (1971a). Effectiveness of role reversal: Actor or listener. Psychological Reports, 28(1), 275-282. doi:10.2466/pr0.1971.28.1.275
  72. Kaiser, P., & Gabler, M. (2014). Prozessqualität und Langzeiteffekte in der Mediation: Ergebnisse aus der Kieler Longitudinalstudie [Process quality and long-term effects of mediation: Evidence from the longitudinal study in Kiel]. ZKM - Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 17(6), 180-184. doi:10.9785/zkm-2014-0603
  73. Swart, H., Turner, R., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2011). Achieving forgiveness and trust in postconflict societies: The importance of self-disclosure and empathy. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction. Pathways to positive
  74. Mamdani, M. (2001). A diminished truth. In W. G. James & L. van de Vijver (Eds.), After the TRC. Reflections on truth and reconciliation in South Africa (pp. 56-60). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
  75. Ruble, T. L., & Cosier, R. A. (1982). A laboratory study of five conflict-handling modes. In G. B. J. Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Nijenrode studies in business. Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 158-171). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Pub.
  76. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.90.5.751
  77. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  78. Wagner, U. (2004). Ansätze und Ergebnisse von Projektevaluation: Einige Überlegungen zu Präventionsprogrammen gegen Fremdenfeindlichkeit [Approaches and results of project evaluation: Reflections on prevention programs against xenophobia]. Journal für Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung, 6(1), 8-18.
  79. Chataway, C. (2004). Assessing the social psychological support for Kelman's Interactive Problem-Solving Workshops. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, V. L. Hamilton, & H. C. Kelman (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict. Theory, application, and practice (1st ed., pp. 213-225). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  80. Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In B. P. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265-278). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  81. Bonacker, T., & Imbusch, P. (1999). Begriffe der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung: Konflikt, Gewalt, Krieg, Frieden [Concepts of peace and conflict studies: Conflict, violence, war, peace]. In P. Imbusch & R. Zoll (Eds.), Friedens- und Konfliktforschung: Eine Einführung mit Quellen [Peace and conflict studies: An introduction with sources] (Vol. 1). (2nd ed., pp. 73-107). Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich. doi:10.1007/978- 3-322-95171-7_2
  82. Posel, D., & Simpson, G. (Eds.). (2002). Commissioning the past: Understanding South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Johannesburg, South Africa: Witwatersrand University Press.
  83. Rogers, C. R. (1952). Communication: Its blocking and its facilitation. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 9(2), 83-88.
  84. McGillis, D. (1997). Community mediation programs: Developments and challenges. Darby, PA: Diane Pub. Co.
  85. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Methodology in the social sciences. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  86. Burton, J. W. (1969). Conflict and communication. London, UK: Macmillan.
  87. Kriesberg, L., & Dayton, B. W. (2012). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  88. Guffler, K. (2016). Contact interventions in intractable conflicts: Long-term attitude and behavior intension changes in Israel (doctoral thesis). Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
  89. Geiser, C. (2011). Datenanalyse mit Mplus [Data analysis with Mplus]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  90. Riskin, L. L. (2003). Decision-making in mediation: The new old grid and the new new grid system. Notre Dame Law Review, 79(1), 1-54.
  91. Maoz, I. (2010). Educating for peace through planned encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel: A reappraisal of effectiveness. In G. Salomon & E. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook on peace education (pp. 303-313). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  92. Halperin, E., Sharvit, K., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion and emotion regulation in intergroup conflict: An appraisal-based framework. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 83-103). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  93. Davis, L. (2014). EU Foreign Policy, transitional justice and mediation: Principle, policy and practice. London, UK: Routledge.
  94. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
  95. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2005). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Princeton, NJ: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.
  96. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  97. Rubin, J. Z. (1980). Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin, 87(2), 379-391. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.87.2.379
  98. Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  99. Hiltrop, J. M. (1989). Factors associated with successful labor mediation. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third-party intervention (pp. 241-262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  100. Delgado, R., Dunn, C., Brown, P., & Lee, H. (1985). Fairness and formality: Minimizing the risk of prejudice in alternative dispute resolution. Wisconsin Law Review, (6), 1359- 1404.
  101. Bastine, R., & Wetzel, A. (2000). Familienmediation: Empirische Untersuchungen und Modellprojekte in Deutschland und Österreich [Family mediation: Empirical research and model projects in Germany and Austria]. In F. Petermann & K. Pietsch (Eds.), Mediation als Kooperation [Mediation as cooperation] (pp. 52-103). Salzburg, Austria: O. Müller.
  102. Potsch-Ringeisen, S., & Schondelmayer, S. (2007). Forschungsfelder interkultureller Mediation: Kontrastive und interaktionsorientierte Studien [Research fields of intercultural mediation: Contrastive and interaction-oriented studies]. In M. Otten, A. Scheitza, & A. Cnyrim (Eds.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz im Wandel. Band 1: Grundlegungen, Konzepte und Diskurse [Intercultural competence in conversion. Volume 1: Basics, concepts and discourses] (pp. 283-299). .Frankfurt am Main, Germany: IKO - Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.
  103. Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  104. Salomon, G., & Cairns, E. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on peace education. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  105. Kelman, H. C. (2003). Informal mediation by the scholar/practicioner. In J. Bercovitch & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Mediation in international relations. Multiple approaches to conflict management (pp. 64-96). Basingstoke, GB: Macmillan.
  106. Kelman, H. C. (2005). Interactive problem solving in the Israeli-Palestinian Case. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving the way. Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  107. Sherif, M., Harvey, O., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Oklahoma, OK: Norman.
  108. Loschelder, D. D. (2013). Intergroup conflict and third-party intervention. Uelvesbüll, Germany: Der Andere Verlag.
  109. Paluck, E. L. (2012). Interventions aimed at the reduction of prejudice and conflict. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 179-192).Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
  110. Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Introduction: Conflicts and social psychology. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Frontiers of social psychology. Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 1-38). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  111. Halabi, R. (Ed.). (2004). Israeli and Palestinian identities in dialogue: The school for peace approach. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  112. Gesigora, C., & Heck, J. (2015, June). Etikettenschwindel? Organisationssoziologische Sicht auf Mediation unter Rekurs auf einen soziologischen Mediationsbegriff [False denominations? Organizational sociological view on mediation with recourse on a sociological mediation concept]. 10. Kolloquium der Forschungsgruppe Mediation, Hamburg, Germany.
  113. Busch, P.-O. (2000). Konfliktfall Flughafenerweiterung: Eine kritische Würdigung des Verfahrens „Mediation, eine Zukunftsregion im offenen Dialog" zum Flughafen Frankfurt/Main [The case of conflict of airport extension: A critical appraisal of the procedure “Mediation, a region of the future in open dialogue” for the airport Frankfurt/Main] (HSFK-Report No. 8). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peace Research Institute.
  114. Mattenschlager, A., & Meder, G. (2004). Mediation. In G. Sommer & A. Fuchs (Eds.), Krieg und Frieden. Handbuch der Konflikt- und Friedenspsychologie [War and peace. Handbook of peace and conflict psychology] (1st ed., pp. 494-507). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
  115. Folberg, J., & Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: A comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without litigation (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  116. Wissler, R. L. (1995). Mediation and adjudication in small claims court: The effects of process and case characteristics. Law and Society Review, 29, 323-358.
  117. Besemer, C. (2009). Mediation: Die Kunst der Vermittlung in Konflikten [The art of conflict mediation]. Karlsruhe, Germany: Gewaltfrei Leben Lernen.
  118. Herrman, M. S. (2006). Mediation from beginning to end: A testable model. In M. S. Herrman (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice (pp. 19-28). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  119. Ballreich, R., & Glasl, F. (2011). Mediation in Bewegung. [Mediation in movement] (2nd ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: Concadora-Verlag.
  120. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2013). Mediation: Psychologische Grundlagen und Perspektiven [Mediation: Psychological basics and perspectives] (3rd ed.). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
  121. Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 726- 756). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  122. Haynes, J. M., Mecke, A., Bastine, R., & Fong, L. S. (2012). Mediation - vom Konflikt zur Lösung [Mediation - from conflict to resolution] (2nd ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: KlettCotta.
  123. Raisch, J. (2016). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen Öffentlicher Mediation im sensiblen Konfliktbereich der AsylbewerberInnenunterkünfte [Opportunities and limits of public mediation in the sensible conflict area of shelters for asylum-seekers] (Unpublished bachelor's thesis).Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg, Germany.
  124. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  125. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2014). Mplus (Version 7.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  126. Pruitt, D. G. (2011). Negotiation and mediation in intergroup conflict. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 267- 289). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  127. Hames, D. (2012). Negotiation: Closing deals, settling disputes, and making team decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  128. Guffler, K., Thörner, S., Gutenbrunner, L., Pohl, S., & Wagner, U. (2016). On the benefits of using structural equation modeling for experimental data and evaluation studies. Manuscript in preparation.
  129. Rost, D. H., & Buch, S. R. (2010). Pädagogische Verhaltensmodifikation [Pedagogical behavior modification]. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch pädagogische Psychologie [Dictionary handbook pedagogical psychology] (4th ed., pp. 613-624). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
  130. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Ena Inesi, M., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2006.01824.x
  131. Andrews, P. E. (2004). Reparations for apartheid's victims: The path to reconciliation? The De Paul Law Review, 53(3), 1155-1180.
  132. Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2014). Research methods in psychology (10th edition.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.
  133. Johnson, D. W. (1971b). Role reversal: A summary and review of the research. International Journal of Group Tensions, 1(4), 318-334.
  134. Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  135. Kelman, H. C. (1998). Social-psychological contributions to peacemaking and peacebuilding in the Middle East. Applied Psychology, 47(1), 5-28. doi:10.1111/j.1464- 0597.1998.tb00010.x
  136. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  137. Christ, O., & Schlüter, E. (2010). Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit Mplus: Eine praktische Einführung [Structural equation models in Mplus: A practical introduction]. München, Germany: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
  138. Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (2002). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A metaanalysis. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 25-39.
  139. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, Associates.
  140. LaPlant Turkiewicz, K., & Allen, M. (2014). The effectiveness of environmental mediation: A meta-analytic approach. In N. Burrell, M. Allen, B. M. Gayle, & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 125-139). New York, NY: Routledge.
  141. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
  142. Deutsch, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  143. Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  144. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  145. Scutt, J. (1988). The privatisation of justice: Power differentials, inequality, and the palliative of counselling and mediation. Women's Studies International Forum, 11(5), 503-520.
  146. Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative model for conflict resolution (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  147. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. The Carl Hovland memorial lectures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  148. Box, G. E. P., Jenkins, G. M., Reinsel, G. C., & Ljung, G. M. (2015). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  149. Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 141-177. doi:10.1111/j.1751- 2409.2009.01013.x
  150. Burrell, N., Grimes, D., & Allen, M. (2014). Using meta-analysis to examine peer mediation: Outcomes and effectiveness in educational settings. In N. Burrell, M. Allen, B. M. Gayle, & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 167-180). New York, NY: Routledge.
  151. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2008.02096.x
  152. BAMF. (2016, November). Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl [Current asylum figures]. Retrieved from http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Downloads/Infothek/Statistik/Asyl/aktuel le-zahlen-zu-asyl-november-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
  153. Amaral, J. (2014). Mediating among the elites and the grassroots: A research design on differential community support for peace settlements in Cyprus and Northern Ireland (GPSG Working Paper No. 17). Retrieved from http://www.gpsg.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/Working_Paper_17.pdf
  154. Chronik flüchtlingsfeindlicher Vorfälle [Chronicles of anti-refugee incidents]. (2016, November 30). Retrieved from http://www.mut-gegen-rechtegewalt.de/service/chronik-vorfaelle?&&field_date_value[value]&page=1
  155. Deutscher Spendenrat e.V. (2016). Bilanz des Helfens 2016 [GfK CharityScope 2016]. Retrieved from http://www.spendenrat.de/spendeninfos/bilanz-des-helfens/studiebilanz-des-helfens-3/2016-2/
  156. Diehl, J. (2016, January 28). BKA zählt mehr als tausend Attacken auf Flüchtlingsheime [BKA counts more than a thousand attacks on refugee homes]. SPIEGEL Online. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de
  157. Ki-moon, B. (2016). Refugee crisis about solidarity, not just numbers, Secretary-General says at event on global displacement challenge. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sgsm17670.doc.htm
  158. UNHCR. (2016). Global trends forced displacement in 2015.Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/576408cd7/unhcr-global-trends-2015.html
  159. Büscher, W. (2016, September 6). Das Jahr, in dem Merkel die Deutschen verlor [The year that Merkel lost the Germans]. Die Welt. Retrieved from http://www.welt.de/politik/article157944714/Das-Jahr-in-dem-Merkel-die-Deutschenverlor.html
  160. PRO ASYL. (2016). 2015: Dramatischer Anstieg von Gewalt gegen Flüchtlinge [2015: Daramatic growth of violence against refugees]. Retrieved from https://www.proasyl.de/news/2015-dramatischer-anstieg-von-gewalt-gegenfluechtlinge/
  161. ARD-DeutschlandTrend. (2016). Skepsis in der Flüchtlingsfrage wächst [Skepticism grows concerning refugee question]. Retrieved from https://www.tagesschau.de


* Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten