ADDING FUEL TO FIRE: WHEN LAY THIRD-PARTY CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES ESCALATE INTERGROUP CONFLICTS

Abstract

Although third-parties play an important role in conflicts as mediators and peacekeepers, research on intergroup conflicts have yet to examine how third-parties can influence the trajectory of a conflict between two competing groups. In two studies (N = 484), we examined third-party perception on how intervention strategies based on equality concerns (equal-punishment, equal-compensation) and non-involvement could help resolve a conflict instigated by the third-party’s ingroup (Study 1) and the actual effectiveness of these strategies when implemented (Study 2). While the equal-compensation strategy was believed to be the most de-escalating, it escalated the conflict more than third-party non-involvement. This highlights a concern for future interventions as strategies third-parties perceive as effective in resolving an intergroup conflict can produce outcomes that are inconsistent to their true intentions due to a discrepancy in perspectives.