| The study examined the impact of unilateral conciliatory initiatives (UCIs) on ripeness when applied to two conflict frames. The UCIs were intended to benefit the Other and thus contribute to a high commitment to de-escalation (ripeness). Ripeness was measured by increased trust and empathy, and decreased escalatory behaviors (operationalized as aggression and autistic hostility), anger, win-lose/competitive orientation, and negative attributions.; The study utilized a separate-sample posttest, 2 x 3 factorial design. Subjects were placed into simulated, intractable resource- or identity-based conflicts. Groups then received either an offer of economic aid or apology.; It was hypothesized that economic aid would work better in a resource conflict, while apology would work better in an identity conflict. It was also predicted that economic aid would decrease ripeness in an identity conflict. Further, it was hypothesized that while both apology and economic aid would increase ripeness under certain conditions, apology would increase empathy while economic aid would not.; The postulate that each UCI would find a better fit in a particular conflict type was partially supported, with apology appearing to have a better fit in the identity conflict. However, economic aid did not find a better fit in the resource conflict, since apology worked equally as well in that case.; Of additional interest, the conflict frames differed in two resistance areas, the identity frame having less trust and more negative attributions than the resource. While this finding provides empirical evidence to differentiate identity and resource conflicts, it also suggests to practitioners that similar interventions may be successfully applied to both conflict types.; Finally, as predicted, apology increased empathy in both conditions. Surprisingly, however, an offer of economic aid produced empathy in the identity conflict, while not in the resource conflict.; Results offer support for increased emphasis on apology by negotiation and mediation practitioners. Findings also offer empirical evidence for the power of apology and resource sharing in de-escalation and conflict resolution, allowing for more appropriate use in a GRIT strategy. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed. |
