Paul J. Taylor

TL;DR: This article examined the role of target and judge interaction demands on first impression accuracy and found that in interaction conditions where there was a mismatch in evaluation expectations, when a participant knows he or she will judge but not that she will be judged, accuracy for less interpersonal traits is diminished.

TL;DR: Results show that ROS-induced oxidation of PTPN12 accounts for ABL1 phosphorylation in HLRCC-associated PRCC, revealing a novel mechanism for inactivating a tumor suppressor gene product and establishing a direct link between pathologic PTP oxidation and neoplastic disease.

Abstract: From international trade negotiations to emotional domestic spats, conflicts are a ubiquitous part of social life. This Chapter explores the role of language in shaping the way our conflicts unfold and resolve. The first section examines the functions of language in conflict and how different communicative acts relate to speakers’ motivational goals and conflict outcome. The second section considers these acts as part of an unfolding interaction at two levels. At the micro-level it examines different forms of cue-response sequences and their role in managing information exchange and structuring relationships in conflict. At the macro-level it examines how episodes of language produce phases and cycles that escalate conflict or move it toward a resolution. The final section of this Chapter examines the link between thought and talk. It shows that basic language choices have a profound effect on the other party’s perceptions and the cooperation that ensues, with changes in perceptions and goals going hand-in-hand with changes in language. The Chapter ends by posing some unanswered research questions that address both our theoretical understanding of the social psychology of language in conflict and our practical understanding of how to better use language to resolve conflicts. Language and Conflict Resolution 3 The Role of Language in Conflict and Conflict Resolution The US government recently adopted the term ‘the good stranger’ to refer to military personnel who are adept at gaining cooperation from civilians who might otherwise be antagonistic or distrustful (DARPA, 2011). The term reflects what has no doubt been observed through extended military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq (Goodwin, 2005): adopting a certain demeanor and communicative style is critical in conflicts where one must work with another whose priorities and beliefs are very different from one’s own. Of course, the value of understanding what makes a ‘good stranger’ is not confined to military peacekeeping. It instantiates a question about the nature of what escalates and deescalates conflicts in contexts as diverse as marital conflict (Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977), teacher-school board disputes (Putnam, Wilson, & Turner, 1990), and negotiations with hostage takers (Giebels & Taylor, 2009). This Chapter explores one aspect of what makes a good stranger, namely, what is known about the role of language in educing cooperation and resolving conflicts. Language of Conflict and Conflict Resolution Competition and Cooperation The basis of much of the social psychological research on language and conflict is a distinction between competitive and cooperative communication. Competitive language is characterized by behaviors such as justifications, irrelevant arguments, personal attacks, and excessive demands and threats (Giebels & Noelanders, 2004; Olekalns & Smith, 2003). By contrast, cooperative language is associated with behaviors such as proposals and counterproposals, agreements, expressions of confidence in the other’s ability, and humor (Donohue & Roberto, 1996; Putnam & Jones, 1982). A person’s use of these two forms of language is dependent on their orientation to the conflict. The use of competitive language is Language and Conflict Resolution 4 associated with a focus on self and a motivation to maximize personal outcome even at the expense of the other party (often referred to as a distributive or pro-self orientation). The use of cooperative language is associated with a focus on fairness and a desire to find ways to satisfy the needs of all parties (often referred to as a integrative or pro-social orientation). The extent to which these orientations to communication are used during a conflict has been found to depend on a range of factors. These include person factors such as culture (e.g., Adair & Brett, 2005) and individual differences (e.g., Park, & Antonioni, 2007), and situational factors such as power differences (e.g., Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000) and emotions (e.g., van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). As one might expect, the use of competitive and cooperative language impacts the outcome of conflict. Cooperative language tends to promote conflict resolution and increases efforts to identify solutions that benefit both parties (Taylor, 2002a). By contrast, competitive language is associated with conflict spiraling and a failure to identify areas of common ground and ‘win-win’ solutions (Weingart, Prietula, Hyder, & Genovesse, 1999). However, the associations between language and outcome are not clear-cut. On some occasions the use of cooperative language has negative consequences, such as when a shrewd counterpart takes advantage of a cooperator’s goodwill (Murnigham, Babcock, Thompson, & Pillutla, 1999) or when cooperative messages are overshadowed by the messages of a single ‘hawk’ (Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2009). Similarly, in certain low-stakes scenarios, use of competitive language, such as expressions of anger, may lead to preferential outcomes, at least for self (Van Kleef, van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & van Beest, 2008). Yet, in high-stakes scenarios the use of aggressive language often leads to reciprocal aggression and conflict spiraling (Donohue & Taylor, 2003; Giebels & Taylor, 2009). Thus, depending on context, the Language and Conflict Resolution 5 use of cooperative and competitive language may play an important role for the ‘good stranger’ who seeks to resolve a conflict. Identifying when and how both types of language work to resolve conflict remains a dominant topic of research in the field. Motivational Goals The distinction between competitive and cooperative language is a broad one that captures a person’s overall orientation to conflict. As such, it does not speak to the variety of motives or goals that underlie a communicative act (Taylor, 2002b; Wilson & Putnam, 1990). For example, consider a hostage siege where the police enquire about the hostages’ welfare and offer to deliver food, while the perpetrator complains about the police snipers and the fact his threats are not taken seriously. These messages serve different purposes: the police are trying to establish information and initiate a substantive exchange over food; the perpetrator is trying to assert his ‘identity’ and relay his concerns about personal safety. Thus, communication may address different aspects of a conflict, as determined by a person’s strategic choice (De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003), their perceptions of the other’s intentions (Sillars et al., 1982), and the way in which an individual ‘frames’ the interaction (Drake & Donohue, 1996). Of the possible communicative frames, by far the most studied is how language allows people to resolve substantive or ‘instrumental’ issues. This is understandable given the strong grounding of early conflict resolution research in game theory and social exchange paradigms (Roloff, 1981; Schelling, 1980). Instrumental goals are broadly concerned with material ‘transactions,’ which speakers resolve through positional arguments, offers and counter-offers, rationale persuasion, and so on. This kind of behavior most easily aligns with a view that actors are ‘motivated information processors’ (De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003) who seek to make sense of the other person’s communication in order to understand their goals and beliefs. The language of Language and Conflict Resolution 6 the motivated information processor is thus a direct response to their inferences about how best to achieve a desired outcome, and, if he or she is orientated cooperatively, about how best to achieve the other person’s desired outcome at the same time. When interactants fail to act in ways that maximize their material reward from the interaction, this is explained by a set of sociocognitive barriers. As De Dreu, Beersma, Steinel, and van Kleef (2007) identify, three salient barriers are heuristics-led judgments, whereby the listener attends to only the salient features of the other’s message, a naïve realism, whereby the listener interprets the other’s actions as being motivated by an equivalent set of goals, and ego defensiveness, whereby conflict triggers a ‘contend’ reaction that leads to competitive behavior against the other. Support for the importance of these barriers comes from research showing that such biases can be reduced when individuals are motivated to process the other party’s messages in detail (De Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004; Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). A second, quite different kind of language use concerns the ‘relational’ dynamic between the parties. These messages are less concerned with resolving the substantive disagreements of the conflict and more concerned with shaping the affiliation and interdependence between the parties (Donohue, 2001). Speakers manage relational goals by expressing affiliation and liking (e.g., humor), asserting rights and obligations (e.g., justifications and appeals), establishing trust and rapport (e.g., reassurances and promises), and so on. These behaviors are particularly important outside of the laboratory where interactants are mindful of their reputations, are keen to build long-term relationships, and are more likely to be under the spotlight of external perceptions (Donohue & Taylor, 2007). Thus, relational language is evident, for example, in messages promoting violent extremism, which tend to highlight in-group norms, out-group immorality, and peer acclimations over instrumental for-and-against arguments (Prentice, Taylor, Language and Conflict Resolution 7 Rayson, Hoskins, & O’Loughlin, 2011). It becomes the prevalent focus of communication in contexts where the value of relationships is salient because of factors such as cultural norms (Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002), ‘power moves’ by one party (Donohue & Hoobler, 2002) or a perception that the interaction has consequences beyond the current conflict (Greenhalgh & Gilkey, 1993). It is also

TL;DR: A model wherein PTP expression levels may define conditions that select for ectopic FGFR3 expression and activation during tumorigenesis is suggested, which suggests that in addition to modulatingFGFR3 phosphorylation, PTPN1 and PTPn2 constrain the kinase domain by fostering an inactive‐state.

TL;DR: In this article, two judges rated targets on Big Five personality factors, and predicted their compliance to offer help in response to a fabricated emergency, whereas one judge interacted directly with the target, the other judge only observed the interaction.