Use soft words and hard arguments. (English proverb)
Abstract
This experiment examined the effects of epistemic vs. relational conflicts on the relationship with a partner. Students participated to a fictitious computer-mediated interaction about a text with a bogus partner who introduced either an epistemic conflict (a conflict that referred to the content of the text), or a relational conflict (a conflict that questioned participants’ competence). Results indicated that compared to the epistemic conflict, the relational conflict enhanced threat and reduced the perceived contribution of the partner. Moreover, after a relational conflict, participants were more assertive in their answers, justified them to a lower extent, and expressed less doubt than after an epistemic conflict. Results also indicated that the intensity of disagreement predicted different modes of regulation depending on the conflict type. Finally, epistemic conflict elicited better learning than relational conflict.
Résumé
La présente expérience a examiné les effets de conflits épistémiques vs. relationnels avec un partenaire. Des étudiants étaient amenés à participer à une pseudo-interaction médiatisée par ordinateur avec un partenaire factice, à propos d’un texte. Ce partenaire factice introduisait soit un conflit épistémique (un conflit se référant au contenu du texte) soit un conflit relationnel (un conflit qui mettait en cause la compétence des participants). Les résultats ont indiqué que comparativement au conflit épistémique, le conflit relationnel a augmenté la menace et réduit la contribution perçue du partenaire. De plus, après un conflit relationnel, les participants se sont montrés plus assertifs dans leurs réponses, les ont moins justifiées et ont exprimé moins de doutes qu’après un conflit épistémique. Les résultats indiquent également que l’intensité des désaccords prédit différents modes de régulation en fonction du type de conflit. Enfin, le conflit épistémique a entrainé un meilleur apprentissage que le conflit relationnel.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baron, R.A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199–207.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960).Conflict, arousal, and curiosity, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brauer, M. (2002). L’analyse des variables indépendantes continues et catégorielles: Alternatives à la dicho tomisation.L’Année Psychologique, 102, 449–484.
Brennan, J.G., Miller, L.E., & Seltzer, J. (1993). Influence tactics and effectiveness.The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 747–748.
Buchs, C., Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2004). Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning.Educational Psychology, 24, 291–314.
Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes.Theory Into Practice, 43, 23–30.
Butera, F., & Buchs, C. (2005). Reasoning together: From focussing to decentring. In V. Girotto & P.N. Johnson-Laird (Eds.),The shape of reason (pp. 193–203). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1995). Conflict between incompetences and influence of a low expertise source in hypothesis testing.European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457–462.
Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2001). Conflicts and social influences in hypothesis testing. In C.K.W. De Dreu & N.K. De Vries (Eds.),Group consensus and minority influence. Implications for innovation (pp. 161–182). Oxford: Blackwell.
Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Tomei, A. (2000). Incertitude et enjeux identitaires dans l’influence sociale. In J.L. Beauvois, R.V. Joule, & J.M. Monteil (Eds.),Perspectives cognitives et conduites sociale (vol. VII, pp. 205–229). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Butera, F., Gardair, E., Maggi, J., & Mugny, G. (1998). Les paradoxes de l’expertise: Influence sociale et (in)compétence de soi et d’autrui. In J. Py, A. Somat, & J. Baillé (Eds.),Psychologie sociale et formation professionnelle: Propositions et regards critiques (pp. 111–123). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Butera, F., Huguet, P., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J.A. (1994). Socio-epistemic conflict and constructivism.Swiss Journal of Psychology, 53, 229–239.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Damon, W., & Kilen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347–367.
Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (in press). Learning or succeeding? Conflict regulation with mastery or performance goals.Swiss Journal of Psychology.
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflict in sharing information during cooperative learning.Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61, 139–151.
Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with masteryvs. performance goal.Motivation and Emotion, 31, 61–70.
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S.M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–776.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984).The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Doise, W., Deschamps, J.C., & Mugny, G. (1991).Psychologie sociale expérimentale. Paris: Armand Colin.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Gruber, H.E. (2000). Creativity and conflict resolution: The role of point of view. In M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.),The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 345–354). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups.American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237–256.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). The pro-con cooperative group strategy: Structuring academic controversy within the social studies classroom. In R. Stahl (Ed.),Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers (pp. 306–331). New-York: Addison-Westley Publishing Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. (2000). Constructive controversy, the educative power of intellectual conflict.Change, 32, 29–37.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.S. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem solving success.The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 621–629.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.),The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 65–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers.
Judd, C.M., & McClelland, G.H. (1989).Data analysis: A model comparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Krauss, R.M., & Morsella, E. (2000). Communication and conflict. In M. Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.),The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 131–143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc, Publishers.
Lambiotte, J., Dansereau, D., O’Donnell, A., Young, M., Skaggs, L., Hall, R., & Rocklin, T. (1987). Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning.Journal of Educational Pyschology, 79, 424–430.
Lowry, N., & Johnson, D.W. (1981). Effect of controversy on epistemic curiosity, achievement and attitudes.The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 31–43.
Maggi, J., Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1998). Les styles de comportement et leur représentation sociale. In S. Moscovici (Ed.),Psychologie sociale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Monteil, J.M., & Chambres, P. (1990). Eléments pour une exploration des dimensions du conflit socio-cognitif: Une expérimentation chez l’adulte.Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 499–517.
Mugny, G. (1982).The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
Mugny, G., Chatard, A., & Quiamzade, A. (2006). The social transmission of knowledge at the university: Teaching style and epistemic dependence.European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXI(4), 413–427.
Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.),Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mugny, G., Tafani, E., Butera, F., & Pigière, D. (1999). Contrainte et dépendance informationnelles: Influence sociale sur la représentation du groupe d’amis idéal.Connexions, 72, 55–72.
Mugny, G., Butera, F., Quiamzade, A., Dragulescu, A., & Tomei, A. (2003). Comparaisons sociales des competences et dynamiques d’influence sociale dans les tâches d’aptitudes.L’Année Psychologique, 104, 469–496.
Pérez, J.A., Mugny, G., Maggi, J., Falomir, J.M., & Butera, F. (1995). L’élaboration du conflit. Les significations du conflit dans l’influence sociale.Psychoscope, 2, 11–14.
Quiamzade, A., & Mugny, G. (2001). Social influence dynamics in aptitude tasks.Social Psychology of Education, 4, 311–334.
Quiamzade, A., Tomei, A., & Butera, F. (2000). Informational dependence and informational constraint: Social comparison and social influences in an anagram resolution task.Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 123–150.
Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Dragulescu, A., & Buchs, C. (2004). Interaction styles and expert social influence.European Journal of Psychology of Education, XVIII(4), 389–404.
Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Falomir, J.-M., Invernizzi, F., Buchs, C., & Dragulescu, A. (2004). Correspondance entre style d’influence et significations des positions initiales de la cible: Le cas des sources expertes. In J.-L. Beauvois, R.-V. Joule, & J.-M. Monteil (Eds.),Perspectives cognitives et conduites sociales (vol. 9, pp. 341–363). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Smith, K., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651–663.
Tjosvold, D. (1989). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D.W., & Fabrey, L.J. (1980). Effect of controversy and defensiveness on cognitive perspective taking.Psychological Reports, 47, 1043–1053.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D.W., & Lerner, J. (1981). Effects of affirmation and acceptance on incorporation of opposing information in problem solving.The Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 103–110.
Tomasetto, C. (2004). Influence style and students’ orientation toward extra-curricular activities: An application of the correspondence hypothesis.European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIX(2), 133–145.
Van Knippenberg, B., & Steensma, H. (2003). Future interaction expectation and the use of soft and hard influence tactics.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 55–67.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J.B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.
Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2006). But de performance et de maîtrise et interactions sociales entre étudiants: La situation particulière de désaccord avec autrui.Revue Française de Pédagogie, 155, 35–44.
Darnon, C., & Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with masteryvs. performance goal.Motivation and Emotion, 31, 61–70.
Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J.M., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 813–827.
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S.M., Butera, F., & Pannuzzo, N. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766–776.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by an “Ecole et Sciences Cognitives” fund granted by the French Ministry for Research, and by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darnon, C., Doll, S. & Butera, F. Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemic conflict elaboration. Eur J Psychol Educ 22, 227–242 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173423
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173423