This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Conflicts with our colleagues, loved ones or team members can quickly stifle communication, heighten tensions and undermine relationships. However, a decision or compromise is not always enough to restore cooperation—for a solution to last, we must also repair the bond that will allow people to continue moving forward together.
Primates offer us a useful mirror here. Among them, the repair of that bond generally appears more direct—they reestablish contact, soothe one another and restore their relationships in the process. Studies in primatology have documented these reconciliation behaviors and demonstrated their importance: In species that depend heavily on cooperation for survival, maintaining group cohesion is vital.
But this mirror has its limits. Monkeys don't have to grapple with bureaucratic, ideological or legal issues, and they, too, are sensitive to experiences of domination, rivalry and aggression. But precisely because their conflicts are less complicated, they focus on aspects that human beings tend to obscure.
Repairing social bonds takes center stage. Some research on social psychology and primatology suggests humans and primates differ in the weight they place on the ego. Among monkeys, reconciliation primarily serves to preserve the valuable social relationships essential to maintaining access to resources, alliances and group protection.
Humans add another layer—a positive but fragile self-concept, which can fuel aggression when questioned. The following three mechanisms have one thing in common—they push the relational dimension of the conflict into the background, driven by the need to protect the ego: In humans, when the ego feels attacked, we no longer simply strive to resolve the problem—we make sure we aren't wrong. We view the other person's opinions as personal attacks, and the discussion focuses more on protecting our identity than on understanding.
Under these conditions, the bond weakens, trust erodes and even a good solution may be rejected if it means one party will lose face. In other words, the conflict itself does not threaten the relationship; rather, the problem arises when the ego gets involved. As long as everyone is primarily focused on protecting their image, finding a lasting solution will be difficult.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
