Two sides to a conflict may have difficulty resolving a dispute. ...

[leilurhhh]

Two sides to a conflict may have difficulty resolving a dispute. What are some of the psychological factors or aspects involved in such a conflictual situation?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

What is deindividuation? What was the former idea about it, and the more modern conception? What is the experience with English soccer hooligans that supports the modern idea?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[macagnavarro]

Answer to Question 1

The following are factors that may influence a two-sided conflict:
1) Two sides to a conflict may believe they have conflicting interests when they actually don't.
2) This may come about because of faulty attributions, mistakes in judgment about the causes of having your interests thwarted.
3) Faulty communication may involve nothing more than insensitivity, but it can create big problems.
4) The more dominant group may exhibit a status quo bias. This is a tendency for a powerful group to be less accurate in its perceptions and to perceive its position as more reasonable and objective than it is.

Answer to Question 2

Deindividuation is a state of reduced self-awareness brought on by being an anonymous member of a crowd. The old idea was that being in a crowd makes people anonymous and therefore less responsible or accountable for their actions. They are therefore less restrained and more likely to behave in antisocial ways.
More recently, Postmes and Spears (1998) showed that deindividuation leads to greater behavior that follows the norms of the group, not less. In other words, it is not that people run amok, behaving antisocially, but, in a crowd, they are more likely to follow the norms of the crowd, especially if they are highly-identified with the group. After psychologists working with police talked to English soccer fan leaders, violent incidents caused by fans stopped. That is, the norms of the group changed, and so individual hooligans stopped behaving so violently.