Conflict resolution symposium derails a potential tobacco “war”

Conclusion While it is, of course, very satisfying to see measurable results from a conflict resolution initiative, the immeasurable byproducts of the symposium are no less important. All who were present will never forget the evening at dinner when a preeminent cancer surgeon diagnosed skin cancer on the face of the oldest tobacco farmer and offered to fly across country to help treat him. The doctor who had earlier almost resorted to blows when the symposium began, made a commitment to visit North Carolina and see the plight of tobacco farm families firsthand.In debriefing the symposium's design and outcomes, many of the participants expressed desires that such processes could be used more routinely. Value was seen in having meetings throughout the country to teach such skills and model the processes of alternative dispute resolution. One member of the Congress even expressed a desire that training be offered on Capitol Hill, so that all members could benefit from becoming better at resolving disputes.What the tobacco symposium participants experienced is not unique. It demonstrates the positive experiences that can occur when people in conflict are empowered to resolve their differences in ways that uplift them and result in mutual gain. Instead of focusing on each other as enemies, their creative powers were focused on common problems and redirected; they were then able to design creative solutions. Dayle E. Powell is a Fellow and Director of Conflict Resolution Programs at the Carter Center of Emory University, One Copenhill, Atlanta, Georgia 30307. The Center, founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution focusing on conflict resolution, human rights, international affairs, and health policy.     

Need-efficiency trade-offs in the allocation of resources: Ideological and attributional differences in public aid decision making

We examined whether ideological differences influenced perceptions of the underlying causes of public aid applicants’ predicaments, and whether in turn ideology-patterned attributions accounted for how resource allocators prioritized need- and efficiency-related goals in allocating aid. To examine the need-efficiency trade-off, participants (N=112) divided a hypothetical pool of aid applicants for subsidized health insurance into two “incorrect” allocation outcomes: false alarms (allocate aid to unneedy applicants) and misses (deny aid to needy applicants). Moreover, to examine beliefs about the absolute percentage of aid applicants who are truly in need of societal assistance, participants divided the remaining aid applicants into two “correct” allocation outcomes: hits (allocate aid to needy applicants) and correct rejections (deny aid to unneedy applicants). Results of a series of structural equation models indicated that conservatism was linked to the causal belief that aid applicants’ predicaments arise from dispositional rather than situational factors, which in turn predicted a preference for making efficiency-related over need-related resource allocation judgments (e.g., preferring misses to false alarms) and the belief that a relatively small number of aid applicants are truly in need of societal assistance (e.g., preferring correct rejections to hits). Results are discussed in terms of how ideologically driven attributions influence the manner in which people resolve need-efficiency trade-offs inherent in the context of public aid decision making.