IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v4y2014i1p2158244014526210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Conceptual Structure of Social Disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Homer-Dixon
  • Manjana Milkoreit
  • Steven J. Mock
  • Tobias Schröder
  • Paul Thagard

Abstract

We describe and illustrate a new method of graphically diagramming disputants’ points of view called cognitive-affective mapping . The products of this method—cognitive-affective maps (CAMs)—represent an individual’s concepts and beliefs about a particular subject, such as another individual or group or an issue in dispute. Each of these concepts and beliefs has its own emotional value. The result is a detailed image of a disputant’s complex belief system that can assist in-depth analysis of the ideational sources of the dispute and thereby aid its resolution. We illustrate the method with representations of the beliefs of typical individuals involved in four contemporary disputes of markedly different type: a clash over German housing policy, disagreements between Israelis over the meaning of the Western Wall, contention surrounding exploitation of Canada’s bitumen resources, and the deep dispute between people advocating action on climate change and those skeptical about the reality of the problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Homer-Dixon & Manjana Milkoreit & Steven J. Mock & Tobias Schröder & Paul Thagard, 2014. "The Conceptual Structure of Social Disputes," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014526210
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014526210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014526210
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014526210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bilyana Martinovski & Wenji Mao, 2009. "Emotion as an Argumentation Engine: Modeling the Role of Emotion in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 235-259, May.
    2. Amer Obeidi & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2005. "The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 481-500, November.
    3. Paul G. Bain & Matthew J. Hornsey & Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries, 2012. "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 603-603, August.
    4. Andrew Jamison, 2010. "Climate change knowledge and social movement theory," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(6), pages 811-823, November.
    5. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690.
    6. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    7. Bruce Barry, 2008. "Negotiator affect: the state of the art (and the science)," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 97-105, January.
    8. Henrik Selin & Stacy D. VanDeveer, 2011. "US climate change politics and policymaking," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 121-127, January.
    9. Paul G. Bain & Matthew J. Hornsey & Renata Bongiorno & Carla Jeffries, 2012. "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 600-603, August.
    10. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327.
    11. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2010. "Inside UN Climate Change Negotiations: The Copenhagen Conference," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(6), pages 795-821, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tereza Capelos & Stavroula Chrona, 2018. "The Map to the Heart: An Analysis of Political Affectivity in Turkey," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 144-158.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer C. Whitman & Jiaying Zhao & Kevin H. Roberts & Rebecca M. Todd, 2018. "Political orientation and climate concern shape visual attention to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 383-394, April.
    2. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    3. Joshua Ettinger & Peter Walton & James Painter & Thomas DiBlasi, 2021. "Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Adam Seth Levine & Reuben Kline, 2017. "A new approach for evaluating climate change communication," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 301-309, May.
    5. Rebecca Romsdahl & Gwendolyn Blue & Andrei Kirilenko, 2018. "Action on climate change requires deliberative framing at local governance level," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 277-287, August.
    6. Scott D. Findlay & Paul Thagard, 2014. "Emotional Change in International Negotiation: Analyzing the Camp David Accords Using Cognitive-Affective Maps," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1281-1300, November.
    7. Nada Petrovic & Jaime Madrigano & Lisa Zaval, 2014. "Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 245-254, September.
    8. Chloe Lucas & Russell Warman, 2018. "Disrupting polarized discourses: Can we get out of the ruts of environmental conflicts?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(6), pages 987-1005, September.
    9. Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Clarke, Christopher E., 2021. "Political polarization in support for subsidizing unprofitable coal power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    10. Drews, Stefan & Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Villamayor-Tomás, Sergio, 2022. "Climate concern and policy acceptance before and after COVID-19," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    11. Terzi, Alessio, 2020. "Crafting an effective narrative on the green transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    12. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    13. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    14. Tammy Tabe, 2019. "Climate Change Migration and Displacement: Learning from Past Relocations in the Pacific," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    17. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    18. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Sanober Naheed & Salman Shooshtarian, 2021. "A Review of Cultural Background and Thermal Perceptions in Urban Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014526210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.