This study examined parent-adolescent conflict and the attributions for conflict. Adolescent participants (29 ADHD; 22 Comparison) aged 13-17 and their mothers and fathers completed questionnaires. Adolescents with ADHD have conflicts over more issues with their parents according to self and parent report. Adolescents who believed that the conflict occurred in many contexts and that their parents were responsible for that conflict reported that they had conflict over more issues. Attributions were not predictive of conflict according to mother report. ADHD status moderated attributions in predicting father reported conflict. Among fathers who believed that conflicts were their son or daughter’s responsibility, fathers of youth with ADHD were less likely to report more issues involving conflicts than fathers of youth without ADHD. Conversely, among fathers who believed conflict was pervasive across contexts and time, having a son or daughter with ADHD was associated with more issues involving conflict.

El propósito de esta tesis es el analizar a través de la Teoría de Juegos los incentivos de los agentes y grupos sociales a recurrir al conflicto y la confrontación para alcanzar sus objetivos.En su primera parte se incorporan los recientes avances en la teoría de formación de grupos a un modelo económico de conflicto. Esta rama de la literatura económica ha ignorado este aspecto. La formación de grupos en modelos de conflicto presenta dos elementos fundamentales. Primero, la formación de una coalición genera efectos externos en otros grupos. Segundo, la gran coalición puede considerarse como una situación de paz universal dado que no se dedican recursos al conflicto.El primer capítulo presenta un modelo generalizado de búsqueda de rentas en equilibrio parcial. El principal propósito es analizar la estabilidad de la paz universal, la situación eficiente. Ésta resulta ser muy resistente a las desviaciones, especialmente si los individuos se comportan cooperativamente dentro de los grupos. La paz universal es también el resultado del proceso secuencial de formación de grupos introducido por Bloch (1996). Situaciones conflictivas puedes ser estables solo si los agentes tienen expectativas positivas sobre la reacción de los demás agentes a su desviación.En el segundo capítulo, se analiza un modelo en equilibrio general donde los grupos luchan por el control de un recurso. El acceso a dicho recurso viene dado por una contienda de exclusión donde solo una coalición puede ser. Si el recurso es explotado cooperativamente y la tecnología del conflicto es relativamente mejor que la tecnología de producción, la paz universal no es estable. Si el recurso es explotado no cooperativamente y se convierte en un recurso de propiedad común, el conflicto puede ser socialmente eficiente dado que alivia la sobreexplotación.En el capítulo tres se explora un modelo de negociación con dos jugadores donde uno de ellos posee información incompleta acerca de la fuerza de su oponente. Se considera la posibilidad de que cada periodo las partes puede luchar un conflicto total que termina el juego o una "batalla" que solo introduce retraso pero cuyo resultado transmite información acerca de la verdadera relación de fuerzas en caso de conflicto absoluto. Por tanto, un conflicto limitado puede ayudar a las partes a ponerse de acuerdo porque evita el optimismo en el largo plazo. Este aspecto introduce una novedad don respecto a otros modelos de negociación con información incompleta dado que la transmisión de información es difícilmente manipulable. El principal resultado es que el conflicto puede abrir la puerta al acuerdo si unas expectativas optimistas lo están evitando pero puede retrasarlo si la parte informada lo usa para mejorar su posición.Finalmente en el capítulo cuarto verificamos empíricamente las implicaciones de este modelo a través de un análisis de duración. Nos fijamos en la dependencia mostrada por la tasa de riesgo de conflictos reales. Si un conflicto es un mecanismo de persuasión, esta dependencia debe ser positiva, es decir, cuanto más dura un conflicto, más probable es que este acabe. Realizamos dicho análisis con una base de datos de guerras coloniales e imperiales entre 1816 y 1988. Los resultados obtenidos apoyan la hipótesis de una tasa de riesgo creciente. / The aim of the Ph.D dissertation can be summarized as follows: I use the tools of Game Theory to analyze why and how individuals and groups resort to confrontation and conflict in order to attain their goals.In a first part, I incorporate recent advances in coalition formation theory to an economic model of conflict: This strand of the economic literature has typically neglected this issue. Coalition formation in conflict models displays two particular features: Group formation generates spillovers across outsiders; and the grand coalition can be thought off as a situation of universal peace because no resources are devoted to conflict.Chapter one presents a generalized rent-seeking model in partial equilibrium. Our main goal is to analyze the stability of universal peace, the efficient situation. It turns out to be very resilient to possible deviations, specially if individuals behave cooperatively within coalitions. Universal peace is also the outcome of the sequential game of coalition formation introduced by Bloch (1996). Conflict situations can be sustained as stable outcomes only if players hold optimistic (and not necessarily rational) expectations about outsiders reactions to deviation. In the second chapter I move to a general equilibrium model where groups fight for the right to control a resource. Access to that resource is driven by an exclusion contest that is won by only one coalition. If the resource is exploited cooperatively and conflict technology is relatively better than the production technology, universal peace is not stable. If the resource is exploited non-cooperatively, it becomes a common property resource and in that case, conflict may be socially efficient because it alleviates overexploitation. In chapter three we explore a two-person bargaining model where one player has incomplete about the opponent strength. We consider the possibility that at each period parties can fight either a total conflict that ends the game or a "battle" that only causes delay but whose outcome conveys information about the true strengths in case of absolute conflict. Then, limited conflict may actually help parties to settle because it precludes optimism in the long run. This feature introduces a novelty with respect to previous bargaining models with incomplete information because here information transmission is hardly manipulable. The main result is that conflict opens the door to agreement if too optimistic expectations precluded it, but delays it when the informed party uses conflict to improve their bargaining positions.Finally, in chapter four we test empirically the implications of the bargaining model through a duration analysis. We focus on the duration dependence displayed by the hazard rate of real conflicts: If conflict is a learning-persuasion device, this dependence must be positive, that is, the more a conflict lasts the more likely it ends. We perform the analysis with data on colonial and imperial wars from 1816 to 1988: The results obtained give support to the increasing hazard hypothesis.

<p>State practice and literature suggest that devolution of power can address the main challenges of underdevelopment, internal conflict and abuse of centralised power in developing states. However, this thesis advances the argument that the design features of devolved government for these purposes are not always compatible. Accordingly, while there are complementary and neutral design features in the three designs, trade-offs have to be made between the unique design features in order to ensure the effective pursuit of the three purposes through a single system of devolved government. Kenya, the case study for this inquiry, confirms the international trend as its major challenges over the last 50 years have been underdevelopment, internal conflict and abuse of central power. As such, development, ethnic harmony, and the limiting of central power featured prominently throughout the entire constitutional review process as purposes to be pursued by means of devolution of power. To this end, the devolution of state power is one of the central elements of the current constitutional dispensation in Kenya. There are trade-offs made in Kenya‟s devolution design in order to accommodate the three purposes of devolution. However, the overall result has been that the emphasis falls on development at the expense of conflict resolution and limiting central power. Nevertheless, regardless of the trade-offs and nature of the final design, the design‟s effectiveness or lack thereof may depend very much on factors external to the design. Lack of political will to make devolution work can negate the effectiveness of even the most perfect design / by same token, political will could make an apparently bad design effective. In practice, therefore, effectiveness depends on an array of other context-specific factors.</p>

The graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) provides a convenient and effective means to model and analyze a strategic conflict. Standard practice is to carry out a stability analysis of a graph model, and then to follow up with a post-stability analysis, two critical components of which are status quo analysis and coalition analysis. In stability analysis, an equilibrium is a state that is stable for all decision makers (DMs) under appropriate stability definitions or solution concepts. Status quo analysis aims to determine whether a particular equilibrium is reachable from a status quo (or an initial state) and, if so, how to reach it. A coalition is any subset of a set of DMs. The coalition stability analysis within the graph model is focused on the status quo states that are equilibria and assesses whether states that are stable from individual viewpoints may be unstable for coalitions. Stability analysis began within a simple preference structure which includes a relative preference relationship and an indifference relation. Subsequently, preference uncertainty and strength of preference were introduced into GMCR but not formally integrated. In this thesis, two new preference frameworks, hybrid preference and multiple-level preference, and an integrated algebraic approach are developed for GMCR. Hybrid preference extends existing preference structures to combine preference uncertainty and strength of preference into GMCR. A multiple-level preference framework expands GMCR to handle a more general and flexible structure than any existing system representing strength of preference. An integrated algebraic approach reveals a link among traditional stability analysis, status quo analysis, and coalition stability analysis by using matrix representation of the graph model for conflict resolution. To integrate the three existing preference structures into a hybrid system, a new preference framework is proposed for graph models using a quadruple relation to express strong or mild preference of one state or scenario over another, equal preference, and an uncertain preference. In addition, a multiple-level preference framework is introduced into the graph model methodology to handle multiple-level preference information, which lies between relative and cardinal preferences in information content. The existing structure with strength of preference takes into account that if a state is stable, it may be either strongly stable or weakly stable in the context of three levels of strength. However, the three-level structure is limited in its ability to depict the intensity of relative preference. In this research, four basic solution concepts consisting of Nash stability, general metarationality, symmetric metarationality, and sequential stability, are defined at each level of preference for the graph model with the extended multiple-level preference. The development of the two new preference frameworks expands the realm of applicability of the graph model and provides new insights into strategic conflicts so that more practical and complicated problems can be analyzed at greater depth. Because a graph model of a conflict consists of several interrelated graphs, it is natural to ask whether well-known results of Algebraic Graph Theory can help analyze a graph model. Analysis of a graph model involves searching paths in a graph but an important restriction of a graph model is that no DM can move twice in succession along any path. (If a DM can move consecutively, then this DM's graph is effectively transitive. Prohibiting consecutive moves thus allows for graph models with intransitive graphs, which are sometimes useful in practice.) Therefore, a graph model must be treated as an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph in which each arc represents a legal unilateral move and distinct colors refer to different DMs. The weight of an arc could represent some preference attribute. Tracing the evolution of a conflict in status quo analysis is converted to searching all colored paths from a status quo to a particular outcome in an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph. Generally, an adjacency matrix can determine a simple digraph and all state-by-state paths between any two vertices. However, if a graph model contains multiple arcs between the same two states controlled by different DMs, the adjacency matrix would be unable to track all aspects of conflict evolution from the status quo. To bridge the gap, a conversion function using the matrix representation is designed to transform the original problem of searching edge-weighted, colored paths in a colored multidigraph to a standard problem of finding paths in a simple digraph with no color constraints. As well, several unexpected and useful links among status quo analysis, stability analysis, and coalition analysis are revealed using the conversion function. The key input of stability analysis is the reachable list of a DM, or a coalition, by a legal move (in one step) or by a legal sequence of unilateral moves, from a status quo in 2-DM or $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models. A weighted reachability matrix for a DM or a coalition along weighted colored paths is designed to construct the reachable list using the aforementioned conversion function. The weight of each edge in a graph model is defined according to the preference structure, for example, simple preference, preference with uncertainty, or preference with strength. Furthermore, a graph model and the four basic graph model solution concepts are formulated explicitly using the weighted reachability matrix for the three preference structures. The explicit matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) that facilitates stability calculations in both 2-DM and $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models for three existing preference structures. In addition, the weighted reachability matrix by a coalition is used to produce matrix representation of coalition stabilities in multiple-decision-maker conflicts for the three preference frameworks. Previously, solution concepts in the graph model were traditionally defined logically, in terms of the underlying graphs and preference relations. When status quo analysis algorithms were developed, this line of thinking was retained and pseudo-codes were developed following a similar logical structure. However, as was noted in the development of the decision support system (DSS) GMCR II, the nature of logical representations makes coding difficult. The DSS GMCR II, is available for basic stability analysis and status quo analysis within simple preference, but is difficult to modify or adapt to other preference structures. Compared with existing graphical or logical representation, matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) is more effective and convenient for computer implementation and for adapting to new analysis techniques. Moreover, due to an inherent link between stability analysis and post-stability analysis presented, the proposed algebraic approach establishes an integrated paradigm of matrix representation for the graph model for conflict resolution.

The effects of unemployment on the genesis of civil conflict are examined as both a social and economic factor, with particular emphasis on civil conflict in ethnically heterogeneous nations. A logit statistical analysis of a data set indicates that increased unemployment rates do contribute to the onset of civil conflict.

Can the success of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq be applied to other counter-insurgency conflicts, or is it an exemplary case? Using case studies including Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be examined whether or not militias can be can be used to fight counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and generally to other conflicts. It may not work in Afghanistan, and certainly presents a Catch-22 situation, but it may be applicable in certain situations in other conflicts under certain conditions.

This report is an attempt to clarify how religious and non-religious views-of-life [livsåskådningar] are created through the collaboration and opposition of religious and scientific elements/ideas. This with the hope of reaching a fruitful result related to the solution of world-view related conflicts, such as the ones existing between science and religion, on an individual and societal level. This is accomplished with the help of two assertions: (1) Mankind has a need to explain its existence and surroundings. (2) Religion and science has their origins in the same seed and aim to serve the same purpose, or function. Together these two assertions lay the theoretical foundations of this report which implies that all humans have an innate need of sustaining a stable world-view. The result of this report is that a final solution to world-view related conflicts are beyond reach as our mental and physical nature limits us. However there are strategies for minimizing world-view related conflicts effect on society.

Organisationer är beroende av ledare och medarbetare. I yrken som berör andra människor har kommunikation och bemötande stor betydelse och kräver vissa egenskaper hos personalen. Där möten med andra sker uppstår ibland konflikter. Studien omfattar både en kvalitativ och en kvantitativ del. Syftet med studien var att studera ledare och medarbetares upplevelse och hantering samt konsekvenser som kan uppstå i samband med konflikter.  En intervjustudie med tre ledare och en enkätstudie med 59 medarbetare genomfördes i tre organisationer som har sin verksamhet inom LSS. Resultatet visade att konflikter kan upplevas både positivt och negativt. Ledarna hade olika strategier för hur de hanterade konflikter. De flesta medarbetare upplevde att konflikter löstes på ett bra sätt samt att de flesta trivdes med sitt yrke och arbetsuppgifter. Ledarskap, personliga egenskaper, arbetsmiljö, trivsel, kommunikation och bemötande inverkar på konflikter. Konsekvenser av konflikter berör hälsa och utveckling både hos individen och hos organisationer. / Organizations are dependent on their leaders and their staff. In occupations which integrate with other people, communication and reception are of great importance and require certain qualities of the staff. Sometimes conflicts turn out, where people meet.This study amounts one qualitative part and one quantitative. The purpose of this study was to see leaders and co-workers and to learn about their experiences, their actions and also the consequences that may appear together with conflicts. An interview was performed with three directors and a questionnaire was made and answered by 59 co-workers. The results showed that conflicts can be taken as something both positive and negative. The leaders had different strategies how to handle the conflicts. Most of the staff felt they solved the conflicts in an appropriate way and also that they were comfortable with their occupation and their responsibilities. Leadership, individual personality qualities, work environment, communication and reception have all together effects on conflicts. The consequences of conflicts are affecting both health and progress to individuals as well as the organization as a whole.

The graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) provides a convenient and effective means to model and analyze a strategic conflict. Standard practice is to carry out a stability analysis of a graph model, and then to follow up with a post-stability analysis, two critical components of which are status quo analysis and coalition analysis. In stability analysis, an equilibrium is a state that is stable for all decision makers (DMs) under appropriate stability definitions or solution concepts. Status quo analysis aims to determine whether a particular equilibrium is reachable from a status quo (or an initial state) and, if so, how to reach it. A coalition is any subset of a set of DMs. The coalition stability analysis within the graph model is focused on the status quo states that are equilibria and assesses whether states that are stable from individual viewpoints may be unstable for coalitions. Stability analysis began within a simple preference structure which includes a relative preference relationship and an indifference relation. Subsequently, preference uncertainty and strength of preference were introduced into GMCR but not formally integrated. In this thesis, two new preference frameworks, hybrid preference and multiple-level preference, and an integrated algebraic approach are developed for GMCR. Hybrid preference extends existing preference structures to combine preference uncertainty and strength of preference into GMCR. A multiple-level preference framework expands GMCR to handle a more general and flexible structure than any existing system representing strength of preference. An integrated algebraic approach reveals a link among traditional stability analysis, status quo analysis, and coalition stability analysis by using matrix representation of the graph model for conflict resolution. To integrate the three existing preference structures into a hybrid system, a new preference framework is proposed for graph models using a quadruple relation to express strong or mild preference of one state or scenario over another, equal preference, and an uncertain preference. In addition, a multiple-level preference framework is introduced into the graph model methodology to handle multiple-level preference information, which lies between relative and cardinal preferences in information content. The existing structure with strength of preference takes into account that if a state is stable, it may be either strongly stable or weakly stable in the context of three levels of strength. However, the three-level structure is limited in its ability to depict the intensity of relative preference. In this research, four basic solution concepts consisting of Nash stability, general metarationality, symmetric metarationality, and sequential stability, are defined at each level of preference for the graph model with the extended multiple-level preference. The development of the two new preference frameworks expands the realm of applicability of the graph model and provides new insights into strategic conflicts so that more practical and complicated problems can be analyzed at greater depth. Because a graph model of a conflict consists of several interrelated graphs, it is natural to ask whether well-known results of Algebraic Graph Theory can help analyze a graph model. Analysis of a graph model involves searching paths in a graph but an important restriction of a graph model is that no DM can move twice in succession along any path. (If a DM can move consecutively, then this DM's graph is effectively transitive. Prohibiting consecutive moves thus allows for graph models with intransitive graphs, which are sometimes useful in practice.) Therefore, a graph model must be treated as an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph in which each arc represents a legal unilateral move and distinct colors refer to different DMs. The weight of an arc could represent some preference attribute. Tracing the evolution of a conflict in status quo analysis is converted to searching all colored paths from a status quo to a particular outcome in an edge-weighted, colored multidigraph. Generally, an adjacency matrix can determine a simple digraph and all state-by-state paths between any two vertices. However, if a graph model contains multiple arcs between the same two states controlled by different DMs, the adjacency matrix would be unable to track all aspects of conflict evolution from the status quo. To bridge the gap, a conversion function using the matrix representation is designed to transform the original problem of searching edge-weighted, colored paths in a colored multidigraph to a standard problem of finding paths in a simple digraph with no color constraints. As well, several unexpected and useful links among status quo analysis, stability analysis, and coalition analysis are revealed using the conversion function. The key input of stability analysis is the reachable list of a DM, or a coalition, by a legal move (in one step) or by a legal sequence of unilateral moves, from a status quo in 2-DM or $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models. A weighted reachability matrix for a DM or a coalition along weighted colored paths is designed to construct the reachable list using the aforementioned conversion function. The weight of each edge in a graph model is defined according to the preference structure, for example, simple preference, preference with uncertainty, or preference with strength. Furthermore, a graph model and the four basic graph model solution concepts are formulated explicitly using the weighted reachability matrix for the three preference structures. The explicit matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) that facilitates stability calculations in both 2-DM and $n$-DM ($n > 2$) models for three existing preference structures. In addition, the weighted reachability matrix by a coalition is used to produce matrix representation of coalition stabilities in multiple-decision-maker conflicts for the three preference frameworks. Previously, solution concepts in the graph model were traditionally defined logically, in terms of the underlying graphs and preference relations. When status quo analysis algorithms were developed, this line of thinking was retained and pseudo-codes were developed following a similar logical structure. However, as was noted in the development of the decision support system (DSS) GMCR II, the nature of logical representations makes coding difficult. The DSS GMCR II, is available for basic stability analysis and status quo analysis within simple preference, but is difficult to modify or adapt to other preference structures. Compared with existing graphical or logical representation, matrix representation for conflict resolution (MRCR) is more effective and convenient for computer implementation and for adapting to new analysis techniques. Moreover, due to an inherent link between stability analysis and post-stability analysis presented, the proposed algebraic approach establishes an integrated paradigm of matrix representation for the graph model for conflict resolution.

Despite wide acceptance of the stereotype that women apologize more readily than men, there is little systematic evidence to support this stereotype or its supposed bases. In the present research, I explored whether gender differences in apology behaviour occur and, if so, why they occur. In Study 1, I used daily diaries to assess everyday apologies and found that women indeed apologized more frequently than men did. I found no difference in the proportion of offenses for which men and women apologized, however, suggesting that women may apologize more often than men do because they have a lower threshold for what constitutes offensive behaviour. In Studies 2 and 5, I replicated a gender difference in apology behaviour using hypothetical offenses and obtained evidence that this difference is mediated by different judgments of offense severity. In Study 3, I adapted a signal detection paradigm and demonstrated that women exhibit a more liberal response bias in the direction of remembering an apology. In Study 4, I found that women and men similarly associate apologies with positive outcomes, and that only women endorse the stereotype that women apologize more often than men do. Finally, in Study 6, I conducted a daily diary study with romantic couples and found that, as in Study 1, women and men apologized for a similar proportion of the offenses they reported. Together, these studies suggest that a gender difference in apology frequency is caused by different judgments of severity rather than by a difference in willingness to apologize.