Can Conflict Be Constructive? Controversy Versus Concurrence Seeking in Learning Groups

Abstract

84 6th-graders were assigned to the following conditions on a stratified random basis controlling for sex and reading ability: (1) controversy in learning groups, (2) concurrence seeking in learning groups, and (3) individual study. In all 3 conditions, Ss studied 2 controversial issues with materials representing both pro and con views. In (1), each small group was equally divided to represent the pro and con sides. In (2), each small group could study the material any way they wished with the stipulation that they were to avoid arguing. In (3), Ss were told to learn the material without interacting with others. Results indicate that controversy, compared with concurrence seeking and individual study, promoted higher achievement and retention, greater search for information, more cognitive rehearsal, accurate understanding of the 2 perspectives, continuing motivation, and positive attitudes toward controversy and classmates. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Journal
of
Educational
Psychology
1981, Vol.
73, No. 5,
651-663
Copyright
1981
hy
the
American
Psychological
Association, Inc.
0022-066S/81/7305-06SU00.75
Can
Conflict
Be
Constructive?
Controversy
Versus Concurrence Seeking
in
Learning Groups
Karl Smith, David
W.
Johnson,
and
Roger
T.
Johnson
University
of
Minnesota
The
effects
of
controversy
in
learning groups, concurrence seeking
in
learning
groups,
and
individualistic study
were
compared
on a
number
of
dependent
variables.
Eighty-four
sixth-grade students
were
assigned
to
conditions
on a
stratified random basis controlling
for sex ami
reading ability.
In all
three
conditions subjects studied
two
controversial
issues with materials repre-
senting both
pro and con
views.
In the
controversy condition each small
group
was
divided into
two
halves representing
the pro and con
sides.
In the
concurrence-seeking
condition each small group could study
the
material
any
way
they
wished, with
the
stipulation
that
the}'
were
to
avoid arguing.
In the
individualistic
conditions subjects were told
to
learn
the
material without
in-
teracting with other students.
The
results indicate
that
controversy, com-
pared with concurrence seeking
and
individualistic study, promotes higher
achievement
and
retention, greater search
for
information,
and
more cognitive
rehearsal,
accurate
understanding
of the two
perspectives,
continuing motiva-
tion,
and
positive
attitudes
toward controversy
and
classmates.
Conflicts
among ideas,
opinions,
and al-
ternative
courses
of
action
are
frequent
and
perhaps inevitable within
any
learning,
de-
cision-making,
or
problem-solving
situation.
Yet
there
is
evidence
that
in
classrooms,
conflicts
are
avoided
and
suppressed (De-
Cecco
&
Richards, 1974)
and
that
most
children
and
adults
in our
society lack
the
skills
and
procedures needed
for
effective
conflict
management (Blake
&
Mouton,
1970;
Deutsch,
1973;
Johnson,
1979).
Even
the
social studies curriculum materials
in the
United
States
present only
a few
mild
ex-
amples
of
controversies
(King
&
Long, 1976).
Despite
the
frequent
but
futile
attempts
to
avoid
and
suppress conflicts
and the
lack
of
skills
and
procedures
for
managing conflicts
constructively,
there
are
social
scientists
who
insist
that
conflict
has
potentially con-
structive
outcomes
(Deutsch, 1973; Johnson,
1979, 1980).
The
potentially constructive
outcomes
of
conflict include high achieve-
ment, intrinsic
and
continuing motivation,
perspective-taking ability,
and
positive
in-
terpersonal
relationships.
Controversy exists when
one
person's
ideas,
information, conclusions,
theories,
or
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
sent
to
David
W.
Johnson,
330
Burton Hall, University
of
Minnesota,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55455.
opinions
are
incompatible with those
of an-
other
person,
and the two
seek
to
reach
an
agreement (Johnson
&
Johnson, 1979).
An
example
of a
controversy
is
when
two
mem-
bers
of a
learning group
are
given
the
posi-
tion
that
strip mining
of
coal should take
place,,
the
other
two
members
are
given
the
position
that
strip mining
of
coal should
not
take place,
and the
group
is
assigned
to
reach
an
agreement
as to
whether coal should
be
strip
mined.
In
contrast
to
controversy,
concurrence seeking occurs when members
of
a
group inhibit discussion
to
avoid
any
disagreement
or
arguments, emphasize
agreement,
and
avoid realistic appraisal
of
alternative
ideas
and
courses
of
action.
An
example
of
concurrence seeking
is
when
a
learning group
is
assigned
to
decide
whether
the
strip
mining
of
coal should take place,
with
the
stipulation
that
they
are not to
argue
but
rather
to
compromise quickly
whenever
opposing opinions
are
expressed.
Both
controversy
and
concurrence seeking
may
be
contrasted with
individualistic
learning,
which occurs when individuals
work
alone without interacting with each
other,
in a
situation
in
which
their
goal
at-
tainments
are
unrelated
and
independent.
The
purpose
of
this article
is to
propose
and
empirically
validate
a
conceptualization
of
the
impact
of
controversy
and
concurrence
651