Article Preview
TopLiterature Review: Conflict Frame Categories And Approaches
Conflict frames are characterized across various categories in the field literature (Table 1). The most prevailing is threefold distinction. Sheppard et al. (1994) have identified three types of frames: a choice frame, a negotiation frame; and an underlying conflict frame. Pinkley (1990) has identified three categories of conflict frames such as 1) the relationship / task frame, 2) the emotional / intellectual, 3) the cooperate / win. Although the categories differ as the authors argues general categories - issues, identities and relationships, and interaction process.
L. E. Drake and W. A. Donohue (cited in Rogan, 2006) have deductively coded a set of four frame categories: factual, interest, value, and relational. M. Elliott et al. (2002) constructed six dimensions of frames: identity, characterization, conflict management, risk/information, loss / gain and views. R. G. Rogan (2006) study explored six different categories: instrumentality, other assessment, affect, face, affiliation, distributiveness. B. Gray and A. Donnellon (cited in Rogan, 2006, p. 160) have described framing along three dimensions including perception of the conflict, process expectations, and outcome expectations. They have developed a set of seven frame categories: substantive, loss-gain, characterization, outcome, aspiration, process, and evidentiary frames. M. C. Campbell and J. S. Docherty (2004) have operated with eight types of frame. Researchers have noted that parties in conflict do not necessarily use each one of these frames – some frames may predominant, while others may not come into play at all. Researcher added outcome vs. aspiration, power and world-making story to the set of frames. Thus, there is an absence of consensus about the number and types of frames people use to define their conflicts.