| This dissertation describes the development of the common ground model of conflict intervention and its application to the pro-life/pro-choice conflict. Two primary research questions shape this study: What are the shared elements of pro-choice and pro-life worldviews, and where are there worldview differences? What kind of intervention designs can bring this conflict to a less contentious place, without forcing compromise by either group of advocates? A worldview framework is used to analyze the cognitive, affective-motivational, cultural-environmental, and needs dimensions of the conflict. Tracing a six-year process of developing and facilitating pro-choice/pro-life interactions, this work is an account of how non-confrontational interaction can be both initiated and sustained. Special attention is given to uncovering and examining stereotypes and misperceptions that each group of advocates has of those on the other side. Two other models of pro-life/pro-choice intervention are examined and compared with the Common Ground model. Field experience as a facilitator, survey data, interviews and analysis of the work of other scholars led to the conclusion that pro-life and pro-choice worldview differences lie predominantly in the cognitive worldview sub-system. This conclusion applies to the population of approximately two thousand pro-choice and pro-life advocates who, during the 1990's, participated in some form of intentional, yet non-confrontational, interaction. The concluding section of this dissertation comments on lessons learned for the field of conflict analysis and resolution and makes suggestions for additional research. |
