Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 489–507 | Cite as

Ripeness and Grief in Conflict Analysis

  • Arnaud Stimec
  • Patrice Guillotreau
  • Jean Poitras


In assessing the timing of a conflict resolution effort, one of the most frequently used explanatory frameworks is ripeness theory. Despite its popularity, ripeness theory has some limitations: poorly established generalization outside international situations, empirical validation is difficult to objectify, limited consideration of non-rational factors, and low predictability. The purpose of our study is to contribute to enriching ripeness theory by bringing in the theory of grief developed by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. The anchovy fishing conflict in the Bay of Biscay (off the coast of France and Spain) lends itself to this type of analysis, as it is a conflict that has seen many reversals, making the place of resolution efforts hard to explain. It is from this perspective that grief theory is put forward as a complementary explanatory model. The model is tested using an original methodology that has the merit of being reproducible through the lexical analysis of newspaper articles. The results, confirming the grief model’s relevance, can then be proposed as an enhancement to ripeness theory by incorporating the grief model. This improvement leads to a better understanding of the issues of initiating a conflict resolution effort.


Conflict Ripeness Grief Escalation Readiness Turning points 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carpenter SL, Kennedy WJD (2001) Managing public disputes: a practical guide for government business and citizens group. Jossey-Bass, Sans FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. de Castelbajac B (1984) Le différend franco-espagnol à propos de la pêche dans le golfe de Gascogne. Doctoral dissertation, IEP de BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  3. Druckman D (2001) Turning points in international negotiation: a comparative analysis. J Conflict Resolut 45(4): 519–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Errante A (1999) Peace work as grief work in Mozambique and South Africa: post conflict communities as context for child and youth socialization. Peace Conflict 5(3): 261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans MJ, Tyler-Evans M (2002) Aspects of grief in conflict: re-visioning response to dispute. Conflict Resolut Q 20(1): 83–97Google Scholar
  6. Girard R (1995) La violence et le sacré. Hachette/Pluriel, Paris. 1972 1st edn [Transl.: Violence and the Sacred, Johns Hopkins, 1977]Google Scholar
  7. Glasl F (1997) Konfliktmanagement, 5th edn. Verlag Freies Geistesleben, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  8. Golann D (2004) Death of a claim: the impact of loss reactions on bargaining. Negotiat J 20(4): 539–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jan M (2007) Les conflits liés à la pêche dans le golfe de Gascogne: le cas de l’anchois. Master dissertation, Université de NantesGoogle Scholar
  10. Joanette N, Brunel ML (2001) Identification des étapes émotionnelles liées à la perte d’emploi des cadres à l’aide du modèle du deuil de Kübler-Ross. Carriérologie 8(1–2): 234–249Google Scholar
  11. Kriesberg L (1987) Timing and the initiation of de-escalation moves. Negotiat J 3(3): 375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kubler-Ross E (1978) On death and dying. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Lebart L, Morineau A, Piron M (1997) Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle, 3rd edn. Dunod, p 439Google Scholar
  14. Mirvis PH (1985) Negotiations after the sale: the roots and ramifications of conflict in an acquisition. J Occup Behav 6(1): 65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell C (1995) The right moment: notes on four models of ripeness. Kent J Int Relat 9(2): 35–52Google Scholar
  16. Mooradian M, Druckman D (1999) Hurting stalemate or mediation? the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. J Peace Res 36(6): 709–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perlman D, Takacs GJ (1990) The 10 stages of change. Nurs Manage 21(4): 33–38Google Scholar
  18. Pruitt DG (2005) Whither ripeness theory. Institute for conflict analysis and resolution. George Mason University. Working Paper no. 25.
  19. Pruitt DG, Kim SH (2004) Social conflict: escalation, stalemate, and settlement, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Rashford NS, Coghlan D (1989) Phases and levels of organisational change. J Managerial Psychol 4(3): 17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reynaud JD (2000) Le conflit, la négociation et la règle. Octarès, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubin JZ, Pruitt DG, Kim SH (1994) Social conflict: escalation, stalemate, and settlement, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Van de Vliert E (1984) Conflict: prevention and escalation. In: Drenth PJ et al (eds) Handbook of work and organizational psychology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Zartman IW (1989) Ripe for resolution: conflict resolution in Africa, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Zartman IW (2000) Ripeness: the hurting stalemate and beyond. In: Druckman D, Stern PC (eds) International conflict resolution after the cold war. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Zartman IW, Berman M (1982) The practical negotiator. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Zartman IW, Rubin JZ (eds) (2002) Power and negotiation. The University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnaud Stimec
    • 1
  • Patrice Guillotreau
    • 1
  • Jean Poitras
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Économie et de Management de Nantes Atlantique (LEMNA)Université de NantesNantesFrance
  2. 2.HEC MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations