Many global and political conflicts involve differences in worldviews. As our world grows increasingly interconnected, and as differences in identity—and the politics of identity—play an increasingly prominent role in our cultural discourse, these differences become harder than ever to ignore. Yet worldviews remain poorly understood, and traditional methods of interest‐based negotiation are insufficient to address this dimension of conflict, which implicates core aspects of who we are, what we believe, and how we make meaning in the world. In this article, we examine what worldviews are, why they matter, and how clashes of worldviews can impede conflict resolution. We offer strategies and tactics to overcome these obstacles, drawing on scholarship in conflict management, social identity theory, relational identity theory, and moral psychology. Overcoming the clash of worldviews requires that we learn to build bridges across our respective worldviews, acknowledging each party’s relationship to their beliefs and values while emphasizing similarities to build a common identity that transcends our respective differences.

Given that emotions are inescapable and complex, how do you teach students how to deal with them? This article offers instuctors a practical approach. It suggests that instructors and students turn their attention away from emotions and toward a more limited set of core emotional concerns that stimulate many emotions. The article describes ways to teach students how to use these core concerns as tools to understand the emotional terrain and to stimulate helpful emotions.

When you have a rational discussion of what to do with the Israeli settlements, how do you factor in the irrational, the deeply held beliefs of people with varying views? As we witnessed at the conference, when people speak about the Israeli settlements, they do so with emotion, using such phrases as “Messianic spirit,”“longing for homeland,”“compassionate revenge,” and “the destruction of dreams.” The land in question is precious to two different groups, who each imbue the land with their own narrative and fervor. In fact, at the very heart of what makes the settlements issue so complex and seemingly intractable is its psychological dimensions — the mental and emotional factors that permeate the discussion at every level.

Though decision makers in many domains use bargaining as their primary approach to negotiation, it has limited efficacy in multi‐issue, nonquantifiable transactions. Nevertheless, many negotiators use back‐and‐forth bargaining rather than other approaches. The author explicates reasons for this choice and describes “supplemental joint brainstorming,” an innovative strategy to supplement the institutionally‐entrenched bargaining approach to negotiation with interest‐based negotiation.

A growing body of research suggests that students are able to learn skills of conflict resolution, but rarely apply them in real‐world disputes. In this essay, the authors focus on ways to increase the likelihood that students in disputes will use problem‐solving techniques rather than resorting to violence. The authors utilize Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (1991) as a guide for identifying antecedents to problem‐solving behavior. They also suggest means by which these antecedents can be modified to induce constructive problem‐solving behavior in school settings.