Conflict Res Exam 2
Card Set Information
Conflict Res Exam 2
Conflict Res Exam
Conflict Res Exam 2
Not engaging in the conflict.
Conditions that produce greater PCG
Faith in own problem solving ability
Positive sum thinking
Availability of a third party
Other’s perceived readiness for problem solving
Positive sum thinking
View that the two parties interests are not totally opposed and that problem solving is doable
Opposite of zero sum thinking – for one to win the other must lose.
Perceived risk of engaging in problem solving
Image loss – perception that party is weak in capability and thus ready to make extensive concessions.
Position loss – perception that party has conceded from a previous position.
Information loss – when party reveals its underlying interests or lower limit.
Runs the risk of alientating other and starting a conflict spiral.
Inclines Party toward contending.
Inclinces people toward yielding.
Less likely to generate a sense of unfairness
More likely to promote problem solving
Develop over a person’s lifetime based on a complicated blend of genetics, life experiences, family background, and personal philosophy.
Patterned responses, clusters of behaviors, that people use in conflict.
Individual moves people make to carry out their general approach.
When you use a tactic numerous times, it becomes a style.
Designed to protect self and other from discord, may lead to lack of clarity
May set stage for later uncontrollable conflict or more avoidance
Denial of conflict, changing and avoiding topics, being noncommittal, and joking
Avoid bringing up an idssue to people directly but spend a lot of time talking about them to others.
As a tactic works best when several conditions are present:
Emotional content of the conflict needs to be acknowledged while other issues are deferred to a later time.
After emotional content acknowledged, agree on a time that is soon and realistic revisit problem.
Aggressive and uncooperative behavior
Focus on win/lose orientation
Most commonly used competitive tactic
Source of threat must control the outcome
Threat must be seen as negative by recipient
Source does not control the outcome
Comment is seen as negative by recipient
Source controls the outcome
Recipient sees outcome as positive
intermediate style resulting in same gains and some losses for each party
requires trade offs and exchanges
lets parties accomplish goals with less time than collaboration requires
flipping a coin is more arbitration with chance as the arbiter – not really compromise, can be a form of avoidance
does not assert individual needs and prefers a cooperative and harmonizing approach
when one finds out theyre wrong it can be best to accommodate
may foster an undertone of competitiveness - one upping each other by showing how reasonable they are.
what one person does, thinks, or feels is dependent on what someone else does, thinks or feels.
demands the most constructive engagement of any of the conflict styles.
shows a high level of concern for self and others and the successful solution of the problem.
broader category than threats
form of communicative violence
attacking self concepts/ character attacks
“I wish you would die” “youre so stupid”
verbally aggressive tactics
ongoing, persistent badgering, harassment and psychological terrorizing that demoralizes, dehumanizes and isolates those targeted.
idea that people change their communication style based on the demands of different situations.
concept that suggests that assigning a beginning is less important than looking at the sequence of patterns in the conflict process.
basic tool for assessing the system from a “no blame” perspective.
those who are central to passing and receiving messages from members.
similar to rules but they are descriptive no prescriptive of behaviors
clusters of behaviors organized into structurally repetitive episodes
small pictures that give a lot of clues about the bigger picture
taking advantage of other
moves and countermoves, gestures and ploys, things that Party does to dominate Other.
one tries to make itself more attractive to another in order to prepare other for subsequent exploitation.
relies on technique that others find it hard to dislike those who say kind things about them.
messages from Pary announcing its intention to reward Other if Other complies with Party’s wishes.
determinants of the success of promises
reward for Other must be better than what is lost through compliance
promise must be crecible/believable
Other must believe Party is capable of providing reward, intends to provide it, and has enough surveillance over Other to tell whether Other has complied.
technique whereby Party induces Other to lower its aspirations through a series of logical appeals.
act of causing Other to fee lthe emotion of shame/global condemnation of onself.
rewarding Other when they cooperate and punishing Other when they don’t.
matching other’s behavior
message from Party of intention to hurt Other if Other fails to comply with Party’s wishes.
in some situations are better motivators than promises
is asking for compliance without giving anything in return
prediction that Other will get hurt if they fail to act in a particular way.
form: I have started doing something that punishes you and will continue doing it until you conform to my wishes.
determinants of success of coercive commitments
advantages of coercive commitments
problems with coercive commitment
oten entail considerable risk.
marches, picketing, distributing protest literature
economic boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience, mutiny
sit ins, fasts, nonviolent obstructions, nonviolent invasion
the sender’s intentions differ from the effect on the receiver.
what nonverbal communication does (3 things)
helps to define the relationships we share with others
cultural norms that dictate what emotions are appropriate in particular situations
intensifying, minimizing, neutralizing, masking
visual dominance ratio
high status people tend to depart from norms of gazing, they look more while speaking but less while listening than there average person does.
doesn’t involve what people say but how they say it.
unconscious mirroring of others postures, and mannerisms.
social penetration theory
the development of a relationship is closely tied to systematic changes in communication.
: variety of topics they discuss
: the personal significance of the topics they discuss.
taboo subjects in relationships
sensitive matters that in the opion of the partners may threaten the quality of their relationship
: state of the relationship, current relationships with other partners, past relationships
differences in verbal style – rapid fire conversation vs slower more deliberate hesitant verbalizing.
tending to address several topics at once in an argument, not isolating the issue
wandering from topic to topic so that the conversation never stays on one problem long enough to resolve it.
when people assume they understand their partners thoughts feelings and opinions without asking.
: “you think I’m an idiot.” “you just said that because”
communicates constant criticism of others’ points of view
that fails to acknowledge others’ concerns
instead of responding to what partner says, launching a complaint of their own
insults, mockery, hostile humor
partner clams up and reacts to the messy situation by withdrawing into stony silence.
one partner aggressively rejecting the other altogether
identify as plainly as possible a specific behavior that annoyed us
not only tell partner what’s on our minds but focuses the conversation on manageable behavior that can be changed rather than personality.
opposite of mindreading
assessing the accuracy of their inferences about a partner’s feeling by asking the partner for clarification