Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
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)
- provides information
- regulates interaction
- 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.
- the breadth: variety of topics they discuss
- the depth: 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
- ex: 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.
- ex: “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