Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a rhetorical and conflict resolution strategy based on empathizing with others, seeking common ground and mutual understanding and learning, while avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization.
The individual will choose a style of handling conflict based on the importance of saving their face and that of the face of the other. Dominating: One person's position or goal above the other. Avoiding: Eluding the conflict topic, the conflict party, or the conflict situation altogether.
Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution.Committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective ...
It is said that "When we combine observation with evaluation, others are apt to hear criticism and resist what we are saying." Instead, a focus on observations specific to time and context is recommended. [1]: ch.3 Feelings: These are emotions or sensations, free of thought and story. These are to be distinguished from thoughts (e.g., "I feel I ...
With the proper institutions and diplomacy, Liberals believe that states can work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict. [5] Liberalism is one of the main schools of international relations theory. Liberalism comes from the Latin liber meaning "free", referring originally to the philosophy of freedom. [6]
Conflict management is the process of limiting the negative aspects of conflict while increasing the positive aspects of conflict in the workplace. The aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes, including effectiveness or performance in an organizational setting. Properly managed conflict can improve group outcomes.
The foundation of the uncertainty reduction theory stems from the information theory, originated by Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver. [2] Shannon and Weaver suggests, when people interact initially, uncertainties exist especially when the probability for alternatives in a situation is high and the probability of them occurring is equally high. [6]
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms: As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.