User:Jtshores/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Politeness Theory

Link: Talk:Politeness theory

Anna, first let me say I am very impressed with the depth of your article. As someone new to politeness theory and relational communication in general, I found this page very helpful in gaining an understanding of the concepts. I want to commend your efforts. I understand that this is a complicated theory to fully understand and communicate and I do not claim to be an expert in this field. The aim of this review is simply to give feedback from a reader's perspective.

I am wondering, from a reader's perspective, if the information would be easier to digest with the following revisions:

A summarization of the "Face-threatening acts" section by omitting examples. This may serve the page well by giving the reader a brief understanding of the concepts but moving their attention to "Politeness Strategies", which may be a better lead (in my limited understanding). I understand that to grasp the strategies you must understand positive and negative face. I do think that moving through this quickly will aid the reader in understanding how these connect and do not get lost in text.

The main idea of "How refusals threaten positive and negative face" might be condensed by summarizing the last three paragraphs and leveraging your impressive References section. Furthermore, examples like the dialogue between Helen and Clarrie, while informative, do add bulk to the text. It may be a better use of space to simply refer to these examples in the reference page.

Lastly, when reading through the critiques section, you may want to limit each critique and use a reference once. The last bullet point shows 3 references with the same attribution. Again, impressive and very thorough. I am only looking at this from a consolidation point of view in order to give your audience the most important information quickly, since the subject is weighty and requires a lot of text to fully grasp.

One perspective I looked at when reading your article was whether or not this article was written from a neutral viewpoint. I believe you accurately covered all topics without introducing your own beliefs and appreciate your dedication to research without bias.

Thank you for your contributions to the field. I hope this was helpful.

Article Evaluation: Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

Lead: The lead and background sections clearly explain AUM’s origin and what it is intended to study. I especially appreciate the background information about URT, the Wikipedia link will be useful, I edited that in for you. When you mention “this theory initial focus” are you talking about AUM? I think so, as this is what I find in Littlejohn and Foss’ Theories of Human Communication book on page 182. Maybe make that distinction?

Content: I love what I’ve read. I enjoy the explanation about uncertainty and anxiety in paragraph two. It helps the reader understand exactly what is meant by these terms and put into context what you are talking about. One area I think is particularly beneficial to your text is the importance of uncertainty in communication situations. Uncertainty and anxiety is not always a bad thing. As Littlejohn and Foss state, “If you do not feel any uncertainty, you will not feel motivated to communicate because you will feel you already know enough” (Littlejohn and Foss, 183) Your coverage of maximum and minimum thresholds is clear and to the point - great work!

Lastly, I don’t know if it is necessary to list all of the axioms, though here is an article that explains the phases of axiom construction. You may want to explain briefly what axioms are and how these propositions are formed. Here is an article that I found that details the formation of axioms: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.598.955&rep=rep1&type=pdf (pg. 197)

Weaknesses: I think it may be useful to draw distinctions between URT and AUM, though in reviewing the Wikipedia page for AUM it seems this has been done. Maybe expanding on these ideas, if possible? This was initially confusing for me, drawing lines between the two.

Next, developing the axioms section. The AUM wiki page: (anxiety/uncertainty management) shows an effective way to simply touch on Self-concepts, Motivation, Reactions to strangers, Social categorization of strangers, etc. It does seem like a lot of information, but I had no initial idea what axioms were and I think for the casual audience this would be a great tool!

Application: The application section, next to the model illustration, in concise but to the point but may be able to be expanded by incorporating some working assumptions.

Critique: I think you could build this out just a bit to explain who Griffin and Stella Ting-Toomey and why we should listen to their critiques.   Grammar: Your sentence structure and grammar seem to be great. I did not see any obvious issues.

References:

S.W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (2011) Theories of Human Communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Yoshitake, M. (2002). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: A critical examination of an intercultural communication theory. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(2), 177-193.

Jtshores (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict Strategies

Contribution

My research has been intended to expand on current theories, models, and instruments of Conflict Resolution page.

• Conflict Style Instruments
  • Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument
  • EVL+N and its adaptation to romantic partners
  • The Disputing Process Instrument (DPI)
  • Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI)
  • Blake-Mouton Managerial grid Instrument
• Personality Indicators
  • Five-Factor Model
  • The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
• Theories
  • Relational Dialectics Theory
  • Dual Concern Theory

Overview

Conflict Strategies refer to the methods by which we attempt to avoid, manage, or resolve interpersonal discord, conflict, between members of two or more groups. Conflict strategies are a form of communication wherein a negotiation between two or more groups is sought in order to reach a consensus or understanding thus ending the conflict. When one communicates in a society, behavior is developed which form and modify our societal perception of normal. When one party disagrees with or resists another party’s societal behavior or communication, conflict is encountered and strategies assist in finding a resolution.

Conflict Strategies develop from an interest in navigating friction that originates from interpersonal communication, the exchange of information between two or more people. Strategies are formed by the evaluation of various theories in the fields of sociopsychology, psychology, and conflict resolution.

Strategies herein intend on providing models and theories about interpersonal behavior which aid the user in navigating disputes.

Conflict Style Instruments

Conflict Style Instruments are useful in testing the way that personalities are used in order to engage in conflict with others. These are the methods by which one prefers to navigate conflict. Depending on the disposition and needs of the individual engaged in conflict, different styles may be employed in order to reach a desired resolution.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) (1974) based on five different conflict styles, with origin in the Five Temperaments. This analysis was adapted from The Managerial Grid Model (1964) developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton, a grid for outlining leadership styles and their relation to an importance of work production versus human concern, in order to address personal conflict styles.

Competing style is Assertive and Uncooperative. You can expect an unwillingness to negotiate with another's opinions.

Collaborating style is Assertive and Cooperative. This style consists of thoughtful consideration of each party's views including discussion of goals, resulting in a mutual understanding.

Compromising style is moderately Assertive and Cooperative. It gives neither party everything they desire but both parties receive enough to leave each satisfied.

Avoiding style is Unassertive and Uncooperative. This is seen as the withdrawal from or refusal to address the conflict.

Accommodating style is Unassertive and Cooperative. The result is the submission of one party by acknowledging and accepting another's side of the issue.

Putnam and Wilson’s Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument [OCCI]

Putnam and Wilson’s Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument assumes that situational factors, not personality traits, are what determines which conflict strategy style one should use. The instrument uses three strategies for conflict: nonconfrontation, solution orientation, and control. This instrument has been noted for its reliability.

Non-Confrontation Strategies include avoiding disagreements and downplaying controversial events by approaching conflict in subtle, indirect ways. This is seen as avoidance or accommodation.

Solution Oriented Strategies include using compromise as well as a searching for creative ways to come cooperate.

Control Strategies include arguing one's side in order to gain advantage and the use of nonverbal behavior to show what one wants to achieve through conflict.

Exit, Voice, Loyalty + Neglect (EVL+N) models

The EVL model was originally created by Albert Hirschman and explained that dissatisfied customers of a company had two ways of dealing with their unhappiness in the quality of goods they received. Depending on their loyalty to the company, they would choose to exit, remove themselves from the business relationship, or they would voice their dissatisfaction. The EVL model was later evolved by Caryl Rusbult, Ibsabella Zembrodt to include neglect, the longing for dissolution or abandonment of work, resulting in the EVLN model. This model can be used as strategies for navigating conflict and explain options of how individuals may interact. Based on the strategy one chooses, certain results can be expected.

Exit

• This involved the removal of oneself from the situation or disagreement.
• In a relationship, this would be a breakup or dissolution of the relationship.

Voice

• Any attempt to change, rather than escape from, the dissatisfying situation.
• This includes constructive criticism in the form of a conversation and can be used to strengthen a relationship.

Loyalty

• This includes a person's loyalty to the organization, group, or individual.
• One's loyalty can lead to either blind acceptance of conflict or the improvement of a relational situation.

Neglect

• This is the failure to give proper care to or the abandonment of a relationship or work.
• This type of response does not help the relationship and usually leads to dissolution.

EVLN Model in Romantic Partners

Caryl Rusbult and Isabella Zembrodt adapted the EVLN model and present a typology of responses from people experiencing dissatisfaction in their romantic relationships. The studies revealed similar patterns of results among people. Voice and loyalty were judged to be constructive behaviors, while exit and neglect were viewed as relatively more destructive. In the study, men and women were asked about dissatisfaction within their recent romantic relationships and their answers were sorted into fields displaying either exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. A brief explanation of each response type and examples are seen below:

• Exit Responses are destructive to the relationship and included divorce or separating. Some responses even included abusive behavior.
• Voice Responses are constructive, optimistic, and active, and included discussing problems and compromising.
• Loyalty Responses are accepting of minor relationship issues, committed to the relationship, and expected conditions would improve.
• Neglect Responses are passive and showed that partners ignored their relationships. These behaviors typically led to negative effects within the relationships.

The Disputing Process Instrument (DPI)

Organizational conflict management is explained as a "disputing process" where social escalation between people occurs from grievance and conflict stages. The Disputing Process Instrument (DPI) was designed as a way to study this process. The instrument is composed of seven behaviors: conciliatory negotiation, third-party mobilization, overt retaliation, covert retaliation, toleration, avoidance, and discipline. Results from the DPI instrument show that disputes among peers who do not know each other well are likely to be contained at the grievance stage using covert behaviors (behaviors that are hidden from public view or even from the knowledge of the other person involved) or the dispute may become escalated if it involves third parties. Disputes among people who know each other well are likely to escalate their problems from grievances to dyadic confrontations only..

Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI)

The Putnam and Wilson Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument is focused on describing verbal and non-verbal behaviors while focusing on goal-oriented disagreements. The OCCI is designed to sample conflict strategies and predict the behavior of those involved. This is designed to provide the user with action steps for obtaining specified goals within a conflict setting. The main difference between this instrument and others is that it aims to concentrate on the behaviors that one can act upon to navigate a conflict, not simply one's innate behavior outside of specific conflict situations.

Blake-Mouton Managerial grid Instrument

The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid was developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton. based on behavioral dimensions. The grid, originally used to understand leadership styles can be adapted to understand where conflict may originate within work settings.

A Concern for People describes the degree that a leader considers team members' needs, interests and areas of personal development when deciding how best to accomplish a task.

A Concern for Production describes the degree that a leader emphasizes concrete objectives, organizational efficiency, and high productivity when deciding how best to accomplish a task.

Personality Indicators

Personality Indicators are useful in understanding who we are, our attitudes, and our beliefs about ourselves and the world in which we live. In doing so, these indicators give us insight into how to deal with interpersonal conflict.

Five-Factor Model

Big Five Model

Five-Factor Model, FFM, or the Big Five, was created by Robert McCrae and Paul Costa and which explains human personalities within five factors – Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Within each factor, a set of individual traits relate to more specific aspects of personality. This Model is used as a taxonomy of actual human behavior and does not serve to theorize about one's actions in situations, rather to identify traits through language for the purpose of categorization. The Five-Factor Model is commonly seen in academic research as it lists traits into categories.

Evidence of human traits organized within five factors was first uncovered by D. W. Fiske (1959) and refined by McCrae & Costa (1987). This idea was developed in order to understand and describe personality traits and differences among individuals. These characteristics are cognitive in nature and assist in categorizing behavior in order to navigate appropriate strategies for conflict resolution.

Use in Conflict Strategy:

This model assist us in understanding the personality type we may be dealing with during a conflict. When we understand one's traits, we are better prepared to apply appropriate strategies to navigate conflict. Philip J. Moberg studied the relationship between different personality traits and one's preferences for handling conflict. This study was conducted using the FFM as a trait identifier.

Individuals that displaying the extroversion trait tend to react well to interpersonal efforts to reach a solution, such as confronting a conflict directly or compromising to reach an agreement. Elevated levels of Neuroticism find conflict threatening and would be expected to be associated with avoiding conflict or reacting negatively to direct confrontation. People who display low levels of agreeableness would be likely to try to control a situation whereas high levels of agreeableness would be likely to care about another's feelings and thus would be likely to seek compromise. One displaying high levels of conscientiousness would be likely to desire direct approaches to resolving a conflict and for the benefit of both parties.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

MBTI Personality Types

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator corresponding measure of personality types, based on a theory of type introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung (1923) and developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers. Though answering a series of questions, people are identified as having one of 16 personality types. The MBTI seeks to help people understand who they are and explore their personalities including similarities to other people and their strengths and weaknesses. The six scales through which a person is identified include: Extraversion (E) and Introversion (I), Sensing (S) and Intuition (N), Thinking (T) and Feeling (F), Judging (J) and Perceiving (P).

Use in Conflict Strategy:

Using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument as a means to connect personalities with conflict styles, Percival, Smitheram, and Kelly studied these relationships and found the following:

"Is were more likely than Es to avoid conflict. Fs were more likely than Ts to accommodate, but there were no separate scale effects for competition, collaboration, or compromise replicated across both samples, and no significant results for the S-N or J-p scales. In contrast, using the interactive combinations of scales produced a replicable, consistent, and interpretable pattern of results. The exception was the S-N scale, which did not interact significantly. The most preferred conflict-handling intentions for combinations of the remaining scales were: ETJs preferred competing; EFJs preferred collaborating; ETPs preferred compromising; EFPs preferred accommodating; and all introverted combinations preferred avoiding, except ITPs who preferred compromising."

The study concludes with the realization that the test results may vary given the context of a conflict situation. If, for instance, a if someone saw that a certain conflict style would aid in their strategy, a change in approach may occur, even if contrary to a person's personality type. Someone who may not be an extrovert, may take on the trait during conflict if that is what they need to do in a certain situation.

Theories

Theories measure conflict through data gathering in order to predict how parties involved in conflict will behave and aid in resolving interpersonal conflict.

Strategy of Conflict

The Strategy of Conflict idea, by Thomas Schelling, is the study of negotiation during conflict and strategic behavior that results in the development of "conflict behavior." This idea is based largely on Game Theory includes a "A Reorientation of Game Theory" in which Schelling discusses ways in which one can redirect the focus of a conflict in order to gain advantage over an opponent.

• Conflict is a contest. Rational behavior, in this contest is a matter of judgment and perception.

• Strategy makes predictions using “rational behavior - …behavior motivated by a serious calculation of advantages, a calculation that in turn is based on an explicit and internally consistent value system. “
• Cooperation is always temporary, interests will change.

Relational Dialectics Theory

RDT, introduced by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Matgomery (1988), explores the ways in which people in relationships use verbal communication to manage conflict and contradiction as opposed to psychology. This concept focuses on maintaining a relationship even through contradictions that arise and how relationships are managed through coordinated talk. RDT assumes that relationships are composed of opposing tendencies, are constantly changing, and tensions arises from intimate relationships.

Concepts

• Contradictions – The concept is that the contrary has the characteristics of its opposite. People can seek to be in a relationship but still need their space.
• Totality – The totality comes when the opposites unite. Thus, the relationship is balanced with contradictions and only then it reaches totality
• Process – Comprehended through various social processes. These processes simultaneously continue within a relationship in a recurring manner.
• Praxis – The relationship progresses with experience and both people interact and communicate effectively to meet their needs. Praxis is a concept of practicability in making decisions being in a relationship despite of opposing wants and needs.

Dual Concern Theory

Associated with workplace conflict management, this theory proposes that conflict arises out of either a high or low concern for self and a high or low concern for others. Dual Concern Theory is related to work by Blake and Mouton (1964) and Theory of Cooperation and Competition, which examines how success is related to a group's belief that they share similar goals. The model explains how people negotiate conflict depending on their concern for themselves and their concern for others. There are five terms associated with each option in the model: Forcing, Yeilding, Avoiding, Problem Solving, and Compromising. Each term within the model results in a different method for handling conflict depending on a one's view.

Dual Concern Theory

Forcing is represented by a low concern for others and a high concern for self which results in threats and persuasion.

Yeilding is represented by a low concern for self and a high concern for others which results in giving in to others.

Avoiding is represented by a low concern for self and a low concern for others which results in not accepting the issues at hand.

Problem Solving is represented by a high concern for self and a high concern for others which results in an agreement that satisfies both parties.

Compromising is represented by a moderate concern for self and a moderate concern for others which results in a middle ground where both parties lose some of what they want and neither gets everything they want.

Critique

Conflict Style Instruments

• Though useful for testing personalities and understanding where a person is in a matrix of behavior traits, their actual disposition will need to be reviewed through interaction within multiple communication exercises in order to distinguish whether conflict strategies are accurate and replicable. The numbers and statistics alone do not adequately represent how a person will engage in conflict in every setting so this may make it difficult to form strategies across multiple contexts. Also, external factors such as the person they are engaging with and the severity and cost of conflict play into a person's changes in behavior within each conflict. These instruments do not take into account changes in society that will, in turn, change the way one navigates conflict.

Personality Indicators

• Some do not view these indicators as a scientific study due to the ability to cheat the tests and arrive at false or inaccurate readings. This means that though you assume one possesses certain traits, when the person is in various situations, he or she may be able to change periodically and adapt to conflict scenarios. Furthermore, when testing for specific reasons, one has the ability to simply choose the answers they think will give them a certain result. Because we have seen and communicated with other personality types in our social interactions, we have the ability to assume these personalities for situational purposes. Thus, accurate readings are difficult to administer making it difficult to ascertain which personality types we are entering conflict with, unless the test taker agrees to test honestly and, of course, you choose to trust him/her.

Theories

• The largest critique of conflict theories is that behaviors within a conflict are rarely patterned in a way that we can predict. So many internal and external factors contribute to the way we encounter and navigate conflict and that makes it difficult to predict outcomes. Outcomes are important to predict because that is what leads us to make decisions while planning and engaged in conflict.