background preloader

Double bind

Double bind
A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation. Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.[1] Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.[2] Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems and cybernetics because human communication and the mind itself function in an interactive manner similar to ecosystems. History[edit]

Metacognition Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing". It comes from the root word "meta", meaning beyond.[1] It can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving.[1] There are generally two components of metacognition: knowledge about cognition, and regulation of cognition.[2] Metamemory, defined as knowing about memory and mnemonic strategies, is an especially important form of metacognition.[3] Differences in metacognitive processing across cultures have not been widely studied, but could provide better outcomes in cross-cultural learning between teachers and students.[4] Some evolutionary psychologists hypothesize that metacognition is used as a survival tool, which would make metacognition the same across cultures.[4] Writings on metacognition can be traced back at least as far as De Anima and the Parva Naturalia of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.[5] Definitions[edit] [edit]

Self-evaluation maintenance theory Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) theory refers to discrepancies between two people in a relationship. Two people in a relationship each aim to keep themselves feeling good psychologically throughout a comparison process to the other person.[1] Self-evaluation is defined as the way a person views him/herself. It is the continuous process of determining personal growth and progress, which can be raised or lowered by the behavior of a close other (a person that is psychologically close). People are more threatened by friends than strangers. Abraham Tesser created the self-evaluation maintenance theory in 1988. Description[edit] A person's self-evaluation (which is similar to self-esteem) may be raised when a close other performs well.[1] For example, a sibling scores the winning goal in an important game. At the same time, the success of a close other can decrease someone’s self-evaluation in the comparison process. Research example[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit] References[edit] Feld, S.

Confirmation bias Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Types[edit] Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. Biased search for information[edit] Even a small change in a question's wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. History[edit]

Balance theory P-O-X model[edit] For example: a Person (P) who likes an Other (O) person will be balanced by the same valence attitude on behalf of the other. Symbolically, P (+) > O and P < (+) O results in psychological balance. This can be extended to things (X) as well, thus introducing triadic relationships. Balance is achieved when there are three positive links or two negatives with one positive. Multiplying the signs shows that the person will perceive imbalance (a negative multiplicative product) in this relationship, and will be motivated to correct the imbalance somehow. Decide that O isn't so bad after all,Decide that X isn't as great as originally thought, orConclude that O couldn't really have made X. Any of these will result in psychological balance, thus resolving the dilemma and satisfying the drive. Examples[edit] However, if the person already had a dislike for the product being endorsed by the celebrity, they may begin disliking the celebrity, again to achieve psychological balance.

Conflict resolution The term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. Furthermore, the concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution.[4] Conflict resolution as an academic field is relatively new. George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, was the first university to offer a PhD program. Theories and models[edit] Dual concern model[edit] The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy).[1] According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. [edit]

Avoidance Lose-Lose From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Avoidance may refer to: Cooperation Among humans[edit] Language allows humans to cooperate on a very large scale. Certain studies have suggested that fairness affects human cooperation; individuals are willing to punish at their own cost (altruistic punishment) if they believe that they are being treated unfairly.[2][3] Sanfey, et al. conducted an experiment where 19 individuals were scanned using MRI while playing an Ultimatum Game in the role of the responder.[3] They received offers from other human partners and from a computer partner. Responders refused unfair offers from human partners at a significantly higher rate than those from a computer partner. It has been observed that image scoring[clarification needed] promotes cooperative behavior in situations where direct reciprocity is unlikely.[4] In situations where reputation and status are involved, humans tend to cooperate more. Among other animals[edit] Cooperation exists in non-human animals. Some researchers assert that cooperation is more complex than this.

Competition Win-Lose Competition in sports. A selection of images showing some of the sporting events that are classed as athletics competitions. Consequences[edit] Competition can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Biology and ecology[edit] Economics and business[edit] Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms".[4] It was described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and later economists as allocating productive resources to their most highly-valued uses.[5] and encouraging efficiency. Experts have also questioned the constructiveness of competition in profitability. Three levels of economic competition have been classified: In addition, companies also compete for financing on the capital markets (equity or debt) in order to generate the necessary cash for their operations. Competition does not necessarily have to be between companies. Law[edit]

Conciliation Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties to a dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. They do this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting issues, providing technical assistance, exploring potential solutions and bringing about a negotiated settlement. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award. Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In mediation, the mediator tries to guide the discussion in a way that optimizes parties' needs, takes feelings into account and reframes representations. Effectiveness[edit] Historical conciliation[edit] Japan[edit]

Win-win game A win-win game is a game which is designed in a way that all participants can profit from it in one way or the other. In conflict resolution, a win-win strategy is a conflict resolution process that aims to accommodate all disputants.[1][2][3] Types[edit] In colloquial speech, a win-win situation often refers to situation where one benefits, not necessarily through someone else's loss.In the context of group-dynamic games, win-win games are also called "cooperative games", "new games" or "games without losers".Mathematical game theory also refers to win-win games as non-zero-sum games (although they may include situations where either or both players lose as well).The TKI Thomas/Kilmann Conflict Profile provides a model that reveals preferences under stress and pressure. Group dynamics[edit] Group-dynamics win-win games have been increasingly popular since the end of the Vietnam war and have been successfully applied to all levels of society. See also[edit] References[edit]

Conflict continuum Conflict continuum is a model or concept used by various social science researchers in modelling conflict, usually going from low "irritations" to high "explosiveness" intensity.[1] These conceptual models facilitate discussion as in "anywhere on the conflict continuum".[2][3] Various continuum models[edit] Elise Boulding's conflict continuum[edit] Elise M. Boulding was a Quaker sociologist influenced by the events of World War II. This is Boulding’s conflict continuum:[4] War of extermination, Limited war, Threat systems (deterrence), Arbitration, Mediation, Negotiation (exchange), Mutual adaptation, Alliance, Co-operation, Integration,[4] Transformation.[5] Andra Medea[edit] Theorist Andra Medea seeks to explain how individuals, small groups, organizations, families, ethnicities, and even whole nations function when disputes arise between them. However, each level moving from fourth to first is more capable than the one below it at forcing victory in a conflict. References[edit]

Conflict resolution research Conflict resolution is any reduction in the severity of a conflict. It may involve conflict management, in which the parties continue the conflict but adopt less extreme tactics; settlement, in which they reach agreement on enough issues that the conflict stops; or removal of the underlying causes of the conflict. The latter is sometimes called “resolution,” in a narrower sense of the term that will not be used in this article. Settlements sometimes end a conflict for good, but when there are deeper issues—such as value clashes among people who must work together, distressed relationships, or mistreated members of one’s ethnic group across a border—settlements are often temporary.[citation needed] Negotiation Research[edit] Negotiation, the most heavily researched approach to conflict resolution, has mainly been studied in laboratory experiments, in which undergraduate participants are randomly assigned to conditions. Negotiation Research Findings[edit] Mediation Research Findings[edit]

Related: