More handpicked essays just for you.
Cognitive Dissonance And Its Effects On Our Lives
Cognitive Dissonance And Its Effects On Our Lives
What is cognitive dissonance? essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cognitive Dissonance And Its Effects On Our Lives
Concept 1: Cognitive Dissonance is psychological discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions. Application: As a manager, I used to work in a team of five people. The colleges that I had was wonderful, but the clients were not that nice. There are situations in which I had to communicate with my clients to explain over and over again about certain terms or definitions on the contract. I do think it is one’s duty to fully understand the contract before he signs it, but most clients don’t actually understand that the contract is what constrains us. Arguing with me will not help to fulfill his demand. But I had to confront these people every once in a while. That is where cognitive dissonance grows. Patient
...case. When taking care of a client, view them as your beloved one such as a parent or whom you value or respect other than doing it as a chore.
Communication skills are important in professional negotiations and in personal life. This book discusses why we find some dialogue difficult, why we avoid it, and why we often address it ineffectively. Most important, the authors suggest methods for more effective, productive, and rewarding, interaction.
To use the reframing technique to provide another side of client’s thoughts of losing control.
Using an imaginary client, describe how the precontemplation stage might present regarding a significant issue and how a client might move to the contemplation stage on that issue.
Cognitive dissonance can be described as the feeling of discomfort resulting from holding two conflicting beliefs. It can also be said to be the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. A well-known psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89), introduced this concept in the late 1950s where he proved that, when confronted with challenging new information; most people are observed to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists in one way or the other (Festinger, 04).
Decisions are the basis of human history, advancement, and modern society. Important decisions often cause a conflict within a person as he or she attempts to make a choice based on what he or she believes is right, as well as what he or she believes is wise. Throughout life and society, people find themselves at a crossroads of beliefs or thoughts with the justification of murder. This is due to the dissonance illustrated when they have mixed feelings with the idea that killing another human is wrong, although it seemingly appears unavoidable in certain situations. This inevitability is what justifies murder in the first place. These mixed feelings create a cognitive dissonance that impacts society in a detrimental manner because people in society care less about people being murdered due to the simple and common justification behind it.
...during the negotiation. Because they did not explicitly articulate their objectives to each other, the union and management did not reach a settlement that was mutually beneficial. I believe both teams prioritized “winning” over fulfilling their initial objectives. Therefore, I better understood how both teams suffered under pressure during the negotiation because they realized they could no longer rely on a zero-sum strategy. Moreover, I realized how important team cohesiveness is to the bargaining process. Both the union and management lacked basic cohesiveness among their team members and consequently exacerbated the contentious and emotional environment that they created during the negotiation. Nevertheless, under these circumstances I believe the union and management ultimately reached an adequate proposal that satisfied both sides of the bargaining table.
There are several signs that a client is more stressful to work with than they are worth to represent. You should not represent these clients, because they bring down the morale of our entire office. Black, analyzes some examples such as cases with a client
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
What was negative about the client perspective: The clien 't overall perspective of the situation is negative. The client is somewhat defensive and feels that
I have learned not to judge a book by his cover. When the client first came to my office, I thought him was just being lazy in class. The goal should always be
Psychological contract is the unwritten contract that illustrates a set of expectations exists between the individual and the organisation (Sonnenberg et al, 2011). Svensson & Wolven (2010) point out that it can be a relationship between the members of a group, the people who work in the same company, department or organisation, several groups or parties in an organization, etc. It includes the work performance requirement, job security, training, potential development, compensation and subside. Psychological contracts are the mental representation based on belief or perception, so it may help the employees and employers get rid of a complicated employment relationship. For instance, the employees and employers may understand very clearly about the terms and conditions and what they have been agreed upon. The perception of each individual is very important and essential (Ekelund et al, 2010, 1438). Thus, when they work in a high competitive group, it could motivate them to implement their work consciously. Combined with a few exceptions, some researches cite that psychological contract is only regarding to the employee–manager relation and the term that mostly...
Throughout my time at Arizona State University and my internships I encountered different conflict situations, which required different skill sets to be resolved.
The next time, I try not to get frustrated, the client has the right to self-determination.
The research paper examines the causes of justification: cognitive dissonance and rationalisation. In the first cause, to avoid dissonance one resorts to justification. Secondly, because of rationalisation, where the mind overpowers the intellect, one justifies. Examples are drawn from different walks of life like the media and law to highlight its impact in the society. The general effect of justification is that it camouflages the evils of society and gives a false sense of rationality. Based on faulty reasoning, immoral actions are justified as being moral. Further analysis draws out different types of justification prevalent in the society such as market, industrial, civic, inspiration, domestic and fame. The conclusion arrived at points