For unit four our group came up with a lot of interesting explanations on what it means to be ethical and Ella discussed this the best in her post when she suggested that Larson 's (1998) three criteria 's is the best tactic to use because it makes both persuader and persuaded just as important because “all persuasion is self persuasion” the firs criteria Larson brings up is: "when both sides have an equal opportunity to persuade and if each has approximately equivalent ability and access to the media of communication" (p. 11). The second criteria is: "there should be a revelation of agenda, where the audience is made aware of true goals and how they will be achieved" (Larson, 1998, p. 12). Finally, when persuading "the presence of critical
…show more content…
Collaborative negotiation is defined as which is a non- confrontational persuasive tactic that is often used to focus on interest not positions. (Hocker& Wilmot, 2003) During the Webex session this week Adam discussed an example about an orange in which someone has an orange and somebody ask for it as well rather than give the orange away the person ask why do you want the orange. Then the other thus, proceeds to say so he can give it to his horse. Collaborative negotiation helps expand the context. Collaborative negotiation also focuses on common interest, however for it to work it must include three behaviors assertion, argumentativeness, and confirmation. Victor and Ella both used this in their post and used different examples for each tier. I discussed this in attempting to persuade my brother to go see Circa Survive with me, I asserted the following I use this tier of the process to express once again my irrational fear of highway driving and to also persuade him given his musical taste that he will like the band I am recommending. For the argumentativeness Ella was attempting to persuade her roommate to use less power by saying “arguing and emphasizing that I 'm just trying to find common ground where we can compromise but that she needs to see it from my point which also applies to me. Finally, during confirmation we confirmed why expanding the discussion is so crucial for this tactic to work. As discussed during the Webex session arguments should not have just two outcomes there should be a multitude of
Collaborative negotiation is defined as which is a non- confrontational persuasive tactic that is often used to focus on interest not positions. (Hocker& Wilmot, 2003) During the Webex session this week Adam discussed an example about an orange in which someone has an orange and somebody ask for it as well rather than give the orange away the person ask why do you want the orange. Then the other thus, proceeds to say so he can give it to his horse. Collaborative negotiation helps expand the context. Collaborative negotiation also focuses on common interest, however for it to work it must include three behaviors assertion, argumentativeness, and confirmation. Victor and Ella both used this in their post and used different examples for each tier. I discussed this in attempting to persuade my brother to go see Circa Survive with me, I asserted the following I use this tier of the process to express once again my irrational fear of highway driving and to also persuade him given his musical taste that he will like the band I am recommending. For the argumentativeness Ella was attempting to persuade her roommate to use less power by saying “arguing and emphasizing that I 'm just trying to find common ground where we can compromise but that she needs to see it from my point which also applies to me. Finally, during confirmation we confirmed why expanding the discussion is so crucial for this tactic to work. As discussed during the Webex session arguments should not have just two outcomes there should be a multitude of