Summative Analysis
There are tactical approaches to develop arguments in collaborative manners that allow people to deliver and receive ideas acceptably. Essentially, these factors incorporate self-corrections and the capability to support ideas from others in order to create an understanding. Resolutions of misunderstandings and conflicts are attained when people involved in a discussion accept their mistakes. In this regard, Nadia presents a sympathetic approach to the humiliations she has caused to her friend. Effective communication is based on a mutual understanding of the differences existing between people (Baym, Yan, & Mei-Chen, 2004).
A response to this sympathetic approach from Nadia leads to an empathetic style on the side of Gabi. Conflict resolution is obsolete when the parties fail to accept faults and uphold listening skills (Beebe, Beebe, Redmond, Geerinck, & Salem-Wiseman, 2014). It is also apparent that communication must be presented together with responsive reactions. Ramaraju (2012) indicates that a person must mean what he or she says.
This meaning is availed by such attributes as facial expression, actions, and other body behaviors. In fact, the facial expression is one aspect that a person must use to indicate cooperation and allow other people to suggest the moods and delivery of the preceding ideas. However, such an understanding can be availed through paraphrasing. Paraphrasing allows other opponents to appreciate that their message is reaching the target (Purhonen, 2012).
For instance, Nadia emulates the idea of Gabi that they ought to listen to each other in a bid to confirm the validity and understanding of her statement. Like all other discussions, arguments should be held in a collaborative manner. In this light, the discussing members should not hold decisions for other people. The final decisions should arise from a common agreement between the two. In a bid to reach such mutual understanding, they pull chairs towards each other to show their readiness to cooperate. Essentially, reactions may propose more than words. Without uttering words to show the commencing of cooperation, the two students participate mutually in a collaborative argument.
They identify their problems and isolate them from their discussions in order to make an effective conclusion. The eventual results of a collaboration between Gabi and Nadia allow an agreement and satisfaction between them. Their faces show surprise and happiness prior to the decision regarding the venue of the trip. The final decision between Nadia and Gabi is not only marked by the facial expressions, surprises, and/or speaking, but also the shaking of the hand.
Interpersonal Power
The relationship between Nadia and Gabi affects the moods and directions of the discussion. Even though the extent of the relationship between them has not been availed in the full approach, the two have a common interest leading them into the discussion. Furthermore, they are friends as Nadia points out. Therefore, their discussion forum may deprive them of the friendship they are enjoying. They hold such discussions due to the friendship, which implies that further relations may cease if it is lost. The last section involving shaking of hands further shows their appreciation in respect to the conclusions.
However, the most appealing aspect is the point where Gabi accepts Disneyland as the location to hold the trip. Probably, Gabi accepted this location to withdraw the earlier reaction that had created conflict. The agreement restored their relationship to the initial state. This aspect implies that Gabi sacrificed her trip ideas in order to retain their relationship.
Intimacy
The emotional drive might affect the course of reactions from people. Beebe et al. (2014) stated that emotions can influence communications positively or negatively. The case of Nadia and Gabi showed the two sides argued by this researcher. Nadia had a bad day that made her sensitive to the unreasonable behaviors and critics of Gabi. She felt that she could not tolerate them and decided to part from the discussion.
On the other hand, Gabi reacted to the emotions shown by Nadia by describing the actions and disclosing the problem assertively. The emotions were also apparent from the two after reaching an agreement. Pulling the chair away and towards each other was the emotional response depicted during the discussion. Another emotional behavior from the case included the use of speech to describe the frustrations and delivery of the ideas to each other.
Conflict
In most cases, conflicts lead to the dissolution of discussion groups and loss of relationships between friends, family members, and co-workers. However, the resolution of the conflicts within this case causes the formation of agreement about the trip destination. The conflict is solved in two fundamental processes termed the resolution and follow-up stages. As Beebe et al. (2014) suggest, Gabi identifies and describes the problems leading to the conflict through attempting various interpretations of Nadia’s action. For instance, Gabi points out, “looks like you are giving up on our friendship…”.
She continues to analyze this situation informing her friend that she seems tired and frustrated where she informed how she was also hurt by her reactions. Nadia sympathizes with the negative effects she has caused to her friend. In response, Gabi empathizes similarly to reach a solution. In this way, the two opponents arrive at a resolution of listening to each other. The end of the resolution stage marks the beginning of the follow-up steps in this case.
The follow-up stage is apparent where they pull the chairs towards each other. Nadia indicates the aspect of follow-up through paraphrasing the idea of Gabi. This continues through the improvement of the discussion format where Gabi provides a positive response to Nadia’s suggestion. The stage ends with facial expressions and shaking of hands indicating their satisfaction with the plan.
References
Baym, K., Yan B., and Mei-Chen L., (2004). Social Interactions Across Media: Interpersonal Communication on the Internet, Telephone and Face-to-Face. New Media Society, 6(3):299–318.
Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., Redmond, M. V., Geerinck, T. M., & Salem-Wiseman, L. (2014). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others (6th Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Canada.
Purhonen, P., (2012). Interpersonal Communication Competence and Collaborative Interaction in SME Internationalization. Jyvaskylä Studies in Humanities, 6(4): 178–73.
Ramaraju, S., (2012). Psychological Perspectives on Interpersonal Communication. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 3(4):68–73.