Compromise psychology definition

Compromise is considered a rational option for balancing opposing interests. Psychology gives such a definition of what a compromise is - it is the choice of a strategy in a confrontation, in which opponents need to make some concessions in relation to satisfying the interests, aspirations, desires of the opposing side. Compromise is based primarily on respect for opposing positions. It always follows a conflict of interests, a confrontation of divergent desires, a confrontation of needs. As a rule, such a confrontation occurs between people, but it can also be observed within the individual, between states, religions.

Meaning of the word

Compromise is a kind of way out of confrontation. It consists in resolving a disagreement, a conflict situation, strife by reaching a mutual non-violent agreement with a mutual rejection of some of the demands put forward. Opponents retreat from their own positions, taking a new common position. The purpose of the described method is to achieve a common result that satisfies all participants.

Today's society forces people to find ways to resolve problem situations without insults, swearing, using weapons, fighting or litigation. After all, there is always the opportunity to reach agreement with opponents and make convincing arguments without squabbles and violent influence.

Excessive adherence to principles often leads to situations of confrontation. Therefore, it is easier to find a solution that suits all opponents to preserve the positive climate of the team, rather than continue to stubbornly defend only one's own interests.

So, compromise, what is it in simple words? This is a retreat from a fraction of one's own interests, a retreat in views, a concession in the opinions or actions of both sides. Here, an agreement is reached precisely through mutually beneficial concessions by the opponents.

Thus, briefly, compromise is considered a so-called mediator in human interaction, interstate relations, as well as in intrapersonal confrontation. Compromise resolution of situations of confrontation is achieved exclusively through mutual concessions. Often people have to "make an agreement" with their own conscience, comrades, colleagues, relatives, bosses, partners. The considered method is effective not only in social interaction, but also in the political sphere. History knows many examples of compromises, when the brewing armed confrontation ended in mutually beneficial peace agreements. Often, it is a compromise in various confrontations or political issues that is the most worthy and appropriate way to resolve.

In your own words, what a compromise is, you can explain it this way: when mutual success in an activity involving people who have certain differences is likely only if the parties find a solution that suits them. That is, the opponents manage to find a compromise solution against the background of achieving the desired, avoiding confrontation and defending their own position, as well as the right to their own choice.

The described method requires a temporary renunciation of ambitions, desires, addictions, which in certain circumstances often brings considerable benefits. It is often difficult for people to "give up" their own position, which is why the result of the surrender must contain benefits and fruits that concern both parties. Such actions are useful not only for resolving the situation of confrontation, but also for saving further interaction, common cause, friendships, family.

Thus, summing up what a compromise is, we can briefly conclude that this is a way out of confrontation through mutual concessions, indulgences.

Types of compromise

The modern rhythm of life often forces people to agree to a compromise with their own person, environment, friends, in the work environment. At the same time, the considered method of reconciliation will be effective only when both opponents understand that they have equal opportunities, the presence of incompatible interests, and the danger of losing everything.

A compromise behavioral strategy is characterized by a moderate balance of aspirations of the conflicting participants. In other words, it can be called a win-win strategy.

Distinguish between satisfactory reconciliation and unsatisfactory compromise. The first one arises with the relative satisfaction of all participants and their real desire to comply with the agreements. A compromise is considered a failure when all the participants in the confrontation had to agree on concessions that did not satisfy any of the opponents. In this case, reconciliation will not last long. Here, a compromise can be considered a kind of respite before looking for other solutions. An agreement in which one party, in his own opinion, has suffered much more loss than the other side, will not bring him satisfaction. Having agreed to unfortunate indulgences today, that is, having made a forced deal, a person in the future will still want to "recoup".

After all, what is a compromise in a conflict - it is the desire of the participants to end the confrontation through mutual equal concessions that satisfy all opponents.

The key problems and significant difficulties in reaching a mutually beneficial agreement are due to human individuality and the dissimilarity of interests with other individuals. Each subject in his own way interprets any incident. Everyone has personal ulterior motives that he cannot include in the negotiation process, but which affect such a process. In addition, sometimes it is precisely such hidden reasons that are the ultimate goal. It is necessary to understand that what is important for one subject can be absolutely insignificant for his opponent and vice versa.

In addition to the above variations of compromise, there are two more: a voluntary decision and an involuntary or forced one.

The first implies an agreement based on taking into account several parameters of reconciliation that suit both opponents. Participants reach agreements that cater to their interests partially or completely.

Forced reconciliation is observed when an agreement is not concluded voluntarily, but as a result of certain conditions dictated by the situation, when opponents have to retreat from a number of their own demands or soften them.

Pros and cons of compromises

First of all, the described method of reconciliation is optimal because it is relatively "painless" and understandable to all opponents. There are practically no situations in which a compromise is impossible. As a rule, any confrontations at the initial stage can always be resolved by reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. This works both in interpersonal strife and in interstate confrontations.

After all, what is a compromise in a relationship? This is an opportunity to save your own face, deviating from your own requirements and going for equivalent indulgences.

The considered method is universal in scope. It allows you to settle differences, improve interaction not only between people, but also between organizations or individuals and organizations. That is, in fact, between any associations of individuals against the background of the contact of their needs or interests.

At the same time, the basis of compromise in relationships is always concession, in other words, a person has to retreat a little. The method under analysis is a system of minor losses, giving the other side the opportunity to win. Therefore, the compromise strategy is based on a system of following opponents, where each participant makes sure that the other one deviates from his own interests no less. It also plays a role and who will take the first step.

Thus, in favoring a strategy of compromise in problematic situations, it is necessary to weigh the positive aspects and the negative aspects of such a decision. Among the shortcomings are the following:

- the need to retreat from one's own position, to sacrifice principles, ambitions, interests;

- Opponents often receive incomplete satisfaction from the results of the agreement;

- in some situations, the described strategy is only an intermediate stage of getting out of confrontation;

- reconciliation requires balanced and prudent actions, negotiation skills and the presentation of one's own thoughts.

If we discard the above disadvantages of the described method of reconciliation, then a reasonable compromise with a balanced approach carries the following advantages:

- a mutually beneficial solution;

- sometimes this method leads to the final resolution of the confrontation;

- acquisition of negotiating experience;

- maintaining relationships in the future.

Examples from the life of children and parents

Kids in the debut period of socialization are constantly faced with various kinds of confrontations, strife, conflicts. Such situations happen everywhere: in the garden, in the yard, in the family, on the playground. The method under consideration is considered the most acceptable way to resolve disputes with offspring or between children.

Parents should understand the common truth: quarrels and conflicts among children and between generations are inevitable. After all, all kids are different with personal interests, their moods and rules.

Therefore, children need to be taught what a compromise is, what is the purpose of using it, and how to do it correctly. Explain to the crumbs that the term being analyzed is a certain behavior of the participants in the quarrel, when each gives in, sacrifices some of his own desire in exchange for an equivalent concession or sacrifice of the other. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the concessions must be mutual, each participant in the quarrel retreats from the share of claims, realizing that the other will do the same.

Explain with examples as it will be easier for children to understand. For example, the baby does not want to eat porridge, but requires his favorite sweets. Instead of severely punishing him to eat, it is better to offer a compromise solution: the baby eats part of the portion, after which he can eat sweets. At the same time, it is necessary to explain to the baby what the concession of the parent and the baby itself is, and also what the benefits of both parties are.

Also, for example, often children do not want to go to bed at night, but demand to continue the game process. Again, a compromise strategy is ideal here. Having agreed with the children for a twenty-minute continuation of the game battles, in return for which they will independently remove the toys and go to bed.

Author : Practical psychologist Vedmesh N.A.

Speaker of the Medical and Psychological Center "PsychoMed"

what is it, examples from life, pros and cons

What is a compromise?

Compromise is an agreement between parties in disagreement, concluded on the basis of mutual concessions to each other, and often such a solution benefits all parties to the conflict. Compromise is based on the desire to settle the accumulated differences by abandoning each side, at least temporarily, of their own ambitions in favor of the opposite side.

Thus, the foundation of a compromise is always a concession in favor of another person (a group of people, a state, etc.), which implies a voluntary retreat of the individual from his own positions and interests. At the same time, a concession made by one side should cause a similar action of the other side , which is no less obliged to give up part of its interests in favor of the opponent.

The described method of dispute resolution is widely used not only in the field of social interaction, but also in the field of politics. Throughout the history of mankind, one can find many examples of mutually beneficial compromises that successfully ended seemingly insoluble disputes between countries. Therefore, compromise, concluded in an atmosphere of mutual respect, is one of the most effective ways to resolve conflicts. It allows you to take into account and respect the interests of all parties to the dispute, making a decision that suits them on the basis of mutual concessions.

Examples of compromises

Let's look at a few examples of compromises that one has to face in life from time to time.

1. Husband and wife

Disagreements often arise between husband and wife regarding the family budget - what should it be, joint or separate? For example, a wife wants a completely joint budget, and a husband wants a completely separate one, citing the fact that they earn the same. It would seem that the situation is insoluble.

However, the husband and wife know how to negotiate, each of them makes concessions, and they make a compromise - each monthly saves 50% of the salary to the general budget (it pays for the mortgage, utilities, food), and the remaining 50% each leaves for personal needs . Here's an honest compromise.

2. Parents and children

What is more important - to find a job and start earning money, or to get a quality education? Parents believe that it is necessary to unlearn all 5 courses of the university without being distracted by work, and the son, studying in the 2nd year, already wants to transfer to “part-time” and go to work, because. he does not have enough money for personal needs.

Of course, it is up to the son to decide, because he is already an adult. But he respects the opinion of his parents and finds a compromise solution - he remains to study full-time, and gets a job not full-time , as he wanted, but part-time with a schedule that does not interfere with his studies. Parents, in turn, give him the use of their car to quickly move between work and study. Each of the parties made certain concessions, and as a result a compromise was reached.

Types of compromise

Compromises are divided into two types: positive and forced (negative).

Under positive compromise means an agreement, the need for the conclusion of which (and with it, the obligation of mutual concessions) was recognized, understood and accepted by both parties to the dispute. In such a situation, the parties can easily find a mutually beneficial way out of a deadlocked dispute without any problems.

Forced (or negative) An agreement is called a compromise, the conclusion of which was clearly and obviously unprofitable for one of the parties to the dispute, however, due to certain circumstances, such a compromise had to be made. Examples of such compromises are often found in the labor sphere, where the employee is dependent on the employer and is obviously at a disadvantage, as they say, "not in a position to bargain." But even within the framework of such an agreement, there must be at least some benefit for the employee, otherwise it can no longer be called a compromise.

Advantages and disadvantages of a compromise

The obvious advantages of mutually beneficial agreements concluded by the two parties include:

• maintaining good relations between opponents after a successful resolution of a dispute;
• obtaining by the parties of additional experience in the field of negotiations, the acquisition by them of skills and abilities for the successful resolution of conflicts;
• minimization of possible risks, and, as a result, the impossibility of further aggravation of the situation;
• the ability to finally resolve a long-awaited conflict and never return to it;
• benefit received by both parties to the dispute as a result of its successful resolution.

However, the conclusion of a compromise is fraught with some negative consequences. The disadvantages of such an agreement include several circumstances:

• the search for a compromise is a complex and often lengthy exercise that requires the parties to have at least minimal respect for each other and the ability to negotiate;
• often a compromise does not resolve the dispute, but only delays its final decision;
• sometimes, in order to reach an agreement, one or both sides of the conflict have to go against their own principles, pride and ambitions.

Differences Between Compromise and Consensus

Consensus and compromise are both methods of resolving disputes, however, both methods differ markedly. So, compromise implies obligatory mutual concessions of the parties , while consensus does not imply such a condition.

Consensus is a specific, pre-prepared template that allows you to successfully resolve the conflict situation, while concessions that are not always beneficial to yourself, in this case, can only come from one of the conflicting parties.

Rules for successfully reaching a compromise

Experts identify two rules that help conflicting parties to reach a compromise solution:

• When discussing a way out of the current situation, each side should not only listen, but also delve into the essence of the opponent's arguments. In principle, it is impossible to find a solution that suits everyone without understanding the opposite side.
• Both parties to the dispute should strive to achieve a mutually beneficial solution that suits both of them, based on respect for the opponent and his requirements. The essence of the compromise lies in voluntary concessions on both sides, otherwise the decision taken will only delay the further development of the conflict, but will not extinguish it in any way.

Conclusions

As is clear from the above, the undoubted advantage of a compromise is its relative "painlessness" in relation to both opposing sides. In fact, it is impossible to find a situation in which the search for a compromise solution would be impossible, because this method of resolving disputes is successfully used both in resolving family and interpersonal disagreements, and in resolving serious interstate conflicts.

• 
  Chronic negative thinking
• 
  What causes involuntary mouth movements
• 
  Emotional intelligence improvement
• 
  What is remorseful mean
• 
  Waking up with stress
• 
  Aches and pains from anxiety
• 
  Confronting borderline personality disorder
• 
  Are you mentally
• 
  Grouchy old men
• 
  What's a priority
• 
  Cheating is normal