The strategy of generalization as a factor in conflict-generating communication

Myskin S.V.

Moscow City Pedagogical University
Russia, Moscow
E-mail: myskinsv@mgpu.ru

Introduction

Today, the phenomenon of communication in general and its potential for conflict in particular are more relevant than ever for comprehensive scientific discussion. This issue is particularly acute given the understanding that modern human society is at the epicenter of political, territorial, economic, social, and other transformations. The reality around us is changing with incredible speed. It would seem that the modern development of civilization should ensure the stability of society. However, the facts force us to believe otherwise. States disintegrate, transnational corporations are declared bankrupt, once-popular professions disappear, comfortable behavior patterns change, etc. In such event-driven instability, the potential for conflict in communication manifests itself most clearly. Less and less attention is paid to understanding the needs of the interlocutor or partner. These circumstances serve as a suitable basis for social approval of the development of manipulative technologies both in mass communication and at the levels of collective and intimate-personal communication. In general, one can note a global trend of shifting from the value true communication to the value of influence, suggestion, and influence. Of course, any act of human interaction involves influence, suggestion, and influence. But with favorable interaction between subjects, these influences are developmental in nature. After all, since every function is first social and then personal [2], individual consciousness expands through communication and social interaction. The forms of communication observed today, however, are far from such a characteristic and, rather, lead to a "flattening" of consciousness. Under these circumstances, existing theories of communication prove incapable of explaining emerging socio-psychological and psychological phenomena. This forces the scientific community to rethink traditional approaches to the analysis of communication and develop an appropriate concept adequate to the modern realities of human interaction.

The problem of conflict-generating communication

Psychology maintains that the life of an individual is a set of changing activities [6]. It should be noted that any work is social and collective in nature. It would be difficult for a person to satisfy their needs alone. Therefore, considering life from a social perspective allows us to imagine it as a sequence of forms of joint activity among individuals. This approach reveals the essence of people's desire for unity, which is one of the key human needs.

Social and psychological unification of people is possible through communication and joint activity. In the psycholinguistic paradigm, the phenomena of communication and joint activity are considered inseparable from each other, which is expressed by the fundamental proposition: joint activity includes communication between cooperating communicants, supported by linguistic and non-linguistic signs [13, p. 12]. Moreover, "the factor uniting people in joint activity and guiding it is a common goal" [7, p. 232]. A common goal, as an image of the future result of joint activity, can become the property of all subjects only through communication [10]. After all, first of all, the thought expressing the goal must be externalized from the individual consciousness of the initiator of the joint activity. This is possible through a sign, most often a linguistic one.

However, a shared goal in a joint activity does not guarantee motivational unity among participants. After all, each participant has their own motive for achieving a common goal. It can be argued that in communication and joint activities, each participant strives to take into account their own motives and needs. Unity of motives is, of course, possible, but this is considered either an isolated incident or the result of prior preparation. It is precisely the polymotivation of the participants in communication that allows us to assert that communication is always conflict-generating. And the cultural, social, and personal diversity of people potentially creates additional risks of conflict in communication: informational, emotional, semantic, and others.

As can be seen, the problem of conflict-generating communication is closely intertwined with the relationship between social and individual consciousness. There is no doubt that the conflict-generating potential of communication diminishes as we move from individuality to a community of consciousness, to amodality [6]. The more similar the content of individual consciousnesses, the more predictable communication and joint activity. Incidentally, Russian history quite clearly presents examples of national community of consciousness. However, such knowledge inevitably creates cognitive conflict and dissonance, since each person still has an individual consciousness, albeit within the framework of a social one.

Thus, it can be argued that the potential for conflict in communication stems from the contradictory nature of key human needs: the simultaneous desire for unification and individualization. Perhaps this contradiction is one of the elements of the Russian cultural code. After all, Russian culture is distinguished by a strong communal, collectivist principle. Moreover, the specific value of collectivism lies in the fact that Russians, striving to preserve their individuality, have always felt a need for unity.

The type of joint activity as a special form of generalization

A comprehensive examination of the problem of conflict-generating communication in various forms of joint activity is possible at the intersection of two sciences: psychology and psycholinguistics. Fundamental psychology offers a theory of activity that makes it possible to uncover the essence and mechanisms of joint activities. In turn, the psycholinguistic approach allows us to characterize communication as a process aimed at organizing joint activities [10; 13].

In the structure of joint activity, an important factor uniting the subjects is a common goal [7, p. 232]. A goal is a structured image of the result of joint activity [10, pp. 54–55]. The common goal of joint activity can be presented only in symbolic form, most often in the form of verbal descriptions. In order for the goal to become the property of all subjects of the joint activity, the subject-initiator of the idea must externalize the content of his consciousness in the course of communication by means of a linguistic sign. The common goal in a condensed form contains ideas about the methods and techniques of operating with the subject of the activity, as well as «about the participants in the joint activity, their number, profile composition, professionally important qualities, the nature of the relationship towards them and between them, etc.» [Ibid.]. In other words, the common goal is relevant to the holistic form of joint activity, its models in a specific professional situation. This thesis substantiates the obligatory integration of communication into joint activities [8].

This approach to the problem of communication necessitates a typology of joint activities, i.e., a search for similarities and attributes across diverse forms (models) of joint activities and their classification into distinct groups. The identification of types of joint activities occurs through the identification of the essential characteristics of a form of joint activity, which constitute its invariant. Identifying the essential (common) allows participants to formulate and apply specific rules for the implementation of this form of joint activity.

We have previously examined types of joint activity (see, for example, 9; 14). A type of joint activity is represented by a generalized description of the actions of specialists of various profiles with a similar organizational goal. Such types as "economic man", "social man", "self-actualizing man" and "complex man" have been identified [5, p. 12]. The description of the subjects' actions in accordance with the common goal allows us to present them as essential characteristics of a given form of joint activity. The set of identified essential characteristics of a specific form of joint activity makes it possible to create a concept of a given type and formulate its corresponding meaning. The concept of a specific form of joint activity is the basis for its understanding, as well as its internalization by the subjects of the joint activity and subsequent coordinated implementation in practical terms.

In psychology, the formation of a concept is considered the result of generalization and arises in the sequence "perception - representation - concept" [4]. "A concept is abstracted from the individual traits and attributes of individual perceptions and representations and is thus the result of generalizing the perceptions and representations of a very large number of homogeneous phenomena and objects" [cit. from 4]. With regard to joint activity, the key homogeneous feature is a common goal shared by the subjects. The common goal is an abstract invariant for all subjects of joint activity. At the initial stages of involvement in joint activity, when perceiving and representing its form, subjects do not have a clear ordering of essential and nonessential features. In other words, subjects find it difficult to recognize and organize the motives and goals of future collective activity. The designation of essential and nonessential features of a specific form of joint activity with terms and verbal formulations (i.e., generalization) leads to the ordering and formation of key concepts of this form of joint activity. Thanks to the verbal formulation, the essential features of the form of joint activity become truly abstract, abstracted from the private, subjective form of existence.

Disengaging from a particular form of existence is the most important task in organizing truly collaborative activity. Participants who share the key concepts of this form of collaborative activity possess a common organizational (collective) consciousness. They share a common goal of collaborative activity. If such a concept is not formed, then truly collaborative activity is absent, since it has a subject-object nature: there is an initiator of the collaborative activity, and the rest are "blind" executors.

Strategy of generalization in joint professional activities

Above, we have outlined the sequence of concept formation in the context of developmental learning: «perception – representation – concept» [4]. We will give a brief explanation of the scheme. Based on sensory images arising in the process of direct perception of objects, through comparison with other represented objects, a contrast is made between essential (invariant) and nonessential (changeable in different situations) features. Then, in the course of abstraction, the essential features are generalized and become the content of the concept of this object. The concept is externalized in a linguistic sign. The described sequence is designated by V.V. Davydov as an ascent, from the particular to the general [ibid.]. We emphasize that, on the basis of this sequence, the educational material that schoolchildren master is didactically constructed. An important feature of this logical-psychological approach is the disclosure of the essence mastery of the concept. "To master a concept means not only to know the characteristics of objects and phenomena covered by the given concept, but also to be able to apply the concept in practice, to be able to operate with it. And this means that the assimilation of a concept includes not only the path from the bottom up - from individual and particular cases to their generalization, but also the reverse path - from the top down, from the general to the particular and the individual. Knowing the general, one must be able to see it in a separate, specific case, which one has to deal with at a given moment" [11, p. 261]. Consequently, in this logic, the formation of a concept occurs according to the scheme from the particular to the general, and the mastery of a concept - from the general to the particular.

Generalization in professional communication can have a fundamentally different character from the logic described above, considered within the framework development thinking of schoolchildren. To reveal the psychological basis of generalization in mastering the concept of joint professional activity, the following is applicable: reverse scheme «"concept – representation – perception." This thesis requires clarification.

The potential participants in joint activities are individuals with an already formed professional consciousness, a structured value system, and a hierarchy of motives and needs. Each participant also possesses their own understanding and conceptual framework of joint activities, validated by previous collective work. An appeal by the initiator of joint activities to sensory images (with subsequent ascent to the concept of a common goal) of the proposed joint activity is highly unlikely to elicit a motivational response from the partner. This is because each person possesses their own hierarchy of motives, and it is virtually impossible to "guess" the actual one. Furthermore, the participant acts as the bearer of their own strategy (or model) for organizing joint activities, which will not coincide with the one proposed. An appeal to agreement on an abstract, theoretical level will also not lead to the emergence of a common consciousness among the future partners, since the terms and concepts of the participants have different associative and semantic content. As is well known, conflict is a clash of motives, needs, goals, intentions, etc., manifested in an acutely contradictory manner [3]. This means that the traditional approach to generalization in professional communication inherently fosters conflict. Consequently, the "perception-representation-concept" framework cannot fully capture the essence of generalization in collaborative settings.

Before fostering a shared consciousness, it is necessary to create the appropriate psychological conditions. The prospective partner's existing knowledge and concepts about joint activity must be presented as inadequate and ineffective in the current interaction situation. To achieve this goal, the initiator of the joint activity demonstrates to the partner the unfavorable outcome of actions taken to achieve shared goals based on the partner's existing concepts. In other words, a descent from the abstract to the concrete is achieved, with a negative outcome, that is, according to the "concept - representation - perception" pattern. The psychological conditions in this case are the subject's negative emotional experiences, as well as a developed need for shared activity. The initiator of the joint activity then develops the necessary knowledge according to the already established "perception - representation - concept" pattern. This achieves shared consciousness and unity of purpose. Examining the process of engaging in joint activity and achieving shared consciousness, based on this pattern, allows us to uncover the mechanisms that shape true motivation for social unification in the recipient of verbal influence.

To illustrate the practical application of this approach, let's consider Neil Rackham's SPIN method, which he developed for making large sales [12]. In his study, the author analyzed the strategy of asking questions during a client meeting. By alternating different types of questions in a certain way, the client, the object of verbal influence, "destroyed" their usual concepts and knowledge about the comfort and favorability of using certain objects. N. Rackham identified the following types of questions: a) situational questions - about the facts and details of the client’s circumstances at the moment; b) problematic issues - about the difficulties and dissatisfaction that the client experiences and which can be resolved with the help of the offered goods or services; c) eliciting questions - aimed at revealing and raising awareness by the client of the possible consequences of one or another of his problems; d) guiding questions – direct the client's attention and awareness to the advantages of solving the problem with the offered product. Situational questions create the conditions for the client's conflict-free acceptance of problematic issues. Problematic questions create the conditions for formulating eliciting questions. In turn, eliciting questions motivate the client to take specific actions. Directing questions create the basis for decision-making [Ibid., p. 32]. As can be seen, at the initial stages of communication, the seller clarifies information of an abstract nature: What product do you use for…? What brand? A product brand is a generalized attribute of an entire group of products. Furthermore, a brand includes both tangible and intangible components [1]. The intangible component is represented by consumers' attitudes toward a given manufacturer, i.e., it is socio-psychological in nature and expresses the general attitudes of a social group. Attitudes toward a product also reflect the consumer's values and perceptions of quality of life. The next stage of verbal influence on the client involves actualizing ideas about the problems the client encountered while using the product, but which they did not focus on: Do you remember any difficulties you encountered while using the product? etc. Then, during the course of the conversation, the client develops sensory images of an unfavorable future, describing possible specific losses, damages, and their impact on the quality of his life as a whole: How much time do you spend repairing something? How much money do you spend on repairs? How much does repair costs affect your family budget? How does this affect your family relationships? At a certain stage of communication, the client experiences anxiety, which is alleviated by accepting the seller's offer. The result of verbal influence is the formation of motivation for engaging in joint activities, as well as a shared consciousness among the participants. This approach to generalization within the framework of joint activities creates the basis for conflict-free communication between the participants.

Conclusion

Thus, the problem of conflict-generating communication in collaborative activities is becoming central to both society and science. A key aspect of this problem is the generalization mechanism, which is fundamentally different from that proposed within the framework of developmental psychology of thinking and consciousness. The fundamental difference is the asymmetrical sequence of generalization in professional communication, namely, from concept through representation to sensory image, rather than vice versa. This approach fosters motivation in the participant in collaborative activities and fosters a shared consciousness. Furthermore, using this approach mitigates the potential for conflict in communication, creating the foundation for optimal collaborative activities.

Some provisions formulated in this article reveal the need for further research into the psychological mechanisms of forming a common goal of joint activities of subjects.

Literature

1. Antonova N.V., Patosha O.I. Brand perception and consumer behavior strategies [Text] / N. V. Antonova, O. I. Patosha; ed. N. V. Antonova; National Research University Higher School of Economics. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2017. 208 p.
2. Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and Speech. 5th edition, corrected. Labyrinth Publishing House, Moscow, 1999. 352 p.
3. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2008. 544 p: ill.
4. Davydov V.V. Types of generalization in teaching: Logical and psychological problems of constructing academic subjects. Moscow: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2000. 480 p.
5. Kirchler E., Mayer-Pesti K., Hofmann E. Psychological theories of organization. Kharkov: Humanitarian Center Publishing House, 2005. 308 p.
6. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Politizdat, 1977. 2nd ed. 304 p.
7. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 448 p.
8. Myskin S.V. Psycholinguistic aspects of professional communication // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics. Volgograd: VolSU, 2013. No. 2(18). P. 199-206.
9. Myskin S.V. The problem of the «image of the author» in professional texts // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: NOU VPO MIL, 2015. No. 23. P. 20-32.
10. Myskin S.V. Structure and content of professional communication // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: Institute of Languages of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Medical Academy, 2020. No. 1 (43). P. 54-63.
11. Psychology. Textbook for pedagogical institutes / edited by A. A. Smirnov et al., 2nd ed. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1956.
12. Rackham N., Raff R. Managing Large Sales / Translation from English. Moscow: HIPPO, 2003. 313 p.
13. Tarasov E.F. Towards the construction of a theory of organizational psycholinguistics // Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic scientific journal / ed.-in-chief S.V. Myskin. Issue No. 1 (1). Moscow: OOO "Agency of Social and Humanitarian Technologies", 2018. Pp. 11-20.
14. Myskin SV. Introduction to Organizational Psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2021). No. pp. 1-11.

References

1. Antonova NV, Patosha OI. Perception of brands and strategies of consumer behavior [Text] / NV Antonova, OI Patosha; ed. NV Antonova; National Research University "Higher School of Economics". Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2017. 208 p.
2. Vygotskij LS. Thinking and speech. Vol. 5 [Thinking and speech. Ed. 5], published by Labyrinth Publishing House. Moscow, 1999. 352 p.
3. Grishina NV. Psychological conflict. 2nd ed. [Psychology of conflict. 2nd ed.]. SPb.: Piter, 2008. 544 s: il.
4. Davydov VV. Types of generalization in teaching: Logical and psychological problems of constructing educational subjects. Moscow: Pedagogical Society of Russia, 2000. 480 p.
5. Kirhler E., Majer-Pesti K., Hofmann E. Psychological theories of organization. Kharkov: Humanitarian Center Publishing House, 2005. 308 p.
6. Leont'ev AN. Deyatel'nost'. Soznanie. Lichnost'. Izd-e 2-e [Activity. Conscience. Personality. Ed. 2nd]. M.: Politizdat, 1977. 304 s.
7. Lomov BF. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. 448 p.
8. Myskin SV. Myskin SV Psycholinguistic aspects of professional communication // Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics. Volgograd: VolGU, 2013. No. 2(18). P. 199-206.
9. Myskin SV. The problem of the «image of the author» in professional texts // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: NOU VPO MIL, 2015. No. 23. pp. 20–32.
10. Myskin SV. Structure and content of professional communication // Questions of psycholinguistics. Moscow: IYAz RAN, MMA, 2020. No. 1(43). P. 54-63.
11. Psychology. Textbook for pedagogical institutes / edited by A. A. Smirnova et al., 2nd ed. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1956.
12. Rekkhem N., Raff R. Managing big sales / Translation from English. Moscow: HIPPO, 2003. 313 p.
13. Tarasov EF. To the construction of the theory of organizational psycholinguistics // Organizational psycholinguistics [Electronic resource]: electronic scientific journal / chief editor SV Myskin. Vyp. No. 1 (1). Moscow: OOO «Agency for Social and Humanitarian Technologies», 2018. pp. 11–20.
14. Myskin SV. Introduction to Organizational Psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2021). No. b/n. S. 1-11.