1. Without an assessment guide, why are parties to a conflict notoriously inaccurate at describing their own and others’ behaviors in a conflict?

2. What is the value of using a systematic scheme for the analysis of a conflict event?

Please only use sources from the chapter, no outside sources. Thank you.

Answer  preview

In case of a conflict, no party is always willing to accept liability for the actions that brought about the dispute. Each party tends to shift the blame on the adverse party. In giving a narration about the conflict, each party’s information is always contradictory, making it quite difficult for the neutral party to get to the bottom of the issue. In solving a dispute, the neutral party must take the first step, establishing a broad base of a conflict. In establishing such a ground, the trier of fact needs general information about the conflicting parties’ relationship. After establishing the relationship, it becomes easy to understand the eventual escalation of the dispute. However, the parties are always reluctant is giving the neutral party the real occurrence of events. The adverse parts never agree on any concrete facts about their relationship. The parties to a conflict tend to conduct an assessment to determine the losses they may incur if they are held guilty and the benefits of becoming a successful party.

315  w0rds