All communication has two parts: a

All communication has two parts: a sender and a receiver. The sender has a message he or she intends to transmit, and s/he puts it in words, which, to her/him, best reflect what s/he is thinking. But many things can intervene to prevent the intended message from being received accurately.



Frank Blechmanstates that surprises offer the intervenor a chance to re-assess the assumptions he/she has made about a conflict.
If the communication is verbal, tone of voice can influence interpretation. The boss's words, "Hey, I noticed you were taking an especially long break this morning," could be interpreted as an attack if she or he said that in a disapproving tone, while the comment might be seen as a minor reminder about office rules if it was said in a friendly way. If the employee has a health problem that sometimes requires long breaks, the comment might have even been a friendly inquiry about what was happening and whether the employee needed any help. Here, tone of voice as well as situational and relationship factors would influence the interpretation of the message.

Nonverbal cues also are important. Is the sender's posture open and friendly, or closed and cold? Is her facial expression friendly or accusatory? All of these factors influence how the same words will be received.

In addition to how the message is sent, many additional factors determine how the receiver interprets the message. All new information we learn is compared with the knowledge we already have. If it confirms what we already know, we will likely receive the new information accurately, though we may pay little attention to it. If it calls into question our previous assumptions or interpretation of the situation, we may distort it in our minds so that it is made to fit our world view, or we may dismiss the information as deceptive, misguided, or simply wrong.

If the message is ambiguous, the receiver is especially likely to clarify it for him or herself in a way which corresponds with his or her expectations. For example, if two people are involved in an escalated conflict, and they each assume that the other is going to be aggressive and hostile, then any ambiguous message will be interpreted as aggressive and hostile, even if it was not intended to be that way at all. Our expectations work as blinders or filters that distort what we see so that it fits our preconceived images of the world. (Conflict theorists call these filters "frames." See the essay on Frames, Framing, and Reframing for more information.)

An analogy can be made to an experiment that tested people's interpretation of visual cues. When people were given eyeglasses that turned the world upside-down, they had to suffer through with upside-down images for a week or two. After that, their brains learned to reverse the images, so they were seeing things right-side up again. The same thing happens when we hear something we "know" is wrong. Our brains "fix" it so that it appears as we expect it to.

Cultural differences increase the likelihood of misunderstanding as well. If people speak different languages, the danger of bad translation is obvious. But even if people speak the same language, they may communicate in different ways.

Common differences are between high-context and low-context communication. Low-context communication stands on its own; it does not require context or interpretation to give it meaning. High-context communication is more ambiguous. It requires background knowledge and understanding (context), in addition to the words themselves, for communication. While everyone uses both kinds of communication, Western cultures tend to use low-context communication more often, while Eastern and Latin American and African cultures tend to use high-context communication. If such differences are not understood and adjusted for, misunderstanding is almost inevitable.[1]

Culture also affects communication by influencing the recipients' assumptions. As described above, our minds try to twist incoming information to make it fit in our worldview. Since different cultures have very different worldviews, cross-cultural communication is especially likely to change meaning between sender and receiver, as the sender may have a very different worldview from the receiver.

Given our tendency to hear what we expect to hear, it is very easy for people in conflict to misunderstand each other. Communication is already likely to be strained, and people will often want to hide the truth to some extent. Thus the potential for misperception and misunderstanding is high, which can make conflict management or resolution more difficult.

Results (Japanese) 1:

すべての通信は、二部を持っています: 送信者と受信機。送信者がメッセージを送信する、しようとする彼または彼女、s/he はを通じて最高反映彼/彼女が何を考えているか言葉でそれを置きます。しかし、多くのものは、目的のメッセージが正確に受信されるを防ぐために介入できます。驚きは、審判官について競合したときは、前提条件を再査定するチャンスを提供してフランク ・ Blechmanstates。通信は口頭で、声のトーンは解釈を影響するでしょう。上司の言葉は、「ねえ、私気づいた今朝、特に長い休憩を取っていた」は、彼女または彼は不賛成口調で念のためマイナーなコメントを見られる可能性があります office 支配する友好的な方法で言えばと言った場合攻撃として解釈される。従業員に時々 長い休憩を必要とする健康上の問題がある場合、コメントもかもしれない何が起こっていた、従業員がいずれかを必要かどうかのフレンドリーなお問い合わせヘルプ。ここでは、声だけでなく、状況と関係要因のトーンはメッセージの解釈に影響を与えます。また言語的コミュニケーションも重要です。開き、友好的、または閉じた、冷たい送信者の姿勢とは彼女の表情は、優しいのか非難?これらすべての要因は同じ単語が受信されますどのように影響を与えます。In addition to how the message is sent, many additional factors determine how the receiver interprets the message. All new information we learn is compared with the knowledge we already have. If it confirms what we already know, we will likely receive the new information accurately, though we may pay little attention to it. If it calls into question our previous assumptions or interpretation of the situation, we may distort it in our minds so that it is made to fit our world view, or we may dismiss the information as deceptive, misguided, or simply wrong.If the message is ambiguous, the receiver is especially likely to clarify it for him or herself in a way which corresponds with his or her expectations. For example, if two people are involved in an escalated conflict, and they each assume that the other is going to be aggressive and hostile, then any ambiguous message will be interpreted as aggressive and hostile, even if it was not intended to be that way at all. Our expectations work as blinders or filters that distort what we see so that it fits our preconceived images of the world. (Conflict theorists call these filters "frames." See the essay on Frames, Framing, and Reframing for more information.)アナロジーは、視覚的な手掛かりの人々 の解釈の検証実験をさせることができます。人々 は、世界を逆さまになって眼鏡を与えられた、彼らは 1 週間または 2 つの逆さ画像で苦しむならなかった。その後、彼らは再びを物事右側を見ていたので、画像を逆に自分の脳を学んだ。私たちを「知っている」何かが間違っているを聞くと同じことが起こります。私たちの脳""それを修正して期待どおりに表示されるようにします。文化の違いは、同様の誤解の可能性を高めます。人々 は、異なる言語を話す、翻訳が悪いと危険性は明らかです。しかし、たとえ人々 が同じ言語を使用して、さまざまな方法でコミュニケートできます。一般的な違いは、高文脈と低文脈コミュニケーションの間です。低コンテクストの上に立ちます。コンテキストまたは意味を与える解釈は必要ありません。高文脈のコミュニケーションはよりあいまいです。通信用単語そのものだけでなく、背景知識と理解 (コンテキスト) が必要です。誰もは、通信の両方の種類を使用して、西洋文化は東およびラテン アメリカ中低コンテキスト通信より頻繁に使用する傾向がある、アフリカの文化は、高コンテキスト通信を使用する傾向があります。このような違いはありません理解して、調整、誤解はほぼ避けられないです。[1]文化も受信者の仮定を与えることにより通信に影響します。前述のように、私たちの心は、私たちの世界観に合うように着信情報を工夫しようとします。異文化は、非常に異なる世界観を持っている、ので異文化間コミュニケーション、特に送信者と受信者の間の意味を変更可能性があります送信者は、受信者からの非常に異なる世界観を必要があります。聞いて聞いて何を期待私たちの傾向を考えると、互いに誤解する対立の人々 の非常に簡単です。通信は、緊張して、すでに、人々 がしばしばある程度に真実を隠したいです。こうして誤解と誤解する可能性が高く、できる解像度や競合の管理を難しくします。