As a social advocate for a group of an Islamic group in the community, I know the tragedies they face due to the continued discrimination even as they walk down any street. The suspicious stares following any terror attacks anywhere in the world is hard to deal with for most people, but most of them are strong and are making life worthwhile in this country. The stares and whispers are maybe harmless until the stereotyping that Muslims or anyone from Arabic background is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer affects their desire and willingness to make life better for fellow brothers and sisters who find it extremely difficult to make it in life. I am faced with a challenging task of representing the Islamic group members to use a room at a local community center for a much-needed program that aims to offer support to low-income families in the community. The support group members have access to some of the NGOs seeking to improve health and education in the community. This program may sound appealing to most people but knowing the individuals who run the community center, it does not change anything. The Board, have a reputation of denying proposals from minority groups, I believe I have to employ my best persuasion tactic to gain their approval to meet the group and agree to offer the room for the group support program.
The Board’s reputation demonstrate that they are unwilling to consider the request and will focus on the stereotyping assumption that the group may use the group to plan terror attacks among other issues. The reason will be enough to refuse the request even before meeting the group. In such a complex problem, it is important to understand the opposite party to ensure that there is a loophole that can be used to convince the Board. The Board’s funding contract has a clause about serving the whole community which can be used to gain their attention, but that does not guarantee an agreement. According to cognitive dissonance theory, argues that situations that involving conflicting attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs result in discomfort that attribute to change the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs of the individual to reduce the pain. The theory argues that every person considers him or herself as moral or ethical but their judgments on moral issues may be affected by their attitudes or beliefs about something but when in the spotlight, the individual will choose the moral behaviors by suppressing their beliefs or attitudes (Perloff, 2014). The knowledge that the Board discriminates the minorities, using a door-in-the-face (DITF) strategy will be most effective to ensure they agree to meet the group members.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The DITF strategy employs making a request that is too big for the other party to accept and later making a smaller request that psychologists’ claims will be accepted (Perloff, 2014). In this case, I know the Board will not agree to meet the group. Thus I claim involving the media, which the Board will address the reasons it chooses not to meet the minority group. Discrimination is illegal in America and would tarnish the Board’s name and eventually lead to job loss or imprisonment if a case is filled. The Board is not aware of the proposal to use a room but agrees to meet the group as they view it as a smaller request, which will offer a chance to meet the support group.
Passing the first handle does not guarantee that they will agree to the group’s demands hence the need to determine the best strategy to employ to ensure they accept the request. It is important to apply different persuasion strategies while proposing to the Board. The Board is motivated to attend the meeting, as they are unaware on the subject of the proposal by the support group. The support group have a right to use the room just as other groups use different rooms in the community center and the Board has no right to discriminate the minority as the funding clause claims that they serve everyone in the community. There is also dependency as the group’s access to the funds from the NGOs is dependent on having an organized group, and the Board’s breach of the funding clause will lead to the termination of the financing contract. This interdependency will ensure the development of a persuasion strategy based on ensuring that I create dissonance in the Board. Creation of conflict ensures that the other individual is willing to change their attitudes to gain comfort (Perloff, 2014). The proposal will use direct, rational, and hard where applicable techniques to provide the Board agrees to the request. The direct method involves assertion and persistence on their need to agree to offer the group their constitutional rights and refrain from discrimination.
The analytical technique is based on ensuring the board realizes that the support group will benefit the entire community and failure to offer them a room will be detrimental to the community, as the NGOs will fund support groups in other locations. The rationalization will also aid the Board rationally consider their decision on the matter based on benefits or costs if they do not agree to the request. Taking a stand is important to ensure the Board realize that the group is not begging but has a right to be afforded the room for the support group. The rational tactic complimented by the hard and direct techniques will increase dissonance and as earlier stated they are more likely to agree to the requests to ease their discomfort (Stiff, 2016). Although this strategy works, it is important to lower their dissonance when signing the agreement by making the Board feel that they were not forced into the deal hence the need to accept changes in hours, as they seem most appropriate as long as the hours are convenient to the members. Lastly, commending them for improving their discriminative reputation will reduce their discomfort and ensure they feel better for making a moral decision.
Conclusion
The paper has illustrated the application of cognitive dissonance theory in real life situation. It demonstrated the use of DITF in complex matters where foot-in-the-door would not work. The essay also described the different ways to negotiate by determining the position in any negotiation to ensure maximizing on the advantages and minimizing the negative. In conclusion, an excellent interpersonal persuasion must acknowledge the time to increase or reduce dissonance of the other party.
References
Perloff, R. M. (2014). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stiff, J. B. (2016). Persuasive communication . Place of publication not identified: Guilford.
