Final answer:
Strategic Yielding is the approach that involves giving in for the benefit of the group, with the potential for future conflicts. Compromises are more likely when parties share the same overall goals but disagree on details, requiring a willingness to accept partial progress.
Step-by-step explanation:
The approach that involves giving in to the other person's viewpoint for the good of the cause or group, with the understanding that the conflict may reoccur, is likely best described as Strategic Yielding. This approach is often taken in collective decision-making scenarios where maintaining group cohesion or ensuring progress towards a common goal takes precedence over one's own immediate interests. It is different from compromise, which involves both sides modifying their demands to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.
In scenarios where parties typically agree on the goal but differ on the specifics to achieve it, a compromise is more likely to happen. As an example, countries negotiating on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may aim for the same overall objective but need to compromise on the degree of reduction. Such compromises are a way of making partial progress and are necessary in politics and everyday decision-making when the status quo is challenged.
Compromise requires seeing the potential for overlap in positions and accepting partial wins. However, challenges such as political polarization and the prevalence of simplified online discourse can make achieving compromise in public opinion and governance increasingly difficult.