Search results

This study compared the effects of three interventions and a no-intervention control on the settlement of resource and value conflicts. These variables were arranged in a two (conflict issue: resources vs. values) by four (no intervention vs. other affirmation vs. shared identity vs. transaction costs) between-dyads design in which 127 dyads engaged in a negotiation task. Negotiators reached generally lower joint outcomes in the value conflict compared to the resource conflict, but after the other-affirmation intervention, this pattern was reversed. The shared-identity intervention did not result in higher joint outcomes for value conflicts. Stressing positive concern for the other negotiator may be a more effective strategy than stressing commonalities between the parties: increased concern for self and decreased defense of own opinions may account for this result. Forcing and logrolling behavior are shown to be mediating variables between the type of conflict and outcomes.

"Delivering professional presentations of scientific work is an important part of an academic's life. Oral presentations are important not only because you present your scientific work, but also because you present yourself to potential hiring committees, grant committees, and collaborators. This book uses insights from the field of psychology, as well as from the theatre, to teach you how to make a lasting impression. It addresses core topics such as how to design presentation slides, how to practice, and how to deliver your presentation to a range of audiences. Useful exercises are provided to help you cope with presentation anxiety, make the most out of conferences, and adapt your presentation to various formats, audiences, and cultures. It is not easy to present with impact, but this book contains the guidance you need to master the art of presenting"--

AbstractMediation has developed into an established discipline consisting of a variety of tactics that may be employed when intervening in different types of conflicts. One particular type of conflict that has been identified as difficult, if not impossible, to resolve is value conflicts. Research dedicated to developing interventions aimed at resolving value‐based disputes is limited. To address this gap between research and practice, we interviewed professional mediators to gain insight into the techniques employed when intervening in value conflicts. This preliminary exploratory study resulted in several propositions. The analysis of the transcripts is presented, and plans for future research are discussed.

Delivering professional presentations of scientific work is an important part of an academic's life. Oral presentations are important not only because you present your scientific work, but also because you present yourself to potential hiring committees, grant committees, and collaborators. This book uses insights from the field of psychology, as well as from the theatre, to teach you how to make a lasting impression. It addresses core topics such as how to design presentation slides, how to practice, and how to deliver your presentation to a range of audiences. Useful exercises are provided to help you cope with presentation anxiety, make the most out of conferences, and adapt your presentation to various formats, audiences, and cultures. It is not easy to present with impact, but this book contains the guidance you need to master the art of presenting.

In the current research, we investigate the effects of breaks—temporary recesses in which participants stop interacting and withdraw from the situation—on negotiation processes and outcomes. We conducted two laboratory experiments in which participants engaged in buyer-seller negotiations. Experiment 1 (N = 140) showed that dyads reached higher-quality agreements after a break in which they were cognitively busy with a distraction task than after a break in which they could reflect upon the negotiation. Experiment 2 (N = 76) showed that competitive thinking during a break lead to lower-quality agreements than cooperative thinking during the break. It seems that the negative effects of competitive thoughts during a break can be compensated by turning one's mind to other issues than the negotiation, or by actively engaging in cooperative thinking.

A quasi‐experiment tested the effects of honor values and the use of insults by the other party on perceived conflict, negative emotions, and intentions to behave distributively and integratively during a workplace conflict. After honor values were measured, participants read a scenario in which a conflict was described. In the scenarios, we manipulated whether the other party used an insult by describing the other party's statements such that either an insult was uttered or no insult was uttered. Consistent with our hypotheses, results showed that conflicts in which the other party used an insult lead to higher ratings of perceived conflict, more negative emotions, and stronger intentions to engage in distributive behavior than conflicts in which the other party did not use an insult in high‐honor‐value participants, but not in low‐honor‐value participants. Mediation analyses showed that the interactive effect of honor values and other party's insults on intentions to behave distributively could be explained by perceived conflict and negative emotions.

Public trust in organizations that are involved in the management and use of new technologies affects lay judgments about the risks and benefits associated with these technologies. In turn, judgments about risks and benefits influence lay attitudes toward these technologies. The validity of this (indirect) effect of trust on lay attitudes toward new technologies, which is referred to as the causal chain account of trust, has up till now only been examined in correlational research. The two studies reported in this article used an experimental approach to more specifically test the causal chain account of trust in the context of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). Complementing existing literature, the current studies explicitly distinguished between two different types of trust in organizations: competence‐based trust (Study 1) and integrity‐based trust (Study 2). In line with predictions, results showed that the organizational position regarding CCS implementation (pro versus con) more strongly affected people's risk and benefit perceptions and their subsequent acceptance of CCS when competence‐based trust was high rather than low. In contrast, the organizational position had a greater impact on people's level of CCS acceptance when integrity‐based trust was low rather than high.