Suchergebnisse

Using a simulated bilateral negotiation over several security issues, the authors explore how variations in the negotiation context influence reactions to a negotiating a crisis. Negotiators were primed to focus on one of three aspects of the context: transaction costs, dependence, or shared identity. They were asked to respond to the crisis with a decision to reach an immediate agreement, continue negotiating, or reframe the issues. The results showed that mutual dependence (unattractive alternatives) led to reframing (turning points) whereas high transaction costs led to a preference for continuing the negotiation. Shared identity did not affect negotiators preference across alternative courses of action. Affective trust amplified the impact of dependence and transaction costs: the decision to reframe was made more often by negotiators who reported low affective trust, whereas the decision to reach immediate agreement was made more often by negotiators who reported high affective trust. High cognitive trust encouraged negotiators to continue the negotiation if they had a shared identity or if transaction costs were high. Applications were made to real-world cases and implications were developed for Relational Order theory and for further research. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Using a simulated bilateral negotiation over several security issues, the authors explore how variations in the negotiation context influence reactions to a negotiating crisis. Negotiators were primed to focus on one of three aspects of the context: transaction costs, dependence, or shared identity. They were asked to respond to the crisis with a decision to reach an immediate agreement, continue negotiating, or reframe the issues. The results showed that mutual dependence (unattractive alternatives) led to reframing (turning points) whereas high transaction costs led to a preference for continuing the negotiation. Shared identity did not affect negotiators preference across alternative courses of action. Affective trust amplified the impact of dependence and transaction costs: the decision to reframe was made more often by negotiators who reported low affective trust, whereas the decision to reach immediate agreement was made more often by negotiators who reported high affective trust. High cognitive trust encouraged negotiators to continue the negotiation if they had a shared identity or if transaction costs were high. Applications were made to real-world cases and implications were developed for Relational Order theory and for further research.

This Handbook combines a review of negotiation research with state-of-the-art commentary on the future of negotiation theory and research. -- Leading international scholars give insight into both the factors known to shape negotiation and the questions that we need to answer as we strive to deepen our understanding of the negotiation process. This Handbook provides analyses of the negotiation process from four distinct perspectives: negotiators' cognition and emotion, social processes and social inferences, communication processes, and complex negotiations, covering trade, peace, environment, and crisis negotiations.

Purpose
Negotiators are offered limited advice on how to overcome adverse events. Drawing on resilience and coping literatures, this study aims to test the impact of three cognitive processing strategies on negotiators' subjective and economic value following adversity.


Design/methodology/approach
Participants completed two negotiations with the same partner. The difficulty of the first negotiation was manipulated and tested how cognitive processing of this experience influenced subjective and economic outcomes in the second negotiation.


Findings
Subjective and economic outcomes were predicted by negotiators' affect, their cognitive processing strategy and negotiation difficulty. In difficult negotiations, as positive affect increased, proactive processing decreased self-satisfaction. As negative affect increased, affective processing increased satisfaction with relationship and process.


Research limitations/implications
Cognitive processing of adversity is most effective when emotions are not running high and better able to protect relationship- and process-oriented satisfaction than outcome-oriented satisfaction. The findings apply to one specific type of adversity and to circumstances that do not generate strong emotions.


Originality/value
This research tests which of three cognitive processing strategies is best able to prevent the aftermath of a difficult negotiation from spilling over into subsequent negotiations. Two forms of proactive processing are more effective than immersive processing in mitigating the consequences.

Using a simulated employment negotiation, this experiment examined the relationship between dyad composition, negotiation strategies and levels of joint gain. Three dyad types were created on the basis of social value orientation, proself, prosocial and mixed. A log linear analysis showed that dyads were differentiated on the basis of the strategies associated with high joint gain. We identified a generic path to high joint gain in which all dyads increased priority information and decreased contention. Overlaid on this path, we identified dyad‐specific strategies and strategy sequences associated with high joint gain. Cooperative reciprocity was critical to high joint gain only in prosocial dyads. When dyads contained at least one prosocial negotiator, process management played an important role in determining the level of joint gain. When dyads contained at least one proself negotiator, the sequences associated with high joint gain functioned to divide resources.

AbstractMarkov chain analysis provides a way to investigate how the communication processes in dyadic negotiations are affected by features of the negotiating context and how, in turn, differences in communication processes among dyads affect the quality of the final settlement. In Markov models, the communication process is represented as a sequence of transitions between states, which describes how tactics are used and how they are reciprocated during the course of a negotiation. This article provides an introduction to Markov chain analysis and shows, using simulated data, how Markov chain models may be analyzed using widely-available loglinear modeling software. Model selection, assessment of the order of a chain, analysis of residuals, and sample size are discussed.

AbstractThe examination of negotiation processes is seen by many researchers as an insurmountable task largely because the required methods are unfamiliar and labor-intensive. In this article, we shed light on a fundamental step in studying negotiation processes, the quantitative coding of data. Relying on videotapes as the primary source of data, we review the steps required to extract usable quantitative data and the lessons we've learned in doing so in our own research. We review our experience working with one large negotiation dataset, Towers Market II, to illustrate two steps within the larger research process: developing a coding scheme and coding the data. We then go on to discuss some of the issues that need to be resolved before data analysis begins.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to test how individuals' emotion reactions (fear vs anger) to expressed anger influence their intended conflict management styles. It investigates two interventions for managing their reactions: hot vs cold processing and enhancing conflict self-efficacy.Design/methodology/approachHypotheses were tested in two experiments using an online simulation. After receiving an angry or a neutral message from a coworker, participants either completed a cognitive processing task (E1) or a conflict self-efficacy task (E2), and then self-reported their emotions, behavioral activation/inhibition and intended conflict management styles.FindingsFear is associated with enhanced behavioral inhibition, which results in greater intentions to avoid and oblige and lower intentions to dominate. Anger is associated with enhanced behavioral activation, which results in greater intentions to integrate and dominate, as well as lower intentions to avoid and oblige. Cold (vs hot) processing does not reduce fear or reciprocal anger but increasing individuals' conflict self-efficacy does.Research limitations/implicationsThe studies measured intended reactions rather than behavior. The hot/cold manipulation effect was small, potentially limiting its ability to diminish emotional responses.Practical implicationsThese results suggest that increasing employees' conflict self-efficacy can be an effective intervention for helping them manage the natural fear and reciprocal anger responses when confronted by others expressing anger.Originality/valueEnhancing self-efficacy beliefs is more effective than cold processing (stepping back) for managing others' anger expressions. By reducing fear, enhanced self-efficacy diminishes unproductive responses (avoiding, obliging) to a conflict.

This research proposes and evaluates hypotheses about patterns of communication in a multi‐party, multi‐issue negotiation. Data were from 36 four‐person groups. We found that the majority of groups initiated negotiations with a distributive phase and ended with an integrative phase—strong support for Morley and Stephenson's (1979) rational model of negotiation. We identified transitions between both strategic orientations (integration, distribution) and strategic functions (action, information), but found that the first transition was more likely to result in a change of orientation than of function and that negotiators were more likely to change either orientation or function (single transition) than to change both aspects of the negotiation simultaneously (double transition). Finally, we determined that negotiators used process and closure strategies to interrupt distributive phases and redirect negotiations to an integrative phase.