Suchergebnisse

This study was an initial exploratory test of the relationship between disputants' interpretation of an ongoing conflict (i.e., dimensions of conflict frame), their conflict management objectives, expectations regarding settlement, and features of the dispute context. Fifty undergraduate students and the individuals with whom they were having a conflict were asked to describe the conflict they shared Each subject's conflict description was given a score for each of the dimensions of conflict frame (i.e., relationship vs. task; emotional vs. intellectual; compromise vs. win). Results suggest that conflict frame scores relate to features of the dispute context. Specifically, disputants with a relationship, intellectual frame were also likely to believe that the conflict had developed over a long period of time and involved a number of issues. Disputants with emotional, compromise frames felt that the conflict had surfaced suddenly and involved a number of issues. An emotional, win perspective was most typical for disputants who viewed the conflict as serious or intense. A second set of results suggest that disputants with a relationship perspective are more concerned about procedural issues while those with a task frame focus on distributive goals. In addition, disputants typically share the same frame on the relationship vs. task dimension and the compromise vs. win dimension, but are less likely to do so on the emotional vs. intellectual dimension. Finally, when disputants share a win as opposed to a compromise perspective, their joint expectations regarding outcome increase suggesting an overconfidence bias.

MDS (multidimensional scaling) is a technique that enables researchers to uncover the spatial representation or "hidden structure" that underlies & defines behavioral data -- such as negotiator or disputant perceptions & preferences. Although MDS has wide-ranging theoretical & applied appeal, it has been highly underutilized in the conflict & negotiation literature. In this paper, we seek to illustrate the promise that MDS offers in the study of conflict & negotiation. We begin with a discussion of how MDS can be differentiated from other multivariate techniques, such as factor analysis. Next we provide a brief overview of multidimensional scaling techniques -- highlighting the various methods available for collecting proximity data & the computer analysis programs that can be used to analyze them. We further review the nature of the results & the ways in which they are interpreted. We conclude with some examples of the types of questions that have been addressed using MDS in the conflict & negotiation literature & a discussion about the promise this technique has for future research. References. Adapted from the source document.

Negotiators with a BATNA (best alternative to the negotiated agreement) obtain higher individual outcomes and a larger percentage of the dyadic outcomes than individuals without a BATNA. This study examined if three mechanisms related to a BATNA, an alternative, a specific goal, and self‐efficacy, independently or in combination, influence outcomes. Six of the eight combinations resulted in higher individual outcomes. An alternative coupled with a goal or self‐efficacy resulted in a higher percent of dyadic outcomes and higher impasse rates.

Investigates whether three psychological mechanisms related to the use of a best alternative to the negotiated agreement (BATNA) are associated with the better-than-average outcomes achieved by conflict negotiators who use a BATNA to improve outcomes. Business graduate students (N = 326) participated in a job contract negotiation experiment with a 2x2x2 design that tested the independent & combined impact of (1) the existence of a specific goal, (2) negotiator self-efficacy, & (3) the presence of an implied alternative. Having a goal & negotiator self-efficacy were found to be independently associated with better individual outcomes. Negotiators assigned an alternative plus a goal or self-efficacy had both higher outcomes & higher impasse rates than the control group. 3 Tables, 21 References. Adapted from the source document.