C.K.W. de Dreu

Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation : The disruptive effects of punitive capability

Two studies tested the effects of negotiators social motive (cooperative vs. individualistic) and punitive capability (high vs. low) on trust, negotiation behavior, and joint outcomes. On the basis of structural goal-expectation theory (T. Yamagishi, 1986), it was predicted that in the case of a cooperative motive higher levels of punitive capability lead to less trust, less exchange of information about preferences and priorities, and agreements of lower joint outcome. Study 1 (N = 41) supported this prediction: Cooperative negotiators had lower trust, exchanged less information, and attained lower joint outcomes under high rather than low punitive capability; individualistic negotiators were not influenced by punitive capability, presumably because they have low levels of trust to start with. Study 2 (N = 21) showed that these effects happened because higher levels of punitive capability increase conflict avoidance in negotiators with a cooperative motive.

Outcome frames in bilateral negotiation: Resistance to concession making and Frame-Adoption

This chapter reviews research and theory concerned with outcome frames in negotiation—the negotiators conception of the dispute as involving gains (gain frame) or losses (loss frame). We argue that because losses are more aversive than equivalent gains are attractive, loss framed negotiators should display greater resistance to concession making and settle less easily than negotiators with a gain frame. A review of frame research supports this argument. Furthermore, we propose that during negotiations, disputants communicate about their frame, and tend to adopt the frame communicated by their opponent. Several experiments are reviewed that show this frame adoption effect to be likely especially when the negotiators themselves have a gain rather than a loss frame. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the importance of outcome frames to the escalation of social conflict.

Minority Influence on Focal and Related Attitudes: Change in Size, Attributions, and Information Processing

Three experiments examined how change in minority size influenced information processing and attitude change. Experiment 1 showed that when strong rather than weak arguments were presented, a message attributed to an expanding rather than shrinking minority elicited more issue-relevant thoughts and more related attitude change in the argued direction. Experiment 2 showed more related attitude change in the argued direction when it was unlikely that expanding size was due to the shifting majority members’ self-interest. Experiment 3 replicated these findings. In addition, results indicated that change in size interacted differently with the majority than with minority status of the source: related issues remained largely unaffected in the case of majority support, whereas expanding minorities elicited more related attitude change in the argued direction.

The possessive self as a barrier to constructive conflict management: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior

The authors propose that people have difficulty managing conflict because they quickly develop ownership of arguments and positions they use in the dispute, that these arguments and positions become part of their (extended) self-concept, and that any opposition or counterargumentation therefore becomes an ego-threat. Four studies reveal that individuals value arguments and beliefs more when these are associated with the self and that anticipated or real opposition triggers ego-defensive cognition and behavior, including competitive communication, retaliatory responses, negative perceptions of the partner, and attitude polarization. These effects were weaker when epistemic needs were raised through process accountability or when individuals had high rather than low self-concept clarity. The authors conclude that because people develop ownership of arguments and make these part of their self-concept, conflict is difficult to manage and bound to escalate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).

Disparate methods and common findings in the study of negotiation

In this article, we compare the relative popularity of a wide variety of methods and techniques used in the study of conflict and negotiation across five domains of inquiry: political science, communication sciences, social and personality psychology, economics, and organizational behavior. An analysis of articles on conflict and negotiation published between 1997 and 2001 suggests that laboratory experiments that entail coding of behavior and self-reported data using surveys are especially popular in psychology, organizational behavior, and communication sciences. Mathematical modeling, the use of experimental games, and the use of archival data are especially popular in economics and political science. Diverse methods can provide convergent insights, and this is observed clearly in work on gain-loss framing and on reciprocity in negotiation. We suggest that researchers adopt, or continue to employ, triangulation as an approach to validity: When two or more methods or data sources converge on a construct, we develop greater assurance that our conclusions are not driven by an error or artifact of any one procedure. Each method exhibits strengths and weaknesses, and to the extent they do not overlap but show common effects, we stand on more solid ground with our theoretical conclusions.