Political Communication as Negotiation

Abstract

The COAST model, a paradigm for effective decision making in negotiation, is applied to political communication as evident in the 1992 campaign (COAST = Communication, Options, Alternatives, Standards, and Trust). Specifically, the model approaches political communication as a synergistic, shared process, influenced and driven by traditional communication factors, the success of which is reciprocally related to the amount and degree of trust between the principal agent and audience. The COAST model and its previous applications in negotiation, public health, and policy issues are outlined as a context for its application to a political arena undergoing great change in means and method of reaching voters and motivating them to enter the voting booth. Of particular interest is the application of the model to communication strategies in the 1992 campaign.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen, I. , & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 466-487.

Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-6.

Boulding, K. (1989). Three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. (Original work published 1927)

Golson, B., & Range, P. R. (1992, November 7). Wotta year. TV Guide, pp. 16-21.

Hamilton, A. , Madison, J. , & Jay. J. (1961). The Federalist papers ( C. Rossiter , Ed.). New York: New American Library. (Original work published 1787-1788)

Key, V. O., Jr. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.). (1991). International negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11.

McCombs, M. E. , & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 36.

12.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

13.

Neikirk, W. (1993, May 23). Clinton's resilience being tested. Chicago Tribune, pp. 1, 14.

14.

Osgood, C. (1959). Suggestions for winning the real war with communism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 295-325.

15.

Osgood, C. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

16.

Osgood, C. (1966). Perspective in foreign policy. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.

17.

Page, B. , & Shapiro, R. (1992). The rational public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 37-62.

19.

Payne, J. (1988). Shaping the race issue: A special kind of journalism. Political Communication and Persuasion, 5, 3.

20.

Perry, J. M. (1993, June 25). Street smarts, not book learning, may make for a more successful president. Wall Street Journal, p. A12.

21.

Peters, C. (1993, June 13). Demons within, enemies without. The New York Times, p. 19.

22.

Ratzan, S. (1989). The real agenda setters. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(4), 451-463.

23.

Riker, W. H. (1974). The nature of trust. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social power. Chicago: Aldine.

24.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.

25.

Saltzman, J. (1992, September). The more talk the better. USA Today, p. 77.

26.

Shaw, D. (1992, October 25). News with impact? It's simple. Los Angeles Times, p. A15.

27.

Thompson, R. (1992, August 12). How to watch a sound bite: Students need to study television's effect on politics. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B1-B2.

28.

Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.