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.
BentonA. A.DruckmanD.. 1974. “Constituent’s Bargaining Orientation and Intergroup Negotiation.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology4:141–50.
2.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K.BastardiA.McGoeyM.HsuA.RossL.. 2007. “Bridging the Partisan Divide: Self-affirmation Reduces Ideological Closed-mindedness and Inflexibility in Negotiation.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology93:415–30.
3.
De DreuC. K. W.2003. “Time Pressure and Closing of the Mind in Negotiation.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes91:280–95.
4.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB.StroebeK.EuwemaM. C.. 2006. “Motivated Information Processing, Strategic Choice, and the Quality of Negotiated Agreement.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90:927–43.
5.
De DreuC. K. W.CarnevaleP. J. D.. 2003. “Motivational Bases of Information Processing and Strategy in Conflict and Negotiation.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by ZannaM. P., 235–93. New York: Academic Press.
6.
De DreuC. K. W.EversA.BeersmaB.KluwerE. S.NautaA.. 2001. “A Theory-based Measure of Conflict Management Strategies in the Workplace.”Journal of Organizational Behavior22:645–68.
7.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.van KnippenbergD.. 2008. “Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making.”Personality and Social Psychology Review12:22–49.
8.
DruckmanD.1994. “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis.”Journal of Conflict Resolution38(3):507–56.
9.
DruckmanD.BroomeB.. 1991. “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Familiarity or Liking?”Journal of Conflict Resolution35:571–93.
10.
DruckmanD.BroomeB. J.KorperS. H.. 1988. “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution.”Journal of Conflict Resolution32:489–510.
11.
DruckmanD.OlekalnsM.. 2011. “Turning Points in Negotiation.”Negotiation and Conflict Management Research4:1–7.
12.
DruckmanD.OlekalnsM.. 2013. “Motivational Frames, Trust, and Negotiators’ Reactions to a Crisis.”Journal of Conflict Resolution57:959–83.
13.
DruckmanD.RozelleR.ZechmeisterK.. 1977. “Conflict of Interest and Value Dissensus: Two Perspectives.” In Negotiations: Social-psychological Perspectives, edited by DruckmanD., 105–31. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
DruckmanD.ZechmeisterK.. 1970. “Conflict of Interest and Value Dissensus.”Human Relations23:431–38.
15.
HarinckF.2004. “Persuasive Arguments and Beating around the Bush in Negotiations.”Group Processes and Intergroup Relations7:5–17.
16.
HarinckF.De DreuC. K. W.. 2004. “Negotiating Interests or Values and Reaching Integrative Agreements: The Importance of Time Pressure and Temporary Impasses.”European Journal of Social Psychology34:595–611.
17.
HarinckF.De DreuC. K. W.. 2008. “Take a Break! Or Not? The Influence of Mindsets on Negotiation Processes and Outcomes.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology44:397–404.
18.
HarinckF.De DreuC. K. W.Van VianenA. E. M.. 2000. “The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes81:329–58.
19.
HarinckF.EllemersN.. 2014. “How Conflict Issues Change the Nature of the Conflict Game.” In Social Conflict within and between Groups(Current Issues in Social Psychology), edited by De DreuC. K. W., 19–36. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
20.
HayesA. F.2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
21.
KouzakovaM.EllemersN.HarinckF.ScheepersD.. 2012. “The Implications of Value Conflict: How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-involvement and Perceived Common Ground.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38:798–807.
22.
KouzakovaM.HarinckF.EllemersN.ScheepersD.. 2014. “At the Heart of a Conflict: Cardiovascular and Motivational Responses to Moral Conflicts and Resource Conflicts.”Social Psychology and Personality Science5:35–42.
23.
KramerR. M.PommerenkeP.NewtonE.. 1993. “The Social Context of Negotiation: Effects of Social Identity and Interpersonal Accountability on Negotiator Decision Making.”Journal of Conflict Resolution37:663–54.
24.
PruittD. G.1981. Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
25.
PruittD. G.CarnevaleP. J.. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
26.
PruittD. G.LewisS. A.. 1977. “The Psychology of Integrative Bargaining.” In Negotiations: Social-psychological Perspectives, edited by DruckmanD., 161–92. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
RexwinkelR.EllemersN.HarinckF.. 2011. Wanneer jij OK bent, ben ik ook OK!: Hoe de bevestiging van een ander het oplossen van een waardenconflict vergemakkelijkt [When you are OK, I am OK! How affirming the other party can help resolving a value conflict]ASPO Jaarboek 2011 (pp. 175–178). Groningen, the Netherlands: ASPO Pers.
28.
ShermanD. K.CohenG. L.. 2002. “Accepting Threatening Information: Self-affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases.”Current Directions in Psychological Science11:119–23.
29.
ShermanD. K.CohenG. L.. 2006. “The Psychology of Self-defense: Self-affirmation Theory.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38), edited by ZannaM. P., 183–242. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
ShermanD. K.HartsonK. A.BinningK. R.Purdie-VaughnsV.GarciaJ.Taborsky-BarbaS.TomassettiS.NussbaumA. D.CohenG. L.. 2013. “Deflecting the Trajectory and Changing the Narrative: How Self-affirmation Affects Academic Performance and Motivation under Identity Threat.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology104:591–618.
31.
StöckliP. S.TannerC.. 2014. “Are Integrative or Distributive Outcomes Satisfactory? The Effects of Interest-based Versus Value-based Issues on Negotiator Satisfaction.”European Journal of Social Psychology44:202–8.
32.
TsayC.BazermanM. H.. 2009. “A Decision-making Perspective to Negotiation: A Review of the Past and a Look to the Future.”Negotiation Journal25:467–80.
33.
Wade-BenzoniK. A.HoffmanA. J.ThompsonL. L.MooreD. A.GillespieJ. J.BazermanM. H.. 2002. “Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiations: The Role of Values and Institutions.”Academy of Management Review27:41–57.
34.
WorchelS.RothgerberH.DayE. A.HartD.ButemeyerJ.. 1998. “Social Identity and Individual Productivity within Groups.”British Journal of Social Psychology37:389–413.
35.
ZechmeisterD.DruckmanD.. 1973. “Determinants of Resolving a Conflict of Interest: A Simulation of Political Decision Making.”Journal of Conflict Resolution27:63–88.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
