A questionnaire study about bargaining tactics was conducted among 163 public defenders (PDs) and district attorneys (DAs) in the criminal justice system. The authors hypothesized that PDs (defensive roles) would perceive questionable tactics to be more appropriate than would DAs (offensive roles), that PDs and DAs would elevate their approval of questionable tactics for counteraggression purposes, and that PDs would elevate their approval for counteraggression to a greater extent than would DAs. Results supported these hypotheses. The authors also examined the basis of the status quo bias, because previous status quo bias studies always confounded power with defensive role. After testing four status quo bias hypotheses, results suggested that, contrary to previous explanations, a defender-challenger framework sometimes provides a better account of the status quo bias than does a power framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Axelrod, R. M. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Blumberg, A. S. (1967). The practice of law as a confidence game: Organizational cooptation of a profession. Law and Society Review, 1, 15-40.
3.
Carpenter, B. , & Darley, J. (1978). A naïve psychological analysis of counteraggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 68-72.
4.
Champion, D. J. (1989). Private counsels and public defenders: A look at weak cases, prior records, and leniency in plea bargaining. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 253-263.
5.
Cole, G. F. (1972). The decision to prosecute. In G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
6.
Darley, J. M. , & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556.
7.
Ebenbach, D. , & Keltner, D. (1998). Power, emotion, and judgmental accuracy in social conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Psychology, 20, 7-21.
8.
Erber, R. , & Fiske, S. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709-726.
9.
Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
11.
Ford, R. , & Blegen, M. (1992). Offensive and defensive use of punitive tactics in explicit bargaining. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 351-362.
12.
Gertz, M. G. (1980). The impact of prosecutor/public defender interaction on sentencing: An exploratory typology. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 43-54.
13.
Helm, B. , Bonoma, T., & Tedeschi, J. (1972). Reciprocity for harm done. Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 89-98.
14.
Judd, C. , & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109-128.
15.
Kahneman, D. , & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
16.
Keltner, D. , & Robinson, R. (1997). Defending the status quo: Power and bias in social conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1066-1077.
17.
Kenny, D. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155-163.
18.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theories, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
19.
Kray, L. J. , & Robinson, R. J. (1999). Partisanship, construal and the status quo. Unpublished manuscript, Kellogg Graduate School of Management.
20.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395-409.
21.
Kurtines, W. , & Gewirtz, J. (1991). Handbook of moral behavior and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Lawler, E. J. (1986). Bilateral deterrence and conflict spiral: A theoretical analysis. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 107-130). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
23.
Lawler, E. J. (1992). Power processes in bargaining. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 17-34.
24.
Lawler, E. J. , Ford, R., & Blegen, M. (1988). Coercive capability in conflict: A test of bilateral deterrence versus conflict spiral theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 15, 93-107.
25.
Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Lewicki, R. J. , & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 211-228.
27.
Lewicki, R. J. , & Stark, N. (1996). What is ethically appropriate in negotiations: An empirical examination of bargaining tactics. Social Justice Research, 9, 69-95.
28.
Lichtenstein, M. J. (1984). Public defenders: Dimensions of cooperation. Justice System Journal, 9, 102-110.
29.
Mather, L. M. (1973). Some determinants of the method of case disposition: Decision-making by public defenders in Los Angeles. Law and Society Review, 8, 187-216.
30.
McIntyre, L. J. (1987). The public defender: The practice of law in the shadows of repute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Miller, D. T. , & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Collective errors and errors about the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 541-550.
32.
Miller, D. T. , & Prentice, D. A. (1999). The development of ingroup stereotypes. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.
33.
Neuberg, S. , & Fiske, S. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444.
34.
Ng, S. H. , & Cram, F. (1988). Intergroup bias by defensive and offensive groups in majority and minority conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 749-757.
35.
Prentice, D. A. , & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243-256.
36.
Pruitt, D. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.
37.
Robinson, R. J. , & Keltner, D. (1996). Much ado about nothing? Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus. Psychological Science, 7, 18-24.
38.
Robinson, R. J. , Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404-417.
39.
Robinson, R. J. , Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (1998). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Business School.
40.
Rubin, H. T. (1976). The courts: Fulcrum of the justice system. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
41.
Rubin, J. (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 33-45.
42.
Skolnick, J. H. (1967). Social control in the adversary system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11, 52-70.
43.
Snodgrass, S. , Hecht, M., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238-249.
44.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1995). Justifying unethical behavior: The role of expectations of others’ behavior and uncertainty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Univerisity, Evanston, IL.
45.
Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 330-339.
46.
Watt, C. A. , & Morris, R. L. (1995). The relationship among performance on a prototype indicator of perceptual defense/vigilance, personality, and extrasensory perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 635-648.
47.
Williams, B. (1972). Morality: An introduction to ethics. New York: Harper & Row.
