Constituent surveillance encouraged the negotiator's use of such competitive tactics as threats, positional commitments, and persuasive arguments. Negotiators apparently chose these tactics in order to look tough in the eyes of their constituent. These tactics resulted in diminished joint and individual outcomes. The results of the study suggest that constituents might fare better by not monitoring the behavior of their negotiators. Future research might profit by identifying the crucial intervening variables that account for the surveillance effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benton, A. A. , and Druckman, D.Constituent's bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 141-150.
2.
Carnevale, P. J.Cooperators, competitors, and individualists encode nonverbal affect . Paper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1977.
3.
Meeker, R. J. , and Shure, G. H.Pacifist bargaining tactics: Some "outsider" influences. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1969, 13, 487-493.
4.
Organ, D. W.Some variables affecting boundary role behavior . Sociometry, 1971, 34, 524-537.
5.
Pruitt, D. G. , and Lewis, S. A.Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 621-633.
6.
Pruitt, D. G. , and Lewis, S. A.The psychology of integrative bargaining. A chapter in D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: A SocialPsychologcal perspective. Sage-Halsted, 1977.
7.
Schulz, J. W. , and Pruitt, D. G.The effect of mutual concern on joint welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 14, 480-492.
