This paper develops a microlevel framework to analyze dyadic negotiation processes and outcomes. The Lewinian paradigm of behavior determination is used as a conceptual foundation to describe and synthesize the impacts of personality, perception, expectation, persuasion, and the interaction of these factors on negotiation dynamics. The findings of a bargaining experiment that employed this framework reveal that behavioral styles are activated by decidedly different sets of motivational elements and perceived psychological climates. The interaction of bargainer personalities also influences the choice of negotiating strategies. Moreover, the results indicate that outcomes are more strongly determined by personality and perceptual predictors than by the use of mutual persuasion.

Do national leaders have an obligation to negotiate with enemies that have been villainized despite government policies and popular opinion that constrain them from doing so? This article compares the prenegotiatton decision to negotiate under normal circumstances and under more trying conditions in which negotiation may be viewed as appeasement. Why enemies are villainized, the objectives of the villainizer, the consequences, and the "villainizer's dilemma" are examined. Four recent examples of negotiations -Israel-PLO, U.S.-Haiti, U.S.-North Korea, and Great Britain-Sinn Fein -are used to draw implications for researchers and practitioners on how, why, and under what circumstances leaders agree to negotiate with their villains, while saving face and shielding themselves from charges of appeasement.

This study deals with a very sensitive but all too common problem: how to activate parties that have failed in using negotiation to find common ground. What can be done to get seemingly intractable negotiations back on track and redirected toward peaceful conclusions? A promising and practical approach to accomplishing this task—using creativity heuristics—is addressed in this research. In particular, the study evaluates the effectiveness of one creativity heuristic, analogical reasoning, to help protagonists reframe their conflict, generate fresh and novel solutions, and thereby reduce the psychological barriers to restarting negotiations. The results of an experimental simulation suggest the possible utility of such heuristics for impasse resolution: they enhance flexibility in the negotiation process, and they facilitate the reaching of agreements. The conceptual framework and empirical findings expand current understanding of the role of creative processes in negotiation. The study's results yield practical benefits as well: the findings provide guidance on professional training and direction to negotiators and mediators on ways to interject creative processes into difficult, stalemated conflict situations.

Deadlocked international negotiations risk prolonged uncertainty and, worse, the possible onset of hostilities. While the negotiation research literature is replete with strategies and tactics that seek positive sum outcomes, there is a paucity of reliable advice for negotiators faced with stalemate on what they can do to avert failure and get back on the negotiation track. This study suggests that international negotiations can learn from the field of developmental psychology about the concept and practice of resiliency. Resiliency is the human capacity to face, overcome and be strengthened by experiences of extreme adversity. It is a basic and powerful human competency that negotiators, faced with impasse, need to master to avert failure and achieve successful negotiation outcomes. If people have the capacity to bounce back from adversity in their personal lives, negotiators in their professional lives should be able to mobilize this capacity to bounce back from impasses, as well. Several propositions based on research findings are examined.

No abstract