No abstract

Terrorist hostage-takings force authorities to decide whether or not to concede to the terrorists' demands. Making an informed decision requires authorities to have a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of concessions to terrorists. Drawing on social exchange theory, we hypothesize that authority concessions to terrorist hostage-takers lead to more peaceful conflict resolutions with fewer casualties among hostages and in general. We analyzed ITERATE data (Mickolus, Sandler, Murdock, & Flemming, 2006) on international terrorist hostage-takings that occurred between 1983 and 2005. Results showed that even only partially meeting the terrorists' demands reduced the number of casualties. This effect was mediated via increased terrorist concessions to the authorities. Our study furthers the knowledge on the short-term consequences of authority concessions in international terrorist hostagetakings, which may help authorities make informed decisions that can potentially save lives. Public Significance StatementOur research investigates the short-term consequences of authority concessions to terrorist hostagetakers. Analyzing archival data we found that concessions to terrorist hostage-takers lead to bilateral cooperative exchanges and result in fewer casualties among the hostages and in general. Our findings may help authorities make informed decisions that can potentially save lives in hostage-taking situations.

Women perceive specific strategies developed to support their performance in compensation negotiations as ineffective and are unlikely to use them—suggesting an implementation gap. We examined whether providing theoretical rationales—explaining how specific strategies are meant to work—attenuates this gap. Furthermore, we explored a novel cause of it: women's expectations regarding the perpetuation of gender roles upon using a strategy. In two studies ( N = 1,254), we observed that regardless of the provision of the rationales, women expected all examined specific strategies to be less economically effective and most of them to perpetuate gender roles more than regular assertiveness. Moreover, especially women's expectations regarding economic outcomes decreased their intentions to use most specific strategies. Women also expected most specific strategies to lead to less favorable social evaluations than yielding, which again led to their lower intentions to use them. Altogether, negotiation trainers and educators should consider that explaining how specific strategies are meant to work is not enough to close the implementation gap and to reduce gender inequality in negotiations. To attenuate the implementation gap, they may need to enable women to more fully experience how using specific strategies can improve their negotiation performance. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221128484 .

Currently, journals in Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) Psychology collectively do too little to support Open Science Practices. To address this problematic state of affairs, we first point out numerous problems that characterize the IWO Psychology literature. We then describe seven frequent arguments, which all lead to the conclusion that the time is not ripe for IWO Psychology to broadly adopt Open Science Practices. To change this narrative and to promote the necessary change, we reply to these arguments and explain how Open Science Practices can contribute to a better future for IWO Psychology with more reproducible, replicable, and reliable findings.

Governmental responses to the frequently occurring terrorist hostage-takings, in which authorities must weigh the lives of the hostages against the lives of potential future victims, depend on popular support for governmental policy. Despite this, little is known about how people form their judgement of governmental policies in this moral dilemma. We argue that people typically have incomplete information and their policy support for concessions can be substantially altered by changing the information they receive about different consequences. Across three studies (overall N = 1,547) employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, we found that (a) people show lower support for concessions when they have incomplete information, (b) providing information on the benefits of concessions increases support for concessions, (c) support for concessions under full information increases when the benefits outweigh the costs and when a norm prescribes concessions. The potential implications for policymaking are discussed.