A review of experiments in explicit bargaining

1991

Social Forces

This article analyzes the impact of conciliatory initiatives on conflict resolution in two-party bargaining. It specifically develops and tests a theory of unilateral initiatives derived from Osgood's (1962) notion of Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT). The major propositions of the theory indicate that, given a pattern of mutual resistance or hostility, unilateral initiatives and tit-for-tat retaliation in response to punitive action will produce more conciliation and less hostility by an opponent. To test the theory, a bargaining setting was created in a laboratory experiment in which parties exchanged offers and counteroffers on an issue across a number of rounds while also having the option to engage in punitive action against one another. The results indicated that (1) unilateral initiatives produced more concession making and less hostility than a reciprocity strategy, and (2) tit-for-tat retaliation heightened hostility initially but reduced it over time. The article suggests some general, abstract conditions under which two parties in conflict can produce conciliation and reach agreements without the intervention of third parties. The major propositions of the theory indicate that, given a pattern of mutual resistance or hostility, unilateral initiatives and tit-for-tat retaliation in response to punitive action will produce more conciliation and less hostility by an opponent. To test the theory, a bargaining setting was created in a laboratory experiment in which parties exchanged offers and counteroffers on an issue across a number of rounds while also having the option to engage in punitive action against one another. The results indicated that (1) unilateral initiatives produced more concession making and less hostility than a reciprocity strategy, and (2) tit-for-tat retaliation heightened hostility initially but reduced it over time. The article suggests some general, abstract conditions under which two parties in conflict can produce conciliation and reach agreements without the intervention of third parties.

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Pattern Of Mutual Resistance and Hostility Is Established mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving Conflict Through Explicit Bargaining

Boyle

1991

Social Forces

“…The research uses a fairly standard two-party laboratory setting in which subjects exchange offers on a distributive issue across a number of bargaining rounds (e.g., Chertkoff and Esser 1976). In some experiments, they also can levy punitive damage on each round (e.g., Michener and Cohen 1973).…”

Section: Overview Of Experimental Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Processes in Bargaining

The Sociological Quarterly

1992

145

This is a theoretical article that integrates and extends a particular program of work on power in bargaining relationships. Power is conceptualized as a structurally based capability, and power use as tactical action falling within either conciliatory or hostile categories. The core propositions are (1) the greater the total amount of power in a relationship, the greater the use of conciliatory tactics and the lower the use of hostile tactics; and (2) an unequal power relationship fosters more use of hostile tactics and less use of conciliatory tactics than an equal power relationship. Distinct research on power dependence and bilateral deterrence provides support for both propositions. Implications are discussed for power struggle in ongoing relationships.

“…An answer can be developed from a general hypothesis offered by Chertkoff and Esser (1976). In their review of this literature, Chertkoff and Esser imply that concession strategies are important primarily because of the impressions they "give off' to opponents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Explicit bargaining is essentially what happens when adversaries reach the bargaining table. Specifically, two or more parties with conflicting interests exchange offers and counteroffers in an attempt to develop an agreement (Chertkoff & Esser, 1976). If and when conflict culminates in "explicit bargaining," parties confront a delicate tactical issue-the primary concern of this paper: What type of concession stance or strategy will produce the most yielding by an adversary?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bargaining Toughness: A Qualification of Level‐of‐Aspiration and Reciprocity Hypotheses¹

J Applied Social Pyschol

MacMurray²

1980

This research examined the interaction of initial bargaining stance and later concession strategy in dyadic bargaining. Experimental procedures pitted subjects against a programmed opponent and manipulated three variables: initial stance of the opponent across the first two bargaining rounds (tough vs. soft), deadlock vs. no deadlock, and subsequent concession strategy (tough, matching, soft). The results revealed that: (a) with a tough initial stance, a matching strategy produced greater yielding than tough or soft strategies; while in the context of a soft initial stance, a tough concession strategy produced more yielding than a matching or soft concession strategy; and (b) a prior deadlock reduced later concession making but did not specify or alter the effects of concession strategy. The research qualifies prior work based on level of aspiration and reciprocity theories by indicating that certain postures which mix toughness with softer stances are the most effective bargaining tactics.