Bounded Benefits of Representative Cooperativeness in Intergroup Negotiations

Abstract

Although cooperation among representatives in intergroup negotiation can improve intergroup relations, when cooperation in such competitive settings is attributed to strategic goals of the outgroup, it may actually harm intergroup relations. Here we investigate the possibility that representative's characteristics (prototypicality and competence) determine whether an outgroup representative's cooperation (as opposed to competition) improves or harms intergroup relations. Study 1 showed that a cooperative outgroup representative (compared to a competitive representative) produced more favorable perceptions of the entire outgroup, and triggered constructive behavioral tendencies towards the outgroup when the outgroup representative was seen as prototypical, yet decreased such constructive tendencies when the representative was seen as peripheral. Study 2 showed that the outgroup representative's cooperation triggered constructive behavioral tendencies only when the representative appeared as low in competence; when high in competence, the positive effect of representative cooperativeness on trust and constructive behavioral tendencies was mitigated. Implications for representative negotiation and intergroup relations are discussed.

“The responsibility is on us”: The effect of power asymmetry on acknowledgement of responsibility and peer collaboration in intergroup conflict deliberation.

“…Although some studies hint that there are essential formal characteristics for public apologies and acknowledgment (Giner-Sorolla, 2013), it may be that the spontaneity of acknowledgment enhanced the acknowledgment's effect, as it is indicative of authenticity (Saygı et al, 2015).…”

“…This, in our opinion, attests to the power of the stronger adversary’s acknowledgment to facilitate the weaker side’s collaborative behavior. Although some studies hint that there are essential formal characteristics for public apologies and acknowledgment (Giner-Sorolla, 2013), it may be that the spontaneity of acknowledgment enhanced the acknowledgment’s effect, as it is indicative of authenticity (Saygı et al, 2015).…”

“…Unlike the instruction to discuss responsibility, which heightened the chance of responsibility acknowledgment, gestures were not structured into the discussion. However, unprompted gestures should have been seen as more authentic, evoking stronger effect (Saygı et al, 2015). Another possible explanation for the lack of effect for Arab participants’ gestures on Jewish participants is that their effect was overshadowed by a more general effect of collaborative behavior by Arab participants.…”

“…Behavior during negotiation can indicate effects of power asymmetry, reconciliatory stances, and needs satisfaction. It can also reflect trust in the earnestness of out-group members’ expressions of empathy or responsibility, as it eliminates the element of doubt in a professional negotiators’ manipulative gestures (Maoz, 2000b; Saygı, Greer, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2015).…”

Outgroup members’ internal criticism promotes intergroup openness: The role of perceived risk

“…This credibility is important given the detrimental levels of distrust between groups engaged in violent conflict (see, Nadler & Liviatan, 2006). Without trust, individuals are likely to interpret positive messages from the outgroup as disingenuous or manipulative (Saygı, Greer, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2015). For example, Israelis and Palestinians' agreement to a structural framework for a two-state solution is inhibited by their inability to trust that the other side supports the peace process.…”