Orientation, Aspiration Level, and Communication Freedom in Integrative Bargaining

Lewis, Steven A.; Pruitt, Dean G.

doi:10.1037/e465422008-111

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carnevale and Lawler (1986) showed that negotiators who were concerned about and who trusted one another exchanged more information and incorporated the other party's interests into mutually agreeable solutions more often than did negotiators who distrusted one another. Distrust interferes with negotiators' willingness to disclose their needs and priorities and hence their ability to discover trade-offs between issues (Lewis & Pruitt, 1971;Walton & McKersie, 1965;Yukl et al, 1976).…”

Section: Motivational Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome.

Weingart¹,

Bennett²,

Brett³

1993

Journal of Applied Psychology

267

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 studies the authors tested the effects of motivational orientation (cooperative vs. individualistic) and issue consideration (simultaneous vs. sequential) on the negotiation process and outcome quality attained by 4-person groups engaged in a multi-issue negotiation. Study 1 (n = 84) showed that both a cooperative orientation and simultaneous issue consideration improved outcome quality. Simultaneous consideration of issues also increased the likelihood of reaching agreement. Study 2, focusing on the negotiation process, showed that cooperative groups were more trusting and engaged in less argumentation. Simultaneous issue-consideration groups exchanged more information and had greater insight into the other parties' priorities. A lag sequential analysis showed that groups with a cooperative orientation overcame the limits of discussing issues sequentially by engaging norms of reciprocity and mutuality.

show abstract

Section: Motivational Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information about priorities across issues is crucial to developing integrative solutions (Lewis & Pruitt, 1971; Walton & McKersie, 1965; Yukl et al, 1976). Simultaneous consideration of issues appears to cue the sharing of such information, whereas sequential consideration of issues does not (Levine & Plott, 1977; Plott & Levine, 1978).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome.

Weingart¹,

Bennett²,

Brett³

1993

Journal of Applied Psychology

267

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is the two representatives who are engaged in the actual negotiations and who must be able to communicate with each other in a way that enables them to reach an agreement. A number of authors (e.g., Rapoport, 1960;Burton, 1969;Pruitt, 1971) have indicated that the process by which negotiators communicate has a significant impact on the outcomes of their negotiations. Inaccurate or incorrectly received communication can lead to misperceptions and inappropriate responses.…”

Section: Bartunek Et Al 1 Third Party Inter Vention 15331mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The multi-issue bargaining task (see Kelley, 1966;Lewis and Pruitt, 1971) was a simulated school board-teachers' union contract dispute. Each bargaining representative was given a profit-loss sheet and a position paper relevant to his designated role as negotiator for either the teachers' union or the school board.…”

Section: Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

Bartunek

Benton

Keys

1975

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tlie present study compared the effects of content, process, and passive types of third party intervention on tlic bargaining behavior of pairs of group representatives. The setting was a simuhted school board-teachers' union dispute over a new contract. Each side \vas represented by one person who ivas instructed t o bargain tenaciously and to obtain as niuch as possible. The j o b of the representatives was either in jeopardy (high accountability) or not (low accountability). In the content intervention condition, a reasonable settlement was suggested t o the representatives by the third party. In the process intervention condition, he taught them how t o paraphrase. In the passive condition h e had them take a break from their negothtions. For the high accountable representatives, as predicted, the order of effectiveness of the interventions (number of agreements, average joint profit, and speed of resolution), from most to least, was content, process, and passive. Contrary to expectations, the process intervention did not produce the highest average joint profit for thc low accountability representatives. The representatives who did reach agreement in the low accounbbility process and content conditions, however. achieved higher joint profits than the representatives in the passive condition. Directions for further research wcrc indicated.

show abstract

“…Research suggests that although confrontation is a highly valued means to manage problems (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967;Burke, 1970;Lewis & Pruitt, 1971;Pruitt & Lewis, 1975;Schultz & Pruitt, 1978;Jones & White, 1985;Sternberg & Dobson, 1987), it provides the confronter with a host of potential difficulties. First, the confronter must decide whether the goals of resolving the problem or preserving the relationship are complementary or competitive in this particular situation.…”

Section: Managing Multiple Goals In Confrontationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehearsing for confrontation

Stutman

Newell

1990

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social confrontation is a particular kind of communication episode which may be initiated when one actor signals another actor that his or her behavior has violated (or is violating) a rule or expectation for appropriate conduct within the relationship or situation (Newell & Stutman, 1988). This paper explores the decision, structure and process of rehearsing for confrontation. Intensive interviews with 75 actors followed by a questionnaire administered to 99 others revealed that confronters maintain two strands of confrontative goals: strategic and performance goals. Strategic goals for confronters include (a) influence, (b) catharsis, (c) relational maintenance, (d) retribution, and (e) enhanced understanding of the other. While these goals lead to different tactical outcomes, actors also hold intentions related to performance goals. Two performance goals are of central concern to some actors: (a) the desire to be argumentatively complete, and (b) the desire to maintain the position of the confronter rather than the confrontee. An analysis of the data revealed that differences in goal configurations guided both the decision to rehearse and the process of this rehearsal.

show abstract

Orientation, Aspiration Level, and Communication Freedom in Integrative Bargaining

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome.

The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome.

Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

Rehearsing for confrontation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About