The psychology of negotiation and mediation.

Gelfand, Michele J.; Fulmer, C. Ashley; Severance, Laura

doi:10.1037/12171-014

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 536 publications

(664 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the four roles third parties may assume, the role of the mediator is most popular (e.g., Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992;Gelfand, Fulmer, & Severance, 2010;Lewicki & Sheppard, 1985). Why might that be?…”

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sometimes, the mere presence of a third party generates tendencies toward agreement and finding constructive solutions (e.g., Manzini & Mariotti, 2001). More specific benefits of mediation may be that it facilitates communication, helps reinforce norms for constructive problem solving, and provides opportunities for respectful retreat or minimizing loss of face (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992;Gelfand et al, 2010).…”

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But if such bias before the mediation can be avoided, all the better. All the pieces that enhance trust, including characteristics such as liability, integrity, and competence, as well as authoritativeness and impartiality, increase the chances of mediation success (see Gelfand et al, 2010). Research has revealed that mediation through electronic devices (e-mediation) can also yield positive results.…”

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Parks

Joireman

Lange³

2013

Psychol Sci Public Interest

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most continually vexing problems in society is the variability with which citizens support endeavors that are designed to help a great number of people. In this article, we examine the twin roles of cooperative and antagonistic behavior in this variability. We find that each plays an important role, though their contributions are, understandably, at odds. It is this opposition that produces seeming unpredictability in citizen response to collective need. In fact, we suggest that careful consideration of the research allows one to often predict when efforts to provide a collectively beneficial good will succeed and when they will fail. To understand the dynamics of participation in response to collective need, it is necessary to distinguish between the primary types of need situations. A public good is an entity that relies in whole or in part on contributions to be provided. Examples of public goods are charities and public broadcasting. Public goods require that citizens experience a short-term loss (of their contribution) in order to realize a long-term gain (of the good). However, because everyone can use the good once it is provided, there is also an incentive to not contribute, let others give, and then take advantage of their efforts. This state of affairs introduces a conflict between doing what is best for oneself and what is best for the group. In a public goods situation, cooperation and antagonism impact how one resolves this conflict. The other major type of need situation is a common-pool resource problem. Here, a good is fully provided at the outset, and citizens may sample from it. The resource is usually, but not necessarily, partially replenished. Examples of replenished resources are drinking water and trees; examples of resources that are functionally not replenished are oil and minerals. Common-pool resources allow citizens to experience a short-term gain (by getting what they want in the early life of the resource) but also present the possibility of a long-term loss (if the resource dries up). As with public goods, there is thus a conflict between, on the one hand, acting in one's best interest and taking as much as one wants all the time and, on the other, acting for the good of the group, which requires taking a lesser amount so that the replenishment rate can keep up with the rate of use. As with public goods, both cooperation and antagonism affect this decision. With these situations in mind, we can now dig deeply into the dynamics of both cooperation and antagonism. Cooperation is one of the most heavily studied aspects of human behavior, yet despite this attention, there is much that is not understood about it, including its fundamental base. There are a number of different perspectives on the base. Interdependence theory argues that cooperation is driven by how one interprets the subjective value of the outcomes that will result from various combinations of behaviors. A person who sees a potential result of "50 to you, 50 to me" as "We both would do well" is more likely to ...

show abstract

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Third-party Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Parks

Joireman

Lange³

2013

Psychol Sci Public Interest

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If stakeholders fixate on the Pareto front, they are consigning themselves to operate in the "losses" domain of the perceived value curve of Prospect Theory 5 , as the realities of divergent interests and physical constraints can only force them to decrease in individual efficiency. This may lead to unnecessary rejections of potentially valuable design alternatives, as well as increasing the stress of the decision 6 .…”

Section: Working Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of Enhanced Multi-party Tradespace Visualization on a Two-person Negotiation

Fitzgerald

Ross

2015

Procedia Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has hypothesized that framing remains an uncontrolled variable impacting the performance of stakeholders and analysts engaging in tradespace exploration, with particularly negative consequences expected during multi-stakeholder tradespace exploration (MSTSE). This paper describes an experiment in which subjects engaged in a two-person negotiation using tradespace exploration software, with the goal of choosing a car that they would share. The control group was given a standard tradespace exploration tool and the treatment group was given a modified tool designed to emphasize the relevant multistakeholder aspects of the problem. Analysis of the resulting data confirms the original hypothesis that multi-stakeholder visualization can reduce fixation on the individual cost-benefit Pareto front and improve grasp of "true" gains and losses around the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) for each participant. Other outcomes and potential future directions for MSTSE experiments are also discussed.

show abstract

“…Perceived value around the reference point is asymmetric, resulting in a higher impact of losses over gains as pictured in Figure 1. It has also been found that decision making in the losses domain is more stressful and more likely to lead to irrational or regretted behavior (Gelfand et al, 2004). Another common bias covered in Kahneman and Tversky's work is the availability bias, which describes the human bias towards information that is accessible (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974).…”

Section: Macro Framing and Micro Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for Framing Multi‐Stakeholder Tradespace Exploration

Fitzgerald

Ross

2016

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tradespace exploration is a rapidly advancing design and decision support paradigm that is particularly applicable to complex systems with many value‐driving dimensions. These systems commonly have multiple stakeholders that can exert critical influence on the system's conceptual design, necessitating the satisfaction of their needs, and often requiring negotiation. Previous research has suggested that classic tradespace exploration activities may reinforce negative negotiation behaviors through their framing of the multi‐stakeholder problem. This paper presents active research in recommendations for supporting inter‐stakeholder and stakeholder‐data interaction. These recommendations include the reframing of standard tradespace activities and visualizations using the combined insights of the negotiation, framing, and TSE literature and extend from problem formulation through exploration of the data.

show abstract

The psychology of negotiation and mediation.

Cited by 16 publications

References 536 publications

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Effects of Enhanced Multi-party Tradespace Visualization on a Two-person Negotiation

Recommendations for Framing Multi‐Stakeholder Tradespace Exploration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About