Towards a Theory of Representation Between Groups

Turk, Herman; Lefcowitz, Myron J.

doi:10.2307/2573890

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, from accounts of numerous conflict episodes, many writers have suggested that a spokesman is also affected by the relationship that exists between himself and the group he represents (Douglas, 1962;Landsberger, 1955;Turk and Lefcowitz, 1962;Stevens, 1963;Walton and McKersie, 1965). In both Stevens (1963) and Walton and McKersie (1965), for example, there is a discussion of intraorganizational bargaining or internal conflict that must be managed successfully before intergroup negotiations can take place.…”

Section: A Model Of Intergroup Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both Stevens (1963) and Walton and McKersie (1965), for example, there is a discussion of intraorganizational bargaining or internal conflict that must be managed successfully before intergroup negotiations can take place. For Turk and Lefcowitz (1962), accommodation between representatives of opposing parties is necessary for conflict reduction but is dysfunctional for solidarity within affected groups. Thus, on the descriptive level at least, the behavior of individuals representing groups would appear to be affected by a complex set of forces which must be disentangled and defined before predictions of conflict processes and outcomes can be made.…”

Section: A Model Of Intergroup Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simulation Methodologies in Experimental Research on Negotiations by Representatives

Klimoski

1978

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews recent experimental (primarily social-psychological) research on intergroup conflict resolution with an emphasis on methodology. Specifically, it focuses on the creation of conflict forces and representational role obligations in simulations. The resulting typologies clarify the numerous strategies used by investigators. The paper calls for a systematic evaluation of these strategies as researchers appear to be unaware of their potential impact. It is also argued that selected arrangements described would help to enhance simulations to be congruent with a model of intergroup bargaining processes.

show abstract

Section: A Model Of Intergroup Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Model Of Intergroup Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation Methodologies in Experimental Research on Negotiations by Representatives

Klimoski

1978

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effective negotiator is one who can convey to his own party the impression that his performance coincides with their expectations while conveying to his opposite number the impression that he cannot concede beyond a clearly defined point. The former is facilitated by secrecy (Turk & Lefcowitz, 1962); the latter is facilitated if the negotiator can present unambiguous evidence indicating that he is not able to offer any more concessions (Schelling, 1960). Secrecy enables the negotiator to engage in tacit bargaining and to misrepresent his own performance.…”

Section: Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processes and Consequences of International Negotiations

Druckman¹,

Mahoney²

1977

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of laboratory and field investigations are used to suggest approaches to the analysis of international negotiation. A framework is developed in terms of the way in which nations arrive at their positions or postures, the process of negotiating, and the consequences of negotiation outcomes for the international system. Position formation is considered from the standpoint of the national attribute and policymaking process perspectives. Aspects of the negotiating process emphasized include preconditions and preparations, commitment tactics and concession‐making strategies, and such interferences as cultural differences, personal style, attributions, and stresses. Consequences are discussed in terms of conflict and cooperation among nations and the relationship between behaviors and structures in international relations. The strategies of moving between levels of analysis and of weaving together diverse data sources into a mosaic of influences yield insights that contribute to an understanding of negotiating in the international context.

show abstract

“…Several investigators have also noted the development of a &dquo;leadership culture&dquo; among high-level decision-makers who convene together over relatively long periods of time (e.g., Modelski, 1970;Turk and Lefcowitz 1962). Indeed the similarities among representatives as a function of their role per se may be a more important source for their behavior than whatever dimensions of difference might exist between them.…”

Section: Moderating Effects Of the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of the situation in interparty conflict

Druckman

1971

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychological approach to the study of interpersonal conflict has been guided by a paradigm which emphasizes characteristics of individuals as the primary source of conflict. This model assumes some degree of responseconsistency across situations and roles resulting from general dispositions toward the resolution of conflicts. Representative of this approach are conceptual analogies that have been drawn between motivationally-derived interpersonal orientations toward the resolution of interpersonal conflicts and preferred orientations for national representatives toward the resolution of international conflicts (see Gladstone, 1962), and correlations obtained between scales designed to measure each of these variables (see Scott, 1965, for a review of this literature). The contrasting situational approach posits response-variation concomitant with changes in the situation or role-requirements. The importance of situational parameters as the primary source of interpersonal or intergroup conflicts has been emphasized by Blake and Mouton (1962) who have used the term &dquo;psychodynamic fallacy&dquo; to refer to the incorrect attribution of interpersonal or group behavior to the personalities of individuals. (Sherif and Sherif, 1965, take a similar position.) These conclusions were reached on the basis of observations of conflict behavior in large-scale field studies of intergroup relations. In this setting the influence of &dquo;personality&dquo; variables might indeed be moderated. Coser's (1956) distinction between &dquo;nonrealistic&dquo; (conflict in the service of drive-reduction) and &dquo;realistic&dquo;(the concomitance of scarce resources and incompatible goals) conflict parallels the distinction between &dquo;personality&dquo; and situation as sources of interparty conflict. According to Coser, the importance of these factors in the resolution of conflicts is in part a function of the nature of the social structure. For example, the prevalence of nonrealistic conflict in a society depends, inter alia, on the rigidity of the social structure.More recently, a paradigm which represents a more analytic approach to the study of conflict behavior has guided investigations of personality and situational effects. Numerous investigators over the past few years have used two-person laboratory games to explore the relative effects of several variables manipulated simultaneously. While several of these studies have demonstrated relationships between pre-experimentally assessed attitudes and behavior in dyadic conflict situations (e.g., Crowne, 1966;Druckman, 1967;Terhune, 1968), the evidence in general indicates that subject variables are not strongly predictive of conflict behavior. This failure to obtain relationships has been noted by a number of investigators (e.g., Bartos, 1967;Bixenstine and Blundell, 1966;Terhune, 1968;Wrightsman, 1966). In addition, the failure to replicate obtained relationships was made at CARLETON UNIV on June 15, 2015 jcr.sagepub.com Downloaded from 524 apparent by Terhune (1968Terhune...

show abstract

Towards a Theory of Representation Between Groups

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Simulation Methodologies in Experimental Research on Negotiations by Representatives

Simulation Methodologies in Experimental Research on Negotiations by Representatives

Processes and Consequences of International Negotiations

The influence of the situation in interparty conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About