-
What is the definition of conflict?
When one party believes the other has or will negatively effect something the other party cares about.
-
What is the definition of negotiation?
A discussion with the aim of resolving conflict over incompatible goals or interests.
-
Mixed-motive situations
motive to compete (mind own interests) and cooperate (collaborate)
-
Bargaining zone
range of options for negotiators
-
Negative bargaining zone
Area in between buyer and seller's resistance points, no overlap, so negotiation is impossible.
-
Distributive negotiation
compromise on each issue, middle of everything, not always the most effective solution
-
Integrative negotiation
- logrolling-- exchanging concessions on different issues
- expanding the pie-- making the negotiation larger, adding issues
- free exchange of information, trial-and-error
-
Joint outcome
- used as measure of agreement quality
- higher joint=more likely for overall happiness and satisfaction
-
What are the types of outcomes?
- win-win
- win-lose
- compromise
- impasse (no agreement)
-
Pareto efficiency
- outcome quality measure: outcome is pareto efficient when every other option is worse for at least one of the parties
- pareto efficient does not mean fair or equal
-
-
Which outcomes are distribute and integrative negotiation behaviors associated with?
- distributive: win-lose, compromise, impasse
- integrative: win-win
-
Are there more impasses in low pressure or high pressure negotiations?
low pressure
-
What behaviors does a early impasse lead to?
A switch from low integration to high integration, but only when interests and not values are involved.
-
Which has higher joint outcomes: interest or value negotiations?
Interest negotiations
-
Interest negotiation
Conflicting positions based on interest in money, benefit, time, etc.
-
Value negotiation
Conflict over a problem with no one right answer, each party has a different ideal
-
Differentiation-before-integration pattern
Begin with distributive behavior, reach impasse and switch to integration
-
Power
The ability to change others' states through giving or withholding resources or punishments
-
What are the 5 power bases?
- information
- legitimate
- coercive/reward
- referent
- expert
-
BATNA
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
-
WATNA
Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
-
Giebes, De Dreu and Van de Vliert (2000), exit options
- Negotiated in dyads, either one side or both side had a negotiation "partner" who would switch with them in negotiation
- Dyads motivated to cooperate or compete
- Problem solving behavior does not differ in two-sided, but is more cooperative when one-sided
- General threats: competitively motivated participants present more threats in one-sided
- Joint outcomes: one-sided lead to lower joint outcomes
-
Power dispersion
- Differences in concentration of power among group members
- low dispersion: everyone is equal, eglatarian
- high dispersion: one is higher, hierarchical
-
Greer and Van Kleef (2010)
- High vs. low power dispersion teams
- High status people have less conflict and higher joint outcomes in low dispersion
- Low status people have less conflict and higher joint outcomes in high dispersion
-
What are the types of conflict issues?
- resources/interests
- values
- process
-
Interest Conflict
- Stronger FPP
- Lower intentions to cooperate
- More tradeoffs
- Higher joint outcomes
-
Value Conflict
- Weaker FPP
- Higher intentions to cooperate (initially)
- Less problem solving
- Lower joint outcomes
-
Fixed pie perception (FPP)
- Idea that the other party wants the opposite of what you want and the more you get the less the other party gets
- Most negotiators start with FPP, the sooner it's resolved, the better
-
Is fixed pie perception weaker in value or interest conflict?
Value conflict
-
Are intentions to cooperate higher in value or interest conflicts?
Value conflicts, at least in the beginning
-
How does the conflict issue affect negotiation behavior and outcomes?
- No differences in forcing behavior
- Less problem solving in value conflict than resource conflict
- Higher joint outcome for resource than value
-
Do breaks lead to higher joint outcomes?
- When used as a distraction from negotiation rather than a reflection
- When participants are primed with cooperative rather than competitive thoughts
- Reflection and cooperation are okay, reflection and competition are not
-
Why is integrative negotiation not the default negotiation style?
- Dilemma of openness and honesty
- Dilemma of trust
- Errors in perception and cognition
-
Stereotyping
Defining individual by group type
-
Halo effect
Judging a person based on one piece of positive information
-
Selective perception
Judging a person based on one negative trait
-
Projection
Assuming the other party is the same as you
-
Framing
Point of view you take when observing the world
-
Gain vs. loss focus
Reward focus or focus on avoiding losses
-
De Dreu, Koole, & Steinel (2000)
Accountability reduces FPP through increased processing of information
-
Anchoring
- Assimilation of judgement to a salient standard of comparison
- Tend to use first offers as anchors, so they are strong predictors of outcomes
-
What are countermeasures of anchoring in negotiation?
Thinking of the opponent's BATNA, reservation point and one's own target
-
Self-serving biases
Fundamental attribution error: negotiation behavior is caused by the situation, but attributed to personality of negotiator
-
Morris, Larrick, & Su (1999)
- Two students negotiated over a job
- BATNAs of recruits were manipulated (low or high, risky or certain)
- Risky BATNA-->uncertain-->judged as unstable
- High BATNA-->haggling-->judged as unagreeable
-
Steinel, Abele, & De Dreu (2007)
- Face to face roleplay with integrative potential, 2 different negotiations
- 3 conditions: negotiation experience, advice and advice/experience
- Increased judgement accuracy in advice/experience
- Slightly more problem solving in advice, large increase for advice/experience
-
Winner's curse
When first offer is accepted
-
What is the effect of overconfidence on negotiation?
- Less willing to explore alternatives
- Prefer third party negotiation
-
Endowment effect
Tendency to value the things you posses higher
-
Emotion vs. mood
- Moods: less focused on specifics, less intense, more enduring
- Emotions: directed at targets, more intense, less enduring
-
Intrapersonal effects for positive and negative emotions
- How emotions affect self
- Positive emotions lead to more integrative behavior, positive attitude of other party and persistance
- Negative emotions lead to more distributive and competitive behavior, decrease in ability to analyze, escalates conflict
-
Valence
Whether emotion is positive or negative
-
What are the types of negative emotions and their effect on negotiation?
- Dejection-related: absence of positive outcomes, aggression
- Agitation-related: presence of negative outcomes, leave negotiation
- Anger: expect high outcomes, competitive
- Envy: more likely to lie
- Anxiety: low first offers, exit early, expect lower outcomes
-
Klinnert et. al. (1983)
- Infants used mother's emotional expressions to cross a visual cliff
- Emotions act as social information
-
What are the inferential processes of emotions?
- Emotions contain social information
- Anger tells you that you did something wrong
- Sadness tells you someone needs help
-
What are the affective effects of emotion?
- Emotions tend to invoke resulting emotions
- Anger invokes anger or fear in others
- Happiness invokes happiness or hope
-
EASI
Emotion as social information model
-
What are the two key forces in whether inferential or affective processes are used?
- Information processing: motivation and ability to decode information in emotions, more thorough IP-->inferential process, less thorough-->affective reactions
- Social relational nature of relationship: cultural norms, way emotion is expressed, distant and more appropriate relationship-->inferential, closer and less appropriate-->affective
-
Van Kleef et. al. (2004)
- Negotiators received info about other party's emotions
- Gave in more to angry negotiators than happy
- Emotional expressions only useful for those with low need for cognitive closure
- The less time pressure, the more strongly participants were affected by emotion
-
Anger and power
- Anger from a high power signals toughness and high limits
- Anger from a low power evokes anger, opponents don't care about high limits
-
Supplication in negotiation
Signals dependency and need for support, opponents make more concessions
-
Appeasement in negotiation
Signals self-reproach and that one has done something wrong, opponents stand firm and wait for a concession
-
Anger and disappointment in negotiation
Anger directed at the offer and disappointment directed at the person results in higher outcomes
-
Rational choice theory
The recipient in an ultimatum bargaining game should chose any offer greater than zero, not found to be true
-
Guth, Schmittberger, Schwarze (1982)
- Central issue is fairness
- Allocators most frequently offer 50-50
- Recipients frequently reject offers <30%
-
Types of bargaining paradigms
- Dictator game: allocator's offer must be accepted
- Delta game: if offer is rejected, multiplied by delta (between 0 and 1)
- Lambda game: if offer is rejected, multiplied by lambda for allocater and 1-lambda for recipienct
-
What are the two components of the social utility model?
- Absolute payoff or self-interest
- Comparative component or taste for fairness
-
Kagel, Kim, & Moser (1996)
- Negotiators split 100 coins
- Coins are worth twice as much to allocator, recipient thinks 50-50 is fair
- Allocators are not fair, but strategic
-
What is communicated in negotiation?
- Offers, counteroffers and motives
- BATNA
- Outcomes
- Social accounts
- Process remarks
-
How do negotiators communicate?
- Language
- Nonverbal communication
- Channel/media
-
How can you improve communication in negotiation?
- Ask questions
- Use active listening
- Role reversal
-
End-result ethics
Utilitarianism: rightness of an action determined by its consequences
-
Duty ethics
Kantianism/golden rule: universal standards of morality
-
Social contract ethics
Rousseau: rightness determined by community norms
-
What are negotiation tactics considered marginally ethical?
- Traditional competitive bargaining
- Emotional manipulation
- Misrepresentation
- Misrepresentation to opponent's networks
- Inappropriate information gathering
- Bluffing
-
What are some examples of the importance of justifying unethical behavior?
- It is important to appear honest: 50-50 coin split
- Given a choice between an empty room and one with a handicapped person, most people will choose the empty room if a different TV show is playing
- Die under cup: more people lie about results with multiple rolls
-
Koning et. al. (2010, 2011)
- Behavior depends on your goal and means
- Lambda game, chips worth twice as much to participant
- Given opportunity to lie or deceive about value
- Deceived more in powerless than powerful conditions
-
What are the different types of social value orientations and what options will they choose in negotiation?
- Competitive: choose option with greatest difference between themselves and opponent
- Prosocial: choose fairest option
- Proself: choose option with greatest benefit for self
-
What are the dimensions in Hostede's traditional approach to culture?
- Individualism/collectivism
- Masculinity/femininity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Power distance
-
What are the dimensions of Leung & Cohen's model of cultural logics?
- Dignity: inherent worth of a person independent of others, internal
- Honor: worth in other's eyes, external
- Face: worth within hierarchy, external
-
What are the origins of honor cultures?
- Small communities with predatory risk
- Beyond the reach of state or justice
- Vigilance and self-defense are only forms of defense
- Preoccupation with positive image
- Defend honor with aggression
-
What are the most important domains in social evaluation?
Morality (intentions) and competence (might or power)
-
What is the difference between honor cultures and non-honor cultures in perceiving insults?
- A rude response from someone who cut in line considered more offensive in honor cultures
- High honor-- more likely to evaluate insults in terms of morality
- Low honor-- more likely to evaluate competence
- Effect is mediated by extent to which participants take offense to insult
-
Regulatory focus
Different ways or strategies to reach goals
-
What are some positive characteristics of honor cultures?
- More polite than non-honor participants
- Less supportive of destructive behavior
- More helpful
-
What are the characteristics of an ideal regulatory focus?
- Used by underdogs
- Take more risks
- Focus on promotion
-
What are the characteristics of a necessity regulatory focus?
- Used by star player
- Play it safe, vigilance
- Prevention focus
-
What is the relationship between honor and behavior?
Those high in honor use more accommodating behavior, those low in honor use more dominating behavior
-
Why are those high in honor more accommodating?
They have a necessity regulatory focus which gives them a tendency to prevent losing honor
-
What countries are high in individualism?
Netherlands, USA
-
What countries/areas are high in power distance?
Malaysia, Philippines, Central South America
-
What countries are high in quality of life (femininity)?
Netherlands, Scandinavia
-
What countries are high in uncertainty avoidance?
Greece, Portugal, Belgium
-
Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky (2001)
- Stereotype threat/reactance
- Pretest: 48% expect males to do better than females in negotiation
- Men perform better than women when participants are told the task is diagnostic of negotiation ability
- Men perform better when gender stereotypes are implicitly primed
- Women perform better when stereotypes are explicitly primed
-
Kray et. al. (2002)
- When female traits linked to negotiation success, women outperformed men
- When neutral traits linked to negotiation success, men outperformed women
- When male traits linked to failure, women outperform men
- When female traits linked to failure, men outperform women
-
Bear & Babcock (2012)
Gender differences disappear when negotiation topics are more feminine
-
Public goods
Individuals must contribute for the common good
-
Resource dilemma
Individuals share resources, must decide how much to take
-
What are motivational solutions to solving social dilemmas?
- Transformations: changing the way the problem is perceived
- Communication: state cooperative intent
- Identification with group: "us" vs "me"
-
Reciprocity
"tit for tat," strategic solution, do whatever the other player does
-
What are structural solutions to social dilemmas?
- Modify the payoff structure: take away incentive to defect
- Sanctions: causes higher cooperation rates, but they disappear when sanctions are removed
- Cooperation decreases as group size increases
-
Discontinuity effect
Conflicts between groups are more competitive than between individuals
-
What are the motives behind the discontinuity effect?
- Fear: expectation that the other will defect
- Greed: want the highest outcome for self
-
Social support explanation
Group members support the goal of self-interest, it's okay to be greedy
-
Identifiabilty explaination
Hide behind group identity, anonymity
-
Schema-based distrust or fear explanation
Groups are trusted less than individuals
-
What are the moderators of the discontinuity effect?
- Opponent strategy
- Procedural independence
- Communication
- Non-correspondence of outcomes
-
Minimum resource theory
Input determines the formation of coalitions
-
Pivotal power
Number of coalition possibilities
-
Critical vs. noncritical input
- Critical: one with the most resources is needed, so is included
- Noncritical: one with the most resources claims most of the outcome, so is excluded
-
What are the tendencies of representative negotiators?
- Want to make favorable impressions
- Believe group favors aggressive approach
- Less willing to conceed
- People on the outskirts of their group are more competitive and less cooperative
- Higher need to belong leads to more competitive than cooperative behavior
-
Self-categorization theory
Being a part of a group is critical to one's self-concept
-
Hawks vs. doves
- Hawks: self-interest, competitive
- Doves: other-interest, cooperative
- Hawks have a greater impact on level of cooperation than doves
- Minority of hawks affects negotiation, minority of doves does not
-
How many hours per week are spent in conflict in the workforce worldwide?
2 hours worldwide
-
What are the consequences of intragroup conflict?
- Stress
- Lower work satisfaction
- Worse decision making
- Burn-out
-
Groupthink
Too much cohesion, members of group are afraid to challenge opinions
-
Is task conflict disruptive or productive?
- De Dreu & Weingart found 20 studies with negative results and 6 positive
- Another meta-analysis found 36 positive and 49 negative
- Positive effect when present without relationship conflict
- More effective in high management than low management
-
Ego threat
- Become very defensive and competitive when ego is threatened
- Causes an escalation of commitment to one's own viewpoint
-
Driving riddle study
- Each participant given different information, must use info together to solve riddle
- More likely to identify correct person when there is no relationship conflcit
-
Pluralistic strategy
Treat all group members the same, works better than particularistic strategies
-
De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001)
- Analyzed conflict strategies: collaborating, contending, avoiding and third party
- Best strategy to combat relationship conflict is avoidance
|
|