Cooperation and Conflict

When one party believes the other has or will negatively effect something the other party cares about.

A discussion with the aim of resolving conflict over incompatible goals or interests.

motive to compete (mind own interests) and cooperate (collaborate)

range of options for negotiators

Area in between buyer and seller's resistance points, no overlap, so negotiation is impossible.

compromise on each issue, middle of everything, not always the most effective solution

• logrolling-- exchanging concessions on different issues
• expanding the pie-- making the negotiation larger, adding issues
• free exchange of information, trial-and-error

• used as measure of agreement quality
• higher joint=more likely for overall happiness and satisfaction

• win-win
• win-lose
• compromise
• impasse (no agreement)

• 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

• distributive: win-lose, compromise, impasse
• integrative: win-win

low pressure

A switch from low integration to high integration, but only when interests and not values are involved.

Interest negotiations

Conflicting positions based on interest in money, benefit, time, etc.

Conflict over a problem with no one right answer, each party has a different ideal

Begin with distributive behavior, reach impasse and switch to integration

The ability to change others' states through giving or withholding resources or punishments

• information
• legitimate
• coercive/reward
• referent
• expert

Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement

• 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

• Differences in concentration of power among group members
• low dispersion: everyone is equal, eglatarian
• high dispersion: one is higher, hierarchical

• 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

• resources/interests
• values
• process

• Stronger FPP
• Lower intentions to cooperate
• More tradeoffs
• Higher joint outcomes

• Weaker FPP
• Higher intentions to cooperate (initially)
• Less problem solving
• Lower joint outcomes

• 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

Value conflict

Value conflicts, at least in the beginning

• No differences in forcing behavior
• Less problem solving in value conflict than resource conflict
• Higher joint outcome for resource than value

• 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

• Dilemma of openness and honesty
• Dilemma of trust
• Errors in perception and cognition

Defining individual by group type

Judging a person based on one piece of positive information

Judging a person based on one negative trait

Assuming the other party is the same as you

Point of view you take when observing the world

Reward focus or focus on avoiding losses

Accountability reduces FPP through increased processing of information

• Assimilation of judgement to a salient standard of comparison
• Tend to use first offers as anchors, so they are strong predictors of outcomes

Thinking of the opponent's BATNA, reservation point and one's own target

Fundamental attribution error: negotiation behavior is caused by the situation, but attributed to personality of negotiator

• 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

• 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

When first offer is accepted

• Less willing to explore alternatives
• Prefer third party negotiation

Tendency to value the things you posses higher

• Moods: less focused on specifics, less intense, more enduring
• Emotions: directed at targets, more intense, less enduring

• 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

Whether emotion is positive or negative

• 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

• Infants used mother's emotional expressions to cross a visual cliff
• Emotions act as social information

• Emotions contain social information
• Anger tells you that you did something wrong
• Sadness tells you someone needs help

• Emotions tend to invoke resulting emotions
• Anger invokes anger or fear in others
• Happiness invokes happiness or hope

Emotion as social information model

• 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

• 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 from a high power signals toughness and high limits
• Anger from a low power evokes anger, opponents don't care about high limits

Signals dependency and need for support, opponents make more concessions

Signals self-reproach and that one has done something wrong, opponents stand firm and wait for a concession

Anger directed at the offer and disappointment directed at the person results in higher outcomes

The recipient in an ultimatum bargaining game should chose any offer greater than zero, not found to be true

• Central issue is fairness
• Allocators most frequently offer 50-50
• Recipients frequently reject offers <30%

• 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

• Absolute payoff or self-interest
• Comparative component or taste for fairness

• Negotiators split 100 coins
• Coins are worth twice as much to allocator, recipient thinks 50-50 is fair
• Allocators are not fair, but strategic

• Offers, counteroffers and motives
• BATNA
• Outcomes
• Social accounts
• Process remarks

• Language
• Nonverbal communication
• Channel/media

• Ask questions
• Use active listening
• Role reversal

Utilitarianism: rightness of an action determined by its consequences

Kantianism/golden rule: universal standards of morality

Rousseau: rightness determined by community norms

• Traditional competitive bargaining
• Emotional manipulation
• Misrepresentation
• Misrepresentation to opponent's networks
• Inappropriate information gathering
• Bluffing

• 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

• 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

• Competitive: choose option with greatest difference between themselves and opponent
• Prosocial: choose fairest option
• Proself: choose option with greatest benefit for self

• Individualism/collectivism
• Masculinity/femininity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Power distance

• Dignity: inherent worth of a person independent of others, internal
• Honor: worth in other's eyes, external
• Face: worth within hierarchy, external

• 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

Morality (intentions) and competence (might or power)

• 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

Different ways or strategies to reach goals

• More polite than non-honor participants
• Less supportive of destructive behavior
• More helpful

• Used by underdogs
• Take more risks
• Focus on promotion

• Used by star player
• Play it safe, vigilance
• Prevention focus

Those high in honor use more accommodating behavior, those low in honor use more dominating behavior

They have a necessity regulatory focus which gives them a tendency to prevent losing honor

Netherlands, USA

Malaysia, Philippines, Central South America

Netherlands, Scandinavia

Greece, Portugal, Belgium

• 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

• 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

Gender differences disappear when negotiation topics are more feminine

Individuals must contribute for the common good

Individuals share resources, must decide how much to take

• Transformations: changing the way the problem is perceived
• Communication: state cooperative intent
• Identification with group: "us" vs "me"

"tit for tat," strategic solution, do whatever the other player does

• 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

Conflicts between groups are more competitive than between individuals

• Fear: expectation that the other will defect
• Greed: want the highest outcome for self

Group members support the goal of self-interest, it's okay to be greedy

Hide behind group identity, anonymity

Groups are trusted less than individuals

• Opponent strategy
• Procedural independence
• Communication
• Non-correspondence of outcomes

Input determines the formation of coalitions

Number of coalition possibilities

• 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

• 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

Being a part of a group is critical to one's self-concept

• 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

2 hours worldwide

• Stress
• Lower work satisfaction
• Worse decision making
• Burn-out

Too much cohesion, members of group are afraid to challenge opinions

• 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

• Become very defensive and competitive when ego is threatened
• Causes an escalation of commitment to one's own viewpoint

• Each participant given different information, must use info together to solve riddle
• More likely to identify correct person when there is no relationship conflcit

Treat all group members the same, works better than particularistic strategies

• Analyzed conflict strategies: collaborating, contending, avoiding and third party
• Best strategy to combat relationship conflict is avoidance