No abstract

This study experimentally examined how power and gender affect negotiation behaviors and how those behaviors affect negotiated outcomes. One hundred and forty‐six dyads, in four combinations of power and gender, negotiated compensation agreements. In line with gender stereotypes, male negotiators were more dominating and females more obliging and somewhat more compromising. However, partially challenging the common association of power and masculinity, high‐power negotiators were less dominating and more collaborating, obliging and avoiding than their low‐power opponents. Generally, feminine and high‐power behaviors induced agreement while masculine and low‐power behaviors enhanced distributive personal gain. The study also assessed patterns of behavioral reciprocity and used sophisticated analytic tools to control for dyadic interdependence. Therefore it helps to elucidate the negotiation process and the role that power and its interplay with gender play in it.

In this research, we explored the contributions of perceived procedural justice (PPJ) to the conflict management behaviors of adolescents when they experience conflict with their teachers.We tested an extensive model to determine how PPJ contributes to conflict management. We also extended research on PPJ to examine its impact on adolescents. Our results, acquired from a large and diverse sample of 256 high school students, indicate that PPJ had an impact on adolescents' approach to managing conflicts with their teachers. Students who perceived that their teachers' decision processes were just were less dominating and more avoiding, obliging, and compromising. In addition, we found that students' perceptions about the legitimacy of their teachers' authority mediated the relationships between PPJ and conflict management style. This study contributes to the rather scarce research on PPJ's role in conflict management and should be useful for educators searching for constructive, relationship-based tools for conflict management.Key words: conflict resolution,perceived procedural justice,conflict management styles, dual-concern model, teacher legitimacy, student-teacher conflict.Noa Nelson is a lecturer at the Program for Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, and at the department for behavioral sciences at Peres Academic Center in Rehovot, Israel. Her e-mail address is noanel@gmail.com.Dikla Shechter is a high-tech project manager and a graduate of the doctoral program at the Program for Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University. Her e-mail address is dikla.shechter@gmail.com.Rachel Ben-Ari is a professor at the psychology department and at the Program for Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University. Her e-mail address is benarir@mail.biu.ac.il. IntroductionConflict occurs when parties have opposing goals and perceive each other as obstacles to achieving them (Putnam and Poole 1987). Conflict researchers often evaluate conflict management responses by employing a dualconcern model (Thomas 1976; Rahim and Bonoma 1979;Pruitt 1981;Rahim 1983Rahim , 2001) that combines two independent concerns -concern for self and concern for the other party -to create five distinct conflict management styles. A person who reports high concern for himself or herself and low concern for others will fall into the dominating (competitive) category. At the other end, those who fall into the obliging category report low concern for themselves and high concern for others. Having moderate concern for both oneself and others are characteristics of those in the compromising category. High concern for both is characteristic of those in the integrating category. Finally, those who report low concern for both the interests of themselves and others fall into the avoiding category (Rahim 1983).Ali Kazemi (2007) characterized three orientations correlated with moderate to high levels of concern for the other person -compromising, integrating, and obliging -as collaborative, be...

Purpose This study aims to test the contributions of a new type of resilience, Trait Negotiation Resilience (TNR; Nelson et al., 2016), to negotiators’ effective behavior, perception of opponent and negotiation outcomes. Design/methodology/approach A laboratory study (N = 98; 49 dyads) featuring a mixed-motive negotiation task. Participants self-reported TNR (emotional skills, social sensitivity, intrinsic motivation for self-improvement and a sense of purpose to life events) up to a week before negotiating. After the negotiations, they rated their opponents on resilient, effective personal attributes and reported their own subjective value (SV). Trained judges watched the negotiations, coded objective outcomes and rated negotiators on dimensions of effective negotiation behavior. Statistical analyses accounted for dyadic interdependence. Findings TNR predicted higher levels of effective negotiation behavior, which, in turn, fully mediated TNR’s favorable contribution to negotiated value. TNR also predicted higher levels of SV, and this contribution was partially mediated by perceiving effective personal attributes in the opponent. Research limitations/implications The sample size was moderate and it consisted of undergraduate students, most of them female. Originality/value Evidence on the contribution of a personality construct to both outcome and process negotiator variables; contribution to the research of specific types of resilience.

Purpose Based on gender role theory, this study aims to test a moderated mediation model in which gender, mediated by shame, affected salary negotiation initiation and writing pay raise justifications before the negotiation moderated gender effects, by boosting women’s negotiation initiation and lowering their shame. Design/methodology/approach Mixed-methods approach: in a scenario experiment, participants (N = 172; 92 women) imagined initiating salary negotiations with real employers, and shame and the inclination to actually initiate the negotiation were measured. About half the sample wrote pay raise justifications as part of the task. In the qualitative phase of the study, justifications were analyzed. Findings The model’s predictions were not supported. Women were neither less inclined to negotiate nor reported higher shame than men. Across gender, shame related to lower negotiation initiation and was alleviated by justifications’ preparation. Writing justifications did not affect men’s negotiation initiation, but lowered women’s. The qualitative analysis revealed that while all participants preferred communal themes in their justifications, women used themes of confidence, entitlement and power less than men. Originality/value The study provides original evidence in negotiation literature, on the effects of shame, on the practice of preparing pay raise justifications and on specific patterns in justifications’ content.