As the United stAtes hAs wAged drone wArs in places around the world over the past decade, a new consumer market for drones has emerged. Drones suddenly have a softer, neoliberal side. No longer only used solely for military reconnaissance and targeted killing, drones are increasingly being used by disaster relief specialists, real estate agents, Hollywood production crews, fire fighters, police units, and journalists. Given the expanding array of potential drone applications, how are we to think about this military technology from a poststructuralist feminist perspective? Does the drone import militarization into everyday life by virtue of its seepage into so many different sectors (policing, reporting, property speculation, public safety, media culture)? Or, do the multifarious uses of drones destabilize its militaristic origins and open up the technology to new kinds of contestations and experiences? Despite decades of feminist research on science, technology, and militarization, only a handful of recently published drone-related articles explicitly engage with feminist epistemologies. 1 Crucially, some of this
While social scientists have discussed the issue of reciprocation for many years, much of current behavioral research stems from Robert Axelrod's computer simulations of behavioral strategies in prisoner's dilemma games. Axelrod showed that a tit-for-tat strategy -cooperate on the first trial, and thereafter behave as your opponent did on the previous trial -earned a higher average payoff than any other tested strategy. We review both the computer simulation and empirical research that followed his studies. We suggest that it would be fruitful to extend this research to the negotiation paradigm, for two reasons: (1) many of the findings have direct bearing on elements of the negotiation process, and (2) there are unique aspects of the negotiation process that pose interesting questions for social dilemma research.
Relationships between individuals' ethical orientations (classified on dimensions of idealism and relativism), their negotiation strategies, their views of ethically ``marginal'' tactics, and their outcomes in dyadic negotiation are examined. Results indicate a relationship between ethical orientation and negotiation strategy. Specifically, absolutists (high on idealism, low on relativism) tended to employ more assertive negotiation strategies than did those of other ethical orientations. Individuals in no one category of ethical ideology outperformed those in any other category in terms of integrativeness of agreements or outcomes. Absolutists viewed ethically questionable tactics as less acceptable, whereas subjectivists found them more acceptable. We found that individuals less accepting of questionable tactics (``lambs''), who negotiated against those more accepting of such tactics (``lions''), were able to achieve better outcomes and a greater percentage of joint outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.