Interpersonal relationships can be fragile. The mere perception of opportunistic behavior can lead to a breakdown in cooperation. Once damaged, the question then arises as to whether and how cooperation might be restored. Noncooperative game theory raises serious doubts about the possibilities, although interactional justice and impression management research have shown that verbal explanations can dampen reactions to aversive behavior. Philosophical, anthropological, and ethological research all suggest that genuine forgiveness may require something more tangible and substantive than an explanation. Thus, the current experiment investigated the effects of explanations and varying forms of substantive amends on the restoration of mutual cooperation. The results confirm that rebuilding cooperation is feasible. Apologies and simple explanations can be effective to a degree, though substantive amends have significantly more positive effects than explanations alone. In contrast to prior findings on interactional justice, acknowledgments were more effective than denials in repairing short interactions. This research demonstrates that, once breached, cooperation can be reestablished and that actions as well as explanations and apologies can augment the process in important and sometimes subtle ways.

Keywords group identity, natural resource conflict, natural resource decision making, natural resource policy analysis, place, sense of place Phrases such as "sense of place" and "place attachment" are increasingly used to characterize the complex connections people have with the environments they encounter (Cantrill 1998;Williams and Stewart 1998). Implied in these phrases are the rich and often powerfully emotional sentiments that influence how people

No abstract

FORUM Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 09:43 09 December 2014The Forum section affords authors an opportunity to present editorial remarks and their perspectives and observations about social behavior, natural resources and the environment. These comments can be gleaned from the author's travels and derived from the author's particular disciplinary orientation, previous experiences, and the like. Such observations might focus on similarities or differences (and the likely bases for these) in the nature of problems, institutions, or social processes they encounter. Hypotheses and research questions prompted by such experiences are welcome. Editorial or professional reaction to published material in the journal is also welcome. Total length of a Forum article should not exceed five double-spaced typed pages. Downloaded by [Tufts University]The public involvement programs of natural resource agencies have been broadly criticized as unresponsive to public desires. Historically, improving natural resource decisions has been the primary conceptual basis for designing public participation programs. However, the social psychological field of procedural justice suggests a new conceptual basis for public involvement that recognizes the importance of procedures as well as outcomes. This theory is based on a balancing of the self-interest and group-value models of behavior. Issues that arise in the operationalization of this theory for natural resource decision making include (1) the impact on interest group, in addition to individual participants, (2) impacts on nonparticipants, (3) effects of historical mistrust, and (4) measures of procedural fairness.

The Unifying Negotiation Framework is an integrative model of policy negotiation. It flows out of the discourse tradition in public policy and political theory. It conceptualizes decision processes as discourses that occur at three levels (micro, meso, and macro), and are affected by six different factors (culture, institutions, agency, incentives, cognition, and actor orientation and experience). Initial applications of the Framework show that it has value in training, ex ante evaluation and design, and ex post evaluation and analysis. It has the additional benefit of synthesizing the disparate literatures on participatory processes. Because the Framework does not lead to specific predictions, it is more accurately referred to as an organizing meta-narrative than a theory.