Interorganizational conflict: a labor-management bargaining experiment

Evan, William M.; MacDougall, John A.

doi:10.1177/002200276701100402

Cited by 32 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been experiment studies of negotiation in the literature, but few of them are specific to the engineering design field. Some experiments conducted in the fields of social and management sciences study the impact of personality on the negotiation outcome (Evan & McDougall, 1967), and others explore the difference between individual versus group negotiators (Polzer, 1996). In the field of engineering design, Kirshmann and Greenstein (2002) tested the influence of groupware on a design project.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of argumentation-based negotiation in collaborative design

Jin

Geslin

2010

AIEDAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering of complex systems often involves teamwork. The members of an engineering team must work together to identify design requirements, explore design spaces, generate design alternatives, and make both interactive and joint design decisions. Because of the latency of information and the disciplinary differences, it is often a difficult process for the members of a team to reach agreements when needed. Negotiation has been studied as a method for facilitating information exchange, mutual understanding, and joint decision making. An argumentation-based negotiation approach was previously proposed by the authors to support collaborative engineering design. In this paper, we present an experiment study that was conducted to evaluate the impact of this negotiation support approach on the process and the outcome of collaborative design. The results of the experiment show both positive effects and limitations of the approach.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of argumentation-based negotiation in collaborative design

Jin

Geslin

2010

AIEDAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, experimental findings on issue size (Fisher, 1964;Deutsch et al, 1971), the interplay between values and interests (Druckman et al, 1977), prominent outcomes (Benton and Druckman, 1973), and within-party differences (Evan and MacDougall, 1967;Jacobson, 1981) inform the questions in the issue category. Theory and research on orientation toward negotiation (Organ, 1971), tactics (Schelling, 1960), formulae and frameworks (Zartman and Berman, 1982), and linkages (Jensen, 1979) inform the questions on process.…”

Section: A Negotiator Support Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior

Druckman

Arai

2004

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the results of three experiments designed to evaluate the impact of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior are reported. The mediator is a web-based tool that serves three mediation functions: diagnosis, analysis, and advice. The diagnosis provides information about progress toward or away from agreements. The analysis identifies the possible sources of problems in each of several areas of negotiation. The advice is linked to the source of the problem and based on empirical research. In all of the experiments, role-playing negotiators attempted to reach agreement on seven issues discussed in a simulation of a conflict that resembles the pre-war conflict between the United States and Iraq. The first experiment consisted of a comparison between the e-mediation support technology and a condition in which negotiators reflected separately about the negotiation without the technology. Results indicate that access to the technology produced significantly more agreements and resulted in more positive perceptions of the outcomes than the reflection condition. However, perceptions of the betweenround periods were more positive for reflection-condition negotiators. In the second experiment, we compared the e-mediation technology with a condition in which negotiators only received the advice in paper form. Access to the technology resulted in more agreements than advice-only, although the differences were smaller than those obtained in the first experiment, and perceptions of outcomes were more positive for advice-only negotiators. The third experiment compared two forms of e-mediation (separate and joint) with a scripted live mediator. Results show that joint e-mediation out-performs live mediation on some measures; both these conditions resulted in more agreements, and more integrative statements, than separate e-mediation. The live mediator was perceived more favorably than both the separate and joint e-mediators. Possible explanations for these results are discussed along with an agenda for further research on e-mediation.

show abstract

“…Other techniques that are used to provide a mediative mechanism may predict the outcome (e.g., compromise or unilateral concession) better than prenegotiation attitudes of bargainers. Such factors as the presence of a third-party mediator (Vidmar, 1971) and intrateam disagreement on a conflict position (Evan and MacDougall, 1967) have been shown to be effective in facilitating the resolution of conflicts of interest. In matrix games such as Prisoner's Dilemma, idiosyncratic factors have an increased chance of predicting behavior, if the payoff for making one type of response (e.g., a cooperative choice) does not differ substantially from the payoff for making another type of response (see Knapp and Podell, 1968).…”

Section: Moderating Effects Of the Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He found that greater understanding of an opponent's position was beneficial in reaching agreements when their positions were compatible, but had essentially opposite effects when they were incompatible. Evan and MacDougall (1967) manipulated position distance between two two-man teams of simulated labor or management representatives. A condition in which each team consisted of a moderate and an extremist (&dquo;bilateral dissensus&dquo;) was compared to a condition in which both teammates were extremists on the same issue (&dquo;bilateral consensus&dquo;) and to a condition in which one team consisted of a moderate and an extremist while the other was made up of two extremists (&dquo;unilateral dissensus&dquo;).…”

Section: Conflict Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of the situation in interparty conflict

Druckman

1971

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychological approach to the study of interpersonal conflict has been guided by a paradigm which emphasizes characteristics of individuals as the primary source of conflict. This model assumes some degree of responseconsistency across situations and roles resulting from general dispositions toward the resolution of conflicts. Representative of this approach are conceptual analogies that have been drawn between motivationally-derived interpersonal orientations toward the resolution of interpersonal conflicts and preferred orientations for national representatives toward the resolution of international conflicts (see Gladstone, 1962), and correlations obtained between scales designed to measure each of these variables (see Scott, 1965, for a review of this literature). The contrasting situational approach posits response-variation concomitant with changes in the situation or role-requirements. The importance of situational parameters as the primary source of interpersonal or intergroup conflicts has been emphasized by Blake and Mouton (1962) who have used the term &dquo;psychodynamic fallacy&dquo; to refer to the incorrect attribution of interpersonal or group behavior to the personalities of individuals. (Sherif and Sherif, 1965, take a similar position.) These conclusions were reached on the basis of observations of conflict behavior in large-scale field studies of intergroup relations. In this setting the influence of &dquo;personality&dquo; variables might indeed be moderated. Coser's (1956) distinction between &dquo;nonrealistic&dquo; (conflict in the service of drive-reduction) and &dquo;realistic&dquo;(the concomitance of scarce resources and incompatible goals) conflict parallels the distinction between &dquo;personality&dquo; and situation as sources of interparty conflict. According to Coser, the importance of these factors in the resolution of conflicts is in part a function of the nature of the social structure. For example, the prevalence of nonrealistic conflict in a society depends, inter alia, on the rigidity of the social structure.More recently, a paradigm which represents a more analytic approach to the study of conflict behavior has guided investigations of personality and situational effects. Numerous investigators over the past few years have used two-person laboratory games to explore the relative effects of several variables manipulated simultaneously. While several of these studies have demonstrated relationships between pre-experimentally assessed attitudes and behavior in dyadic conflict situations (e.g., Crowne, 1966;Druckman, 1967;Terhune, 1968), the evidence in general indicates that subject variables are not strongly predictive of conflict behavior. This failure to obtain relationships has been noted by a number of investigators (e.g., Bartos, 1967;Bixenstine and Blundell, 1966;Terhune, 1968;Wrightsman, 1966). In addition, the failure to replicate obtained relationships was made at CARLETON UNIV on June 15, 2015 jcr.sagepub.com Downloaded from 524 apparent by Terhune (1968Terhune...

show abstract

Interorganizational conflict: a labor-management bargaining experiment

Cited by 32 publications

References 12 publications

A study of argumentation-based negotiation in collaborative design

A study of argumentation-based negotiation in collaborative design

e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior

The influence of the situation in interparty conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About