Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations, 1922-1923: Power Asymmetries in Bargaining

Beriker, Nimet; Druckman, Daniel

doi:10.1177/1046878196272003

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This bears out the assertion of Ostrander and Schervish (1990) that higher mutual regard leads to more collaboration in grant making, which will lead to better philanthropy. In addition, evidence exists that joint gains are more likely when parties are of equal power (Arunachalam, Lytle, and Wall, 2001;Beriker and Druckman, 1996;McAlister, Bazerman, and Fader, 1986). …”

Section: General Relationship Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Collaboration in foundation grantor‐grantee relationships

Fairfield

Wing²

2008

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: General Relationship Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Collaboration in foundation grantor‐grantee relationships

Fairfield

Wing²

2008

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These methods were also used to obtain general inferences about negotiation processes. For instance: the more parties differ in the amount of severe behavior, the higher the probability of crisis in negotiation (Druckman 1986); negotiators respond based on the similarity of behaviors in previous moves (with respect to behaviors: hard versus soft, agree-disagree, and positive-negative affect) (Beriker and Druckman 1996); limited liking of the other negotiation party is connected to increased verbal cooperation and appeals to joint gains (Druckman and Broome 1991). Apart from that, it is possible to examine gender (Walters et al 1998) or intercultural differences (Roemer et al 1999) by means of content analysis.…”

Section: Current Tools For Negotiation Process Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, during real-world negotiations parties performed similar patterns of positive reactions as in simulations, but in the former case they displayed more strategic maneuvering (Bales and Strodtbeck 1951). Also being a member of a coalition entailed increased frequency of competitive statements (Beriker and Druckman 1996). These methods were also used to obtain general inferences about negotiation processes.…”

Section: Current Tools For Negotiation Process Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations

Jochemczyk

Nowak

2009

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional, static negotiation theories focus on descriptions of various external factors that influence the outcome of negotiations. They are useful in predicting the negotiation outcome in a limited way, because the result of the negotiation is ultimately determined not only by objective facts, but is worked out during the negotiation itself. We propose a Dynamical Negotiation Network (DNN) model that links the negotiation outcome with the process of attaining that outcome. This model represents the negotiation process in terms of a dynamically constructed network of interconnected nodes of meaning. The structure of the network and dynamics of its creation determine the outcome of a negotiation. In the presented study, we examined 58 participants who negotiated in dyads. There were many objective facts; those that were taken into consideration, the order they appeared in the negotiation, what structure of relationships they formed, helped determine a 'shared reality' that drove negotiation outcomes. We show that the DNN model explains the outcomes of their negotiations more precisely than do the static elements of the situation.

show abstract

“…For example, initial stages of inquiry may favor the small comparative study in the tradition of discovery (theory and hypothesis development), while later stages may favor large-N analyses to subject theories to falsification. Some of the most interesting studies of international negotiation have used a combined strategy by comparing the results from analyses of one or a few cases with those obtained in large-N experimental simulations of those cases (see Hopmann and Walcott 1977;Beriker and Druckman 1996).…”

Section: Deciding Between Small-n and Large-n Research Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the case evidence accumulated to date on process-outcome relationships has come from analyses of transcripts of single cases (e.g., Beriker and Druckman 1996;Druckman 1986;Hopmann 1978Hopmann , 1974 or laboratory simulations (e.g., Druckman 1993;Druckman et al 1988). Progress has only recently been made in developing and implementing a framework for comparative process analysis of cases (Druckman 2001).…”

Section: An Aggregate Comparative Analysis Utilizing the Turning-poinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case-Based Research on International Negotiation: Approaches and Data Sets

Druckman

2002

Int Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four case-based research approaches to analysis of data on international negotiation are discussed: the single, analytical case study, the temporal or time-series case study, the focused comparison of a small number of similar cases, and aggregate comparisons of a large number of different cases. The strategies are compared in terms of a number of methodological and substantive features. They are considered as alternative routes to theory development, understood best in relation to each other and best utilized together as part of a multi-method research strategy. The role of frameworks for guiding comparative analyses is discussed in the second part of the article. They are illustrated in conjunction with several multivariate projects involving the coding of variables from a variety of cases. Methods of analysis and findings obtained from these projects are then summarized. These framework-driven comparative analyses are facilitated by the advent of web-based technologies. The new technologies are especially useful for collecting information about cases of negotiation not described in archival publications. The article concludes with challenges that confront the analyst and some gaps that remain to be filled.

show abstract

Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations, 1922-1923: Power Asymmetries in Bargaining

Cited by 20 publications

References 12 publications

Collaboration in foundation grantor‐grantee relationships

Collaboration in foundation grantor‐grantee relationships

Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations

Case-Based Research on International Negotiation: Approaches and Data Sets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About