When Constituencies Speak in Multiple Tongues: The Relative Persuasiveness of Hawkish Minorities in Representative Negotiation

Steinel, Wolfgang; Dreu, Carsten K. W. De; Ouwehand, Elsje; Ramirez‐Marin, Jimena Y.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1031681

Cited by 7 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings corroborate earlier work by Steinel et al (2009;Weingart et al, 2007) who also showed that hawkish factions have disproportionate influence. Steinel and colleagues proposed that hawkish messages attract more attention than dovish ones and are processed faster.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributionssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Expanding earlier work by Halevy (2008) and Steinel et al (2009) we created an experimental paradigm in which representatives negotiated on behalf of a divided constituency. In some cases, representatives faced a hawkish minority in an otherwise dovish constituency; in other cases, representatives faced a dovish minority in an otherwise hawkish constituency.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That these within-group disagreements also occur in representative negotiation follows from research by Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, and Ramírez-Marín (2009). These authors investigated the effects of constituencies that consisted of either a hawkish minority within a dovish majority, or vice versa.…”

Section: Divided Constituencies and Asymmetrical Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation

Aaldering

Dreu

2012

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup conflicts are often regulated by negotiating group representatives, who are influenced by constituent pressures. We examined how within-constituent disagreement influences representative negotiations. In a 2 × 2 experiment, the majority of constituents was either hawkish or dovish vis-à-vis the out-group, and the minority had either low or high status. After being exposed to constituent voice, representatives negotiated in a multi-issue task with integrative potential. Results showed that representatives reached more integrative agreements when the constituent majority was dovish rather than hawkish, but only when the hawkish minority had low rather than high status; when the hawkish minority had high status, representatives reached suboptimal agreements equal to those reached when the constituent majority was hawkish. Additional results showed that under these circumstances, representatives perceived the cooperativeness of their constituency as highest and also had the most trust that the constituency would approve of the agreement. Implications are discussed for theory on intergroup relations, (representative) negotiation, and conflict resolution.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Contributionssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation

Aaldering

Dreu

2012

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior research has often focused on the behavior of group representatives in the presence of competitive goals. That is, representatives were either explicitly instructed to further the interests of their own group (e.g., Vidmar, 1971); had good reason to assume that competition was the norm, for example, when competing was the only way to secure favorable outcomes for the group (e.g., Benton & Druckman, 1974;Klimoski, 1972), or when competitive incentives were more salient than cooperative ones (e.g., Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2009). Furthermore, without explicit information about constituent expectations, peripheral negotiators tend to assume that their constituents favor a competitive approach (Holmes & Lamm, 1979;Van Kleef et al, 2007).…”

Section: Representative's Standing Within the Group: The Role Of Protmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a group values cooperation, outgroup competition is likely to be less appreciated. Indeed, several studies showed that representatives became relatively cooperative and lenient in their negotiation behavior when they believed that their constituency favored a cooperative approach towards the outgroup (Enzle, Harvey, & Wright, 1992;Gelfand & Realo, 1999;Gruder & Rosen, 1971;Steinel et al, 2009).…”

Section: Prototypicality and Norm-congruent Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong

Steinel

Kleef

Knippenberg

et al. 2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the role of intragroup dynamics in intergroup conflict. In a computer-mediated negotiation experiment (N = 107), we investigated how a group representative's standing in the group, group norm, and the representative's need to belong influence behavior in intergroup negotiations. We hypothesized that the extent to which peripheral representatives adhere to group norms is contingent on their need to belong, whereas prototypical representatives behave in norm-congruent ways regardless of their need to belong. In support of this idea, results showed that prototypicals behaved more cooperatively when the group norm prescribed cooperation rather than competition. By contrast, peripherals only adhered to the group norm when they had a high need to belong. These findings suggest that peripherals only represent the interests of their group when doing so furthers their self-interest. We discuss implications for theorizing about prototypicality, social exclusion, and conformity to group norms.

show abstract

From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation

Geiger

2020

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of modern communication media over the last decades, such as email, video conferencing, or instant messaging, a plethora of research has emerged that analyzes the association between communication media and negotiation processes and outcomes. In this paper, the author systematically reviews theoretical vantage points on communication media and negotiation and summarizes empirical findings from the last six decades. Specifically, the author focuses on three different strategic communication theories and four social psychological theoretical perspectives that found traction in negotiation research. Subsequently, empirical evidence on communication media and negotiation is presented, derived from an extensive literature search of relevant peer-reviewed articles. The author analyzes effects of communication media on the negotiation process (descriptive process parameters, economic reference points, negotiation behavior/tactics, individual perceptual and affective process variables) as well as economic (agreement, individual profit, joint profit, dispersion of profits) and socio-emotional (satisfaction, trust, socio-emotional evaluation of the self and the opponent) outcomes. The discussion takes stock of the current state of research and persisting research gaps, before focusing on some recent developments, and proposing future research avenues.

show abstract

When Constituencies Speak in Multiple Tongues: The Relative Persuasiveness of Hawkish Minorities in Representative Negotiation

Cited by 7 publications

References 34 publications

Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation

Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation

How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong

From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About