IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v19y1975i3p532-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

Author

Listed:
  • Jean M. Bartunek

    (Department of Psychology University of Illinois, Chicago Circle)

  • Alan A. Benton

    (Department of Psychology University of Illinois, Chicago Circle)

  • Christopher B. Keys

    (Department of Psychology University of Illinois, Chicago Circle)

Abstract

The present study compared the effects of content, process, and passive types of third party intervention on the bargaining behavior of pairs of group representatives. The setting was a simulated school board-teachers' union dispute over a new contract. Each side was represented by one person who was instructed to bargain tenaciously and to obtain as much as possible. The job of the representatives was either in jeopardy (high accountability) or not (low accountability). In the content intervention condition, a reasonable settlement was suggested to the representatives by the third party. In the process intervention condition, he taught them how to paraphrase. In the passive condition he had them take a break from their negotiations. For the high accountable representatives, as predicted, the order of effectiveness of the interventions (number of agreements, average joint profit, and speed of resolution), from most to least, was content, process, and passive. Contrary to expectations, the process intervention did not produce the highest average joint profit for the low accountability representatives. The representatives who did reach agreement in the low accountability process and content conditions, however, achieved higher joint profits than the representatives in the passive condition. Directions for further research were indicated.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean M. Bartunek & Alan A. Benton & Christopher B. Keys, 1975. "Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(3), pages 532-557, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:19:y:1975:i:3:p:532-557
    DOI: 10.1177/002200277501900308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200277501900308
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002200277501900308?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peng, Ann C. & Dunn, Jennifer & Conlon, Donald E., 2015. "When vigilance prevails: The effect of regulatory focus and accountability on integrative negotiation outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 77-87.
    2. Timothy C. Dunne, 2018. "Friend or Foe? A Reversal of Ingroup Bias," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 593-610, August.
    3. Daniel Druckman & Mara Olekalns, 2008. "Emotions in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:19:y:1975:i:3:p:532-557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.