IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v39y1995i4p646-670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coercive Power And Concession Making in Bilateral Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Carsten K. W. De Dreu

    (University of Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This experiment examined the effects of negotiators' and opponents' coercive capability on level of demand and on communication of threats and promises. Applying conflict spiral and deterrence perspectives inspired contrasting predictions. Subjects were given high, moderate, or low coercive power and learned that their opponents had low, moderate, or high coercive power. Subsequently, subjects negotiated through computers with opponents (in reality, simulated by a computer), who sent compellent threats or promises designed to induce some desired behavior. Higher levels of the focal negotiator's coercive power increased communication of threats but did not influence level of demand. Higher levels of the opponent's coercive power produced greater decline in level of demand but only when the opponent sent threats instead of promises. Power balance produced less communication of threats and greater decline of demand than power preponderance. The conclusion discusses limitations and contributions, as well as the applied value for mediation and dispute resolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Carsten K. W. De Dreu, 1995. "Coercive Power And Concession Making in Bilateral Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(4), pages 646-670, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:39:y:1995:i:4:p:646-670
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002795039004003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002795039004003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002795039004003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harold H. Kelley, 1965. "Experimental studies of threats in interpersonal negotiations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 9(1), pages 79-105, March.
    2. de Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Emans, Ben J. M. & van de Vliert, Evert, 1994. "Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 90-107, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    2. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Majer, Johann M. & Zhang, Kai & Zhang, Hong & Höhne, Benjamin P. & Trötschel, Roman, 2022. "Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Benistant, Julien & Suchon, Rémi, 2021. "It does (not) get better: Reference income violation and altruism," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Michele Griessmair & Daniel Druckman, 2018. "To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-83, February.
    6. Palmeira, Mauricio M. & Krishnan, H. Shanker, 2008. "Criteria instability and the isolated option effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 153-167, July.
    7. Amira Galin, 2013. "Endowment Effect in negotiations: group versus individual decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 389-401, September.
    8. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Preston, Jared N. & Neale, Margaret A. & Kim, Peter H. & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C., 1998. "Non-linear Preference Functions and Negotiated Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 54-75, January.
    9. Barry R. Schlenker & Thomas V. Bonoma, 1978. "Fun and Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 7-38, March.
    10. A.V. Subbarao, 1978. "The Impact of Binding Interest Arbitration on Negotiation and Process Outcome," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 79-103, March.
    11. Blount, Sally & Larrick, Richard P., 2000. "Framing the Game: Examining Frame Choice in Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 43-71, January.
    12. van Kleef, G.A. & Steinel, W. & van Knippenberg, D.L. & Hogg, M.A. & Svensson, A., 2006. "Group Member Prototypicality and Intergroup Negotiation: How One's Standing in the Group Affects Negotiation Behaviour," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-070-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Sriram Venkiteswaran & Rangaraja P. Sundarraj, 2021. "How Angry are You? Anger Intensity, Demand and Subjective Value in Multi-round Distributive Electronic Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 143-170, February.
    14. Mislin, Alexandra A. & Campagna, Rachel L. & Bottom, William P., 2011. "After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 55-68, May.
    15. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. David E. Kanouse & William M. Wiest, 1967. "Some factors affecting choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(2), pages 206-213, June.
    17. Thunström, Linda, 2019. "Preferences for fairness over losses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. William M. Evan & John A. MacDougall, 1967. "Interorganizational conflict: a labor-management bargaining experiment," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(4), pages 398-413, December.
    19. Peter J. Carnevale, 2008. "Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 51-63, January.
    20. Marc Pilisuk, 1984. "Experimenting with the Arms Race," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 296-315, June.

    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:39:y:1995:i:4:p:646-670. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.