IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v61y2017i1p29-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Negotiation Interventions Matter? Resolving Conflicting Interests and Values

Author

Listed:
  • Fieke Harinck
  • Daniel Druckman

Abstract

This study compared the effects of three interventions and a no-intervention control on the settlement of resource and value conflicts. These variables were arranged in a two (conflict issue: resources vs. values) by four (no intervention vs. other affirmation vs. shared identity vs. transaction costs) between-dyads design in which 127 dyads engaged in a negotiation task. Negotiators reached generally lower joint outcomes in the value conflict compared to the resource conflict, but after the other-affirmation intervention, this pattern was reversed. The shared-identity intervention did not result in higher joint outcomes for value conflicts. Stressing positive concern for the other negotiator may be a more effective strategy than stressing commonalities between the parties: increased concern for self and decreased defense of own opinions may account for this result. Forcing and logrolling behavior are shown to be mediating variables between the type of conflict and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fieke Harinck & Daniel Druckman, 2017. "Do Negotiation Interventions Matter? Resolving Conflicting Interests and Values," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(1), pages 29-55, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:61:y:2017:i:1:p:29-55
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002715569774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715569774
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002715569774?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. Harinck, Fieke & De Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Van Vianen, Annelies E. M., 2000. "The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 329-358, March.
    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. Greer, Lindred L. & Caruso, Heather M. & Jehn, Karen A., 2011. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 116-128, September.
    2. Luhgiatno Luhgiatno & Christantius Dwiatmadja, 2020. "Developing Optimal Distinctive Open Innovation in Private Universities: Antecedents and Consequences on Innovative Work Behavior and Employee Performance," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2016. "Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 304-322, April.
    4. Zhuo-Jia Zhao & Hung-Hsin Chen & Kevin W. Li, 2020. "Management of Interpersonal Conflict in Negotiation with Chinese: A Perceived Face Threat Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 75-102, February.
    5. Buelens, M. & Van De Woesteyne, M. & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2007. "Research methods in negotiation: 1965-2004," Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Working Paper Series 2007-7, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
    6. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.
    7. Merlone, Ugo & Lupano, Matteo, 2022. "Third party funding: The minimum claim value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 738-747.
    8. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    9. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    10. Ghada A. Altarawneh & Ahmad B. Hassanat & Ahmad S. Tarawneh & David Carfì & Abdullah Almuhaimeed, 2022. "Fuzzy Win-Win: A Novel Approach to Quantify Win-Win Using Fuzzy Logic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Julian Goñi & Catalina Cortázar & Danilo Alvares & Uranía Donoso & Constanza Miranda, 2020. "Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Gerben A. Kleef & Eric Dijk & Wolfgang Steinel & Fieke Harinck & Ilja Beest, 2008. "Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 13-30, January.
    13. Carsten K. W. Dreu & Tim R. W. Wilde & Femke S. Velden, 2021. "Intergroup Competition Mitigates Effects of Reward Structure on Preference-Consistency Bias and Group Decision Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 885-902, August.
    14. Parent-Rocheleau, Xavier & Bentein, Kathleen & Simard, Gilles, 2020. "Positive together? The effects of leader-follower (dis)similarity in psychological capital," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 435-444.
    15. Claude Alavoine, 2014. "Understanding the balance of power and ethics in a bank-customer negotiation," Working Papers 2014-221, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.

    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:61:y:2017:i:1:p:29-55. 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.