Search

Across 3 experiments, the authors examined the effects of temporal distance on negotiation behavior. They found that greater temporal distance from negotiation decreased preference for piecemeal, single-issue consideration over integrative, multi-issue consideration (Experiment 1). They also found that greater temporal distance from an event being negotiated increased interest in conceding on the lowest priority issue and decreased interest in conceding on the highest priority issue (Experiment 2). Lastly, they found increased temporal distance from an event being negotiated produced a greater proportion of multi-issue offers, a greater likelihood of conceding on the lowest priority issue in exchange for a concession on the highest priority issue, and greater individual and joint outcomes (Experiment 3). Implications for conflict resolution and construal level theory are discussed.

Participants were led to expect either cooperation or conflict, and then performed K. Duncker's (1945) functional-fixedness task (Experiment 1) or E. Rosch's (1975) categorization task (Experiment 2). Those who expected cooperation, compared with those who expected conflict, were more likely to solve Duncker's task and used categories more inclusively, that is, rated low-prototypic exemplars of a category as better members of the category. In Experiment 3, the direct experience of cooperation and conflict had the same effect on categorization. In Experiment 4, participants were classified as having cooperative, competitive, or individualistic social values, and were led to expect either cooperation, conflict, or neither in a control. In the control, cooperators used categories more inclusively than competitors or individualists. Competitors used categories least inclusively in the conflict condition; in the cooperation condition, they used categories most inclusively. These results are interpreted in terms of the possible mediating role of cognitive organization in individual and intergroup conflict resolution.

Although it is widely recognized that the behavior of mediators in resolving disputes is often contingent on the characteristics of disputes, little systematic research has examined mediators' perceptions of the contingent use or effectiveness of their behavior. We surveyed 255 professional mediators about the features of the disputes they encountered, the tactics they used, and the outcomes they achieved in their most recently completed case. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test a hypothesized factor structure for mediator behavior, and exploratory factor analyses provided information about the underlying structures of dispute features and mediation outcomes. The results of the factor analyses served as the basis for an assessment of perceived contingencies among dispute sources, mediator tactics, and outcomes. The results of correlational analyses suggest that the mediators used many tactics contingently. The results of moderated multiple regression analyses indicate that mediators believed some tactics were effective in certain dispute situations and not in others. Tactics viewed as positively related with success in some disputes were viewed as unrelated or even negatively related with success in other disputes. Mediation has long been regarded as an effective technique for helping people resolve disputes in organizational and other settings. It is probably best known as a component of collective bargaining in formal labor-management interactions, and there is growing interest in mediation as an informal mechanism of coordinating social and organizational goals (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989). However, research on mediation is in its infancy. In this article, we report an exploratory empirical investigation of mediation as it is practiced in an assortment of arenas, including labor, marital, community, judicial, family, environmental, marketplace, and landlord-tenant disputes. Many writers have acknowledged that mediators often use

This research was designed to reconcile conflicting findings about the impact of negotiator accountability on bargaining process and outcome. Some studies have found that high accountability produces more pressure (dominance) tactics and lower joint benefit than low accountability. Other studies have found no accountability effects. Results of the present research suggest that negotiators' visual accessibility is a moderator of the effects of accountability. Accountabilit y only produced lower joint benefit when the negotiators were face to face. Cooperative behavior and reports of a cooperative atmosphere were also diminished when negotiators were facing each other rather than talking across a barrier. These results were interpreted on the assumption that negotiation involves a competitive definition of the situation, especially under high accountability. In such a context, staring is likely to be employed to dominate and is likely to be interpreted as domineering behavior. When there is no visual access, staring is not possible; hence, there is less temptation to try to dominate and less reason to view the other party as making a similar effort. The result is more cooperation and greater joint benefit. This research dealt with the effects of negotiator accountability on joint benefit in bilateral negotiation. Negotiators are "accountable" to the extent that their constituents can reward or punish them on the basis of their performance. "Joint benefit" means the collective gain achieved by the two negotiators in the final agreement. The study was part of a larger series of investigation s of the antecedents of high joint benefit. Processes that lead to high joint benefit have sometimes been called "integrative bargaining" (Walton & McKersie, 1965) because the negotiators' separate values must be integrated (i.e., reconciled) to achieve this outcome. An earlier study in this series (Pruitt