Toward more effective stakeholder dialogue: Applying theories of negotiation to policy and program evaluation

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 36, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 2834-2863

  Campbell, Bernadette ^a,b   Mark, Melvin M ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750913171     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00131.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alkin, M. (2003). Evaluation theory and practice: Insights and new directions. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 97, pp 81-89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2. Bazerman, M. H., Neale, M. A., Valley, L., Zajac, E. J., & Kim, M. J. (1992). The effects of agents and mediators on negotiation outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 55-73.
3. Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interactions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 323-335.
4. Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 531-582.
5. Christie, C. A. (Ed.). (2003). The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Cialdini, R. B. (1980). Full-cycle social psychology. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 1, pp. 21-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7. Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 80, pp 5-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. DeDreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.
9. DeDreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
10. Donaldson, S. I., Gooler, L. E., & Scriven, M. (2002). Strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 261-273.
11. Donaldson, S. I., & Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in responding to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus: Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167-188.
13. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.
14. Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507-556.
15. Etzioni, A. (1998). The essential communitarian reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
16. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692-704.
17. Greene, J. C. (2000). Challenges in practicing deliberative democratic evaluation. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 85, pp 13-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Greene, J. C. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation: A relational perspective. Evaluation, 7, 181-187.
19. Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003a). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293-314.
20. Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003b). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 97, pp. 69-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Heydenfeldt, J. G. (2000). The influence of individualism/collectivism on Mexican and U.S. business negotiation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 383-407.
22. House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 85, pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Hunter, D. M., & Gambell, T. J. (2000). Incorporating stakeholders in standard setting: What's at stake? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 75(3), 83-109.
25. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
26. Karlsson, O. (2001). Critical dialogue: Its value and meaning. Evaluation, 7, 211-227.
27. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kenny, D. A. (1996). The design and analysis of social-interaction research. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 59-86.
29. Kerig, P. K., & Lindahl, K. M. (Eds.). (2001). Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Kramer, R. M. (1993). The social context of negotiation: Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 633-654.
31. Kramer, R. M. (1995). In dubious battle: Heightened accountability, dysphoric cognition, and self-defeating bargaining behavior. In R. M. Kramer & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a social process (pp. 95-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
33. th ed., pp. 415-469). New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Mark, M. M. (2001). Evaluation's future: Furor, futile, or fertile? American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 457-479.
35. Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35-57.
36. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Melby, J., Conger, R. D., Book, R., Reuter, M. A., Lucy, L., & Repinski, D., et al. (1989). Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
38. Moreland, R. L., Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1994). Back to the future: Social psychological research on groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 527-555.
39. Mosterd, I., & Rutte, C. G. (2000). Effects of time pressure and accountability to constituents on negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 227-247.
40. Newcomer, K. E. (1997). Using performance measurement to improve programs. In K. E. Newcomer (Ed.), Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 75, pp. 5-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. O'Connor, K. M. (1997). Groups and solos in context: The effects of accountability on team negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 384-407.
42. Peterson, E., & Thompson, L. (1997). Negotiation teamwork: The impact of information distribution and accountability on performance depends on the relationship among team members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 364-383.
43. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
44. Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behaviour. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45. Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 470-503). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
46. Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
47. Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621-633.
48. Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1977). The psychology of integrative bargaining. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 161-192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
49. Putnam, L., & Jones, T. (1982). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining interaction. Human Communication Research, 8, 261-280.
50. Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
51. Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
52. Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (2000). Disentangling dialogue: Issues from practice. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 85, pp. 63-76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
53. Ryan, K., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Dialogue as a democratizing evaluation method. Evaluation, 7, 188-203.
54. Ryan, K. E., & Johnson, T. D. (2000). Democratizing evaluation: Meanings and methods from practice. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 85, pp. 39-50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55. Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 127-160.
56. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
57. Taut, S., & Brauns, D. (2003). Resistance to evaluation: A psychological perspective. Evaluation, 9, 247-264.
58. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
59. Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331-376.
60. Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accountability theory: Mixing properties of agents with properties of social systems. In J. Levine, L. Thompson, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 117-137). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61. Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-532.
62. Thompson, L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 82-90.
63. Thorngate, W. (2001). The social psychology of policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 85-112.
64. Walcott, C., & Hopmann, P. (1975). Interaction analysis and bargaining behavior. Experimental Study of Politics, 4, 1-19.
65. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
66. Whitmore, E. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (New Directions for Evaluation Series, No. 80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.