Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective

Human Relations

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 155-193

  Dewulf, Art ^a   Gray, Barbara ^b   Putnam, Linda ^c   Lewicki, Roy ^d   Aarts, Noelle ^a   Bouwen, Rene ^e   Van Woerkum, Cees ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Cognition; Cognitive framing; Conflict and negotiation; Conflict frames; Frame negotiation; Frames

Indexed keywords

EID: 59349105121     PISSN: 00187267     EISSN: 1741282X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018726708100356     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Aarts, N. & van Woerkum, C. Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex problems. In C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn (Eds), Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV, 2002, pp. 421-37.
2. Adair, W.L. & Brett, J.M. The negotiation dance: Time, culture and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organization Science, 2005, 16, 33-51.
3. Barker, C. & Galasinski, D. Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. London: SAGE, 2001.
4. Bartel, C. & Dutton, J. Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing organizational identities in interactions with others. In M. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds), Social identity processes in organizational contexts. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 2001, pp. 115-30.
5. Bartlett, F.C. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932.
6. Bateson, G. A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 1954, 2, 39-51.
7. Bateson, G. Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine, 1972.
8. Bean, C.J. & Hamilton, F.E. Leader framing and follower sensemaking: Response to downsizing in the brave new workplace. Human Relations, 2006, 59, 321-49.
9. Benford, R.D. An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 1997, 67, 409-30.
10. Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 2000, 26, 611-39.
11. Billig, M. Arguing. In W. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds), The new handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 2001, pp. 241-51.
12. Blount, S. & Larrick, R.P. Framing the game: Examining frame choice in bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 81, 43-71.
13. Bodtker, A.M. & Jameson, J.K. Mediation as mutual influence: Reexamining the use of framing and reframing. Mediation Quarterly, 1997, 14, 237-49.
14. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
15. Bonito, J.A. & Sanders, R.E. Speakers' footing in a collaborative writing task: A resource for addressing disagreement while avoiding conflict. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 2002, 35, 481-514.
16. Bougon, M., Weick, K. & Binkhorst, D. Cognition in organizations: Analysis of Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 606-39.
17. Brewer, M.B. & Kramer, R.M. Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 50, 543-9.
18. Butterfield, K.D., Trevino, L.K. & Weaver, G.R. Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 2000, 53, 981-1018.
19. Cantor, N. & Mischel, W. Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 38-48.
20. Chenail, R.J. Recursive frame analysis. The Qualitative Report, 1995, 2. Available online at: [ http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-2/rfa.html ].
21. Clark, A. The dynamical challenge. Cognitive Science, 1997, 21, 461-81.
22. Clayman, S. Footing in the achievement of neutrality. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 163-98.
23. Creed, W.E., Langstraat, J.A. & Scully, M.A. A picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods, 2002, 5, 34-55.
24. D'Angelo, P. News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 2002, 52, 870-88.
25. Davidson, E. A technological frames perspective on information technology and organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2006, 42, 23-39.
26. De Dreu, C.K.W. & McCusker, C. Effects of gain-loss frames on cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 72, 1093-106.
27. Dewulf, A. Issue framing in multi-actor contexts: How people make sense of issues through negotiating meaning, enacting discourse and doing differences. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Centrum voor Organisatie- en Personeelspsychologie, KU Leuven, 2006.
28. Dewulf, A., Craps, M. & Dercon, G. How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 2004, 14, 177-92.
29. Donnellon, A. & Gray, B. An interactive theory of reframing in negotiations. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation, 1990.
30. Donnellon, A., Gray, B. & Bougon, M. Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31, 43-55.
31. Donohue, W.A. Managing equivocality and relational paradox in the Oslo peace negotiation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1998, 17, 72-96.
32. Donohue, W.A. Resolving relational paradox: The language of conflict in relationships. In W. Eadie & P. Nelson (Eds), The language of conflict and resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2001, pp. 21-46.
33. Donohue, W.A. & Hoobler, G.D. Relational frames and their ethical implications in international negotiations: An analysis based on the Oslo II negotiations. International Negotiations, 2002, 7, 143-67.
34. Donohue, W.A., Ramesh, C. & Borchgrevink, C. Crisis bargaining: Tracking relational paradox in hostage negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1991, 2, 257-74.
35. Donohue, W.A. & Roberto, A.J. Relational development as negotiated order in hostage negotiations. Human Communication Research, 1993, 20, 175-98.
36. Drake, L.D. & Donohue, W.A. Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research, 1996, 23, 297-322.
37. Eden, C. On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 1992, 29, 261-5.
38. Edwards, D. Discourse and cognition. London: SAGE, 1997.
39. Entman, R. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 1993, 43, 51-8.
40. Fairhurst, G.T. & Sarr, R.A. The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
41. Felstiner, W., Abel, W. & Sarat, A. The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming and claiming. Law and Society Review, 1980, 15, 630-49.
42. Feyerherm, A.E. Changing and converging mind-sets of participants during collaborative, environmental rule making: Two negotiated regulation case studies. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 1995, Supplement 1, 231-57.
43. Fleischman, J.A. The effects of decision framing and others' behavior on cooperation in a social dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, 32, 162-80.
44. Garcia, A. Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review, 1991, 56, 818-35.
45. George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S.B. & Barden, J. Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2006, 31, 347-65.
46. Gergen, K. Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. London: Harvard University Press, 1996.
47. Gioia, D.A. & Pitre, E. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 1990, 15, 584-602.
48. Goffman, E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon, 1974.
49. Goffman, E. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
50. Golec, A. & Federico, C.M. Understanding responses to political conflict: Interactive effects of the need for closure and salient conflict schemas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 87, 750-62.
51. Gonos, G. 'Situation' vs. 'Frame': The 'interactionist' and the 'structuralist' analysis of everyday life. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 854-67.
52. Gray, B. Freeze-framing: The timeless dialogue of intractability surrounding Voyageurs National Park. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray & M. Elliot (Eds), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003, pp. 91-125.
53. Gray, B. Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 2004, 3, 166-76.
54. Gray, B. Framing in mediation and mediation as framing. In M. Herman (Ed.), Mediation from beginning to end. New York: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 195-216.
55. Greenhalgh, L. & Chapman, D. Relationships between disputants: Analysis of their characteristics and impact. In S. Gleason (Ed.), Frontiers in dispute resolution and human resources. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996, pp. 203-28.
56. Hajer, M. & Wagenaar, H. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
57. Hanke, R., Rosenberg, A. & Gray, B. Drake Chemical Company: A burning issue. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray & M. Elliott (Eds), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003, pp. 275-302.
58. Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. & Grant, D. Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30, 58-77.
59. Hart, S. The cultural dimension of social movements: A theoretical reassessment and literature review. Sociology of Religion, 1996, 57, 87-100.
60. Heracleous, L. & Marshak, R.J. Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 2004, 57, 1285-312.
61. Highhouse, S. & Yuce, P. Perspectives, perceptions, and risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996, 65, 159-67.
62. Hoobler, G. Management of issues and relationships during international conflict management: Or how (not?) to end a war. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2003, 14, 297-317.
63. Jehn, K.A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40, 256-82.
64. Jehn, K.A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 530-57.
65. Karreman, D. & Alvesson, M. Making newsmakers: Conversational identity at work. Organization Studies, 2001, 22, 59-89.
66. Klimoski, R. & Mohammed, S. Team mental model - Construct or metaphor. Journal of Management, 1994, 20, 403-37.
67. Kusztal, I.L. Discourse in the use and emergence of organizational conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2002, 20, 231-47.
68. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
69. Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L. & Gaeth, G. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998, 76, 149-88.
70. Lewicki, R. Is trust a frame? Working paper, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, 2004.
71. Lewicki, R. & Bunker, B. Developing and maintaining trust in working relationships. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996, pp. 114-39.
72. Lewicki, R., Gray, B. & Elliott, M. Making sense of intractable environmental conflict: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.
73. Mandler, J.M. Stories, scripts and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1984.
74. Matoesian, G. The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society, 1999, 28, 491-521.
75. McCusker, C. & Carnevale, P.J. Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995, 61, 190-201.
76. McFarland, D.A. Resistance as a social drama: A study of change-oriented encounters. American Journal of Sociology, 2004, 109, 1249-318.
77. McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L. & Chervany, N.L. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 473-91.
78. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. & Kramer, R.M. Swift trust in temporary groups. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1996, pp. 166-95.
79. Minsky, M. A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975, pp. 211-77.
80. Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R. & Rensch, R.J. The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 2000, 3, 123-65.
81. Molder, H. & Potter, J. Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
82. Moore, C.W. The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986.
83. Neale, M. & Bazerman, M. The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 1985, 28, 34-49.
84. Neale, M. & Bazerman, M. Cognition and rationality in decision making. New York: Free Press, 1991.
85. Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
86. O'Connor, K.M. & Adams, A.A. What novices think about negotiation: A content analysis of scripts. Negotiation Journal, 1999, 15, 135-47.
87. Palmer, I. & Dunford, R. Reframing and organizational action: The unexplored link. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1996, 9, 1-11.
88. Pearce, W.B. & Cronen, V. Communication, action and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York: Praeger, 1980.
89. Perry, E.L., Davis, B.A. & Kulik, C.T. Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19, 786-820.
90. Pinkley, R.L. & Northcraft, G.B. Conflict frames of reference: Implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37, 193-205.
91. Putnam, L.L. & Holmer, M. Framing, reframing and issue development. In L. Putnam & M. Roloff (Eds), Communication and negotiation. London: SAGE, 1992, pp. 128-55.
92. Putnam, L.L. & Wilson, S.R. Argumentation and bargaining strategies as discriminators of integrative outcomes. In M.A. Rahini (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach. New York: Praeger, 1989, pp. 121-41.
93. Putnam, L.L., Wilson, S.R., Waltman, M.S. & Turner, D. The evolution of case arguments in teachers' bargaining. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1986, 23, 63-81.
94. Rawlins, W.K. Gregory Bateson and the composition of human communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 1987, 20, 53-77.
95. Rogan, R.G. & Hammer, M.R. Crisis negotiation: A preliminary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 1994, 22, 216-31.
96. Rosales, G. Until the bell rings! Perspectives of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARB) on sugarcane farming: La Carlota Mill District, Negros Occidental, Philippines. Unpublished thesis, Wageningen University, 2004.
97. Rothman, J. Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
98. Rouse, W.B. & Morris, N.M. On looking into the black-box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 1986, 100, 349-63.
99. Salipante, P.F. & Bouwen, R. The social construction of grievances. In D.M. Hosking, H.P. Dachler & K. Gergen (Eds), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995, pp. 71-97.
100. Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R.P. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975.
101. Scheufele, D. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 1999, 49, 104-22.
102. Schan, D. & Rein, M. Frame reflection: Towards resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
103. Schurr, P.H. Effects of gain and loss decision frames on risky purchase negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1987, 72, 351-8.
104. Steinberg, M. The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. American Journal of Sociology, 1999, 105, 736-80.
105. Stevenson, W.B. & Greenberg, D.N. The formal analysis of narratives of organizational change. Journal of Management, 1998, 24, 741-67.
106. Stokes, R. & Hewitt, J.P. Aligning actions. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 838-49.
107. Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 1982, 33, 1-39.
108. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1986, pp. 7-24.
109. Tannen, D. Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
110. Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. Interaction frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1987, 50, 205-17.
111. Ten Brunsel, A.E. & Messick, D.M. Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44, 684-707.
112. Tetlock, P.E., Kristel, O.V., Elson, S.B., Green, M.C. & Lerner, J.S. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 78, 853-70.
113. Ting-Toomey, S. Inter-cultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Dim & W. Gudykunt (Eds), Theories in inter-cultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1998, pp. 213-35.
114. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211, 453-8.
115. Vansina, L., Taillieu, T. & Schruyer, S. Managing multiparty issues: Learning from experience. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1998, 11, 159-81.
116. Vaughan, E. & Siefert, M. Variability in the framing of risk issues. Journal of Social Issues, 1992, 48, 119-35.
117. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967.
118. Weick, K. & Bougon, M. Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to success and failure. In H. Sims & D. Gioia (Eds), The thinking organization: Dynamics of organization social cognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986, pp. 102-35.
119. Wenger, E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
120. West, C. Routine complications. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.
121. Wetherell, M. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 1998, 9, 387-412.
122. Wiethoff, C., Lewicki, R. & Davis, C. Portraits of self and others: State-level conflict over water regulation in Ohio. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray & M. Elliott (Eds), Making sense of intractable environmental conflict: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003, pp. 225-53.
123. Winslade, J. & Monk, G. Narrative mediation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
124. Zalesny, M. Book review of making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003, 48, 718-20.