Linking micro and macro-level processes: Interaction analysis in context

International Journal of Conflict Management

Volumn 14, Issue 3-4, 2003, Pages 177-190

  Druckman, Daniel ^a,b,c,d  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Inst Conflict Anal and Resolution   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 6344255127     PISSN: 10444068     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb022897     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Adelman, K.L. (1984). Arms control with and without treaties. Foreign Affairs, 62, 240-263.
2. Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Beriker, N., & Druckman, D. (1996). Simulating the Lausanne peace negotiations, 1922-1923: Power asymmetries in bargaining. Simulation & Gaming, 27, 162-183.
4. Chayes, A. (1972). An inquiry into the workings of arms-control agreements. Harvard Law Review, 85, 905-969.
5. Donohue, W.A., Diez, M.E., & Stahle, R.B. (1983). New directions in negotiation research. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7. New York: Transaction.
6. Druckman, D. (1980). Social-psychological factors in regional politics. In W.J. Feld & G. Boyd (Eds.) Comparative, regional systems. New York: Pergamon.
7. Druckman, D. (1986). Stages, turning points, and crises: Negotiating military base rights, Spain and the United States. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 327-360.
8. Druckman, D. (1990). The social psychology of arms control and reciprocation. Political Psychology, 11, 553-581.
9. Druckman, D. (1996). Is there a U.S. negotiating style? International Negotiation, 1, 327-334.
10. Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 519-544.
11. Druckman, D. (2003). Puzzles in search of researchers: Processes, identities, and situations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 3-22.
12. Druckman, D., & Hopmann, P.T. (1989). Behavioral aspects of negotiations on mutual security. In P.E. Tetlock et al. (Eds.) Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War, Volume One. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Druckman, D. with Hopmann, P.T. (2002). Content analysis. In V.A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Druckman, D., & Lyons, T. (forthcoming). Negotiation processes and post-settlement relations: Comparing Nagorno-Karabakh with Mozambique. In I.W. Zartman (Ed.) Forward-looking outcomes in negotiation. Boulder. CO: Rowman & Littlefied.
15. Druckman, D., & Slater, R. (1979). External events and arms-control negotiating behavior. Bethesda, MD: Mathtech Analytical Support Center, Report P-14.
16. Druckman, D., Husbands, J.L., & Johnston, K. (1991). Turning points in the INF negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 7, 55-67.
17. Fast, L.A. (2002). Context matters: Identifying micro- and macro-level factors contributing to NGO insecurity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
18. Galtung, J. (1968). Small group theory and the theory of international relations: A study of isomorphism. In M.A, Kaplan (Ed.), New approaches to international relations. New York: St. Martin's Press.
19. Gamson, W.A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
20. Harris, K.L. (1996). Content analysis in negotiation research: A review and guide. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 458-467.
21. Harris, M. (1999). Theories of culture in postmodern times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Hopmann, P.T. (1974). Bargaining in arms control negotiations: The seabeds denuclearization treaty. International Organization, 28, 313-343.
23. Hopmann, P.T. (1977). Bargaining within and between alliances on MBFR: Perceptions and interactions. Paper presented at the International Studies Association, St. Louis, MO.
24. Hopmann, P.T. (1978). Asymmetrical bargaining in the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. International Organization, 32, 141-177.
25. th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Moscow.
26. Hopmann, P.T., & King, T.D. (1976). Interactions and perceptions in the test ban negotiations. International Studies Quarterly, 20, 105-142.
27. Hopmann, P.T., & Walcott, C. (1977). The impact of external stresses and tensions on negotiations. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28. Hopmann, P.T., & Smith, T.C. (1978). An application of a Richardson process model: Soviet-American interactions in the test ban negotiations, 1962-1963. In I.W. Zartman (Ed.), The negotiation process. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29. Iklé, F.C. (1964). How nations negotiate. New York: Harper & Row.
30. Inglehart, R., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
31. Irmer, C. (2003). The promise of process: Evidence on ending violent international conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
32. Jonsson, C. (1979). Soviet bargaining behavior: The nuclear test ban case. New York: Columbia University Press.
33. King, T.D. (1979). Bargaining in the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
34. Landsberger, H. A. (1955). Interaction process analysis of the mediation of labor-management disputes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 552-559.
35. McDonald, J.W. (Ed.) (1987). U.S.-Soviet summitry: Roosevelt through Carter. Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State.
36. McGrath, I.E. & Julian, J.W. (1963). Interaction process and task outcome in experimentally-created negotiation groups. Journal of Psychological Studies, 14, 117-138.
37. Pruitt, D.G. (1997). Ripeness theory and the Oslo talks. International Negotiation, 2, 237-250.
38. Pruitt, D.G., & Lewis, S.A. (1977). The psychology of integrative bargaining. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39. Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
40. Rouhana, N.N. (2000). Interactive conflict resolution: Issues in theory, methodology, and evaluation. In P.C. Stern & D. Druckman (Eds.), International conflict resolution after the Cold War. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. Rubin, J.Z. (1981). Dynamics of third party intervention: Kissinger in the Middle East. New York: Praeger.
42. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Sharp, J.M.O. (1976). MBFR as arms control. Arms Control Today, 6, 1.
44. Singer, J.D. (1963). International influence: A formal model. American Political Science Review, 57, 420-430.
45. Sjostedt, G. (2003). Professional cultures in international negotiation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
46. Stephenson, G. M., Kniveton, B.F., & Morley, I.E. (1977). Interaction analysis of an industrial wage negotiation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50, 231-241.
47. Tedeschi, J.T. (1970). Threats and promises. In P. Swingle (Ed.) The structure of conflict. New York: Academic Press.
48. Walcott, C., & Hopmann, P.T. (1978). Interaction analysis and bargaining behavior, In R.T. Golembiewski (Ed.), The small group in political science. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
49. Walton, R.E., & McKersie, R.B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiation: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50. Whelen, J. G. (1979). Soviet diplomacy and negotiating behavior: Emerging new context for US diplomacy. Report prepared for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Grovernment Printing Office.
51. Zartman, LW. (Ed.) (forthcoming). Forward-looking outcomes in negotiation. Boulder. CO: Rowman & Littlefied.
52. Zechmeister, K., & Druckman, D. (1973). Determinants of resolving a conflict of interest: A simulation of political decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, 63-88.