Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: Third-party intervention in intergroup negotiations

Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 795-815

  Loschelder, David D ^a   Trötschel, Roman ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

Author keywords

distributive and integrative negotiation; intergroup negotiation; mediation arbitration; partial impasses; third party intervention

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049376935     PISSN: 13684302     EISSN: 14617188     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1368430210374482     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Adams, J.S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1175-1199). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
2. Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Arnold, J.A., & O'Connor, K.M. (1999). Ombudspersons or peers? The effect of third-party expertise and recommendations on negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 776-785.
4. Ashenfelter, O., & Currie, J. (1990). Negotiator behavior and the occurrence of disputes. American Economic Review, 80, 416-420.
5. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6. Bartos, O.J. (1974). Process and outcome in negotiation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7. Bazerman, M.H., Moore, D.A., & Gillespie, J.J. (1999). The human mind as a barrier to wiser environmental agreements. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1277-1300.
8. Benton, A.A. (1972). Accountability and negotiations between group representatives. Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 227-228.
9. Benton, A.A., & Druckman, D. (1973). Salient solutions and the bargaining behavior of representatives and non-representatives. International Journal of Group Tensions, 3, 28-39.
10. Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D.G. (1984). Accountability to constituents: A two-edged sword. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 283-295.
11. Brewer, M.B., & Brown, R.J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & A. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 554-594). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
12. Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
13. Brewer, T.J., & Mills, L.R. (1999). Combining mediation and arbitration. Dispute Resolution Journal, 54, 32-39.
14. Carnevale, P.J. (1986). Strategic choice in mediation. Negotiation Journal, 2, 41-56.
15. Carnevale, P.J., & Conlon, D.E. (1988). Time pressure and strategic choice in mediation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 111-133.
16. Carnevale, P.J., & Pruitt, D.G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 111-133.
17. Carnevale, P.J., Pruitt, D.G., & Seilheimer, S.D. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111-120.
18. Conlon, D.E., Carnevale, P.J., & Murnighan, J.K. (1994). Intravention: Third-party intervention with clout. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 387-410.
19. Conlon, D.E., Carnevale, P.J., & Ross, W.H. (1994). The influence of third party power and suggestions on negotiation: The surface value of compromise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1084-1113.
20. Conlon, D.E., Moon, H., & Ng, K.Y. (2002). Putting the cart before the horse: The benefits of arbitrating before mediating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 978-986.
21. Curry, A.F., & Pecorino, P. (1993). The use of final offer arbitration as a screening device. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 655-680.
22. De Dreu, 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.
23. Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507-556.
24. Druckman, D. (2004). Departures in negotiation: Extensions and new directions. Negotiation Journal, 20, 185-204.
25. Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
26. Gaertner, S.L., Rust, M.C., Dovidio, J.F., Bachman, B.A., & Anastasio, P.A. (1996). The Contact Hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? (pp. 230-360). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Galinsky, A.D., Maddux, W.W., Gilin, D., & White, J.B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The different effects of perspective-taking and empathy in strategic interactions. Psychological Science, 19, 378-384.
28. Hamner, W.C. (1974). Effects of bargaining strategy and pressure to reach agreement in a stalemated negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 458-467.
29. Harris, K.L., & Carnevale, P.J. (1990). Chilling and hastening: The influence of third-party power and interests on negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 138-160.
30. Haslam, S.A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London, UK: Sage.
31. Haslam, S.A., Oakes, P.J., Reynolds, K.J., & Turner, J.C. (1999). Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 809-818.
32. Heuer, L.B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700-710.
33. Hiltrop, J.M., & Rubin, J.Z. (1982). Effects of intervention conflict of interest on dispute resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 665-672.
34. Idaszak, J.R., & Carnevale, P.J. (1989). Third party power: Some negative effects of positive incentives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 499-516.
35. Johnson, D.F., & Pruitt, D.G. (1972). Pre-intervention effects of mediation versus arbitration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 1-10.
36. Klimoski, R.J. (1972). The effects of intragroup forces on intergroup conflict resolution. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 363-383.
37. Kolb, D.M. (1986). Corporate ombudsman and organization conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 673-691.
38. Kochan, T.A., & Jick, T. (1978). The public sector mediation process: A theory on empirical examination. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 209-240.
39. Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (Eds.). (1989). Mediation research: The process and effectiveness of third party intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. Lewis, S.A., & Fry, W.R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining situations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 75-92.
41. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
42. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
43. Maddux, W.W., Mullen, E., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 461-468.
44. McGillicuddy, N.B., Welton, G.L., & Pruitt, D.G. (1987). Third-party intervention: A field experiment comparing three different models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 104-112.
45. McLean, D.J., & Wilson, S.P. (2008). Compelling mediation in the context of med-arb agreements. Dispute Resolution Journal, 63, 28-34.
46. Morgan, P.M., & Tindale, R.S. (2002). Group vs individual performance in mixed-motive situations: Exploring an inconsistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 44-65.
47. Murnighan, J.K. (1986). The structure of mediation and intravention: Comments on Carnevale's strategic choice model. Negotiation Journal, 2, 351-356.
48. Murnighan, J.K., Babcock, L., Thompson, L., & Pillutla, M. (1999). The information dilemma in negotiations: Effects of experience, incentives, and integrative potential. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 313-339.
49. Neale, M.A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 34-49.
50. Notz, W.W., & Starke, F.A., (1978). Final offer versus conventional arbitration as means of conflict management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 189-203.
51. 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.
52. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,65-85.
53. Polzer, J.T. (1996). Intergroup negotiations: The effects of negotiating teams. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40, 678-698.
54. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 717-731.
55. Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
56. Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
57. Pruitt, D.G. (1995). Process and outcome in community mediation. Negotiation Journal, 11, 365-377.
58. Pruitt, D.G., & Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
59. Pruitt, D.G., Kimmel, M.J., Britton, S., Carnevale, P.J., Magenau, J., Peragallo, J., & Engram, P. (1978). The effect of accountability and surveillance on integrative bargaining. In H. Sauermann (Ed.), Bargaining behavior. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr.
60. Pruitt, D.G., & Lewis, S.A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621-633.
61. Pruitt, D.G., Peirce, R.S., Zubek, J.M., Welton, G.L., & Nochajski, T.H. (1990). Goal achievement, procedural justice and the success of mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 33-45.
62. Ross, W.H., & Conlon, D.E. (2000). Hybrid forms of third-party dispute resolution: Theoretical implications of combining mediation and arbitration. Academy of Management Review, 25, 416-427.
63. Rubin, J.Z., & Brown, B.R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
64. Schopler, J., & Insko, C.A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121-151). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
65. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
66. Simon, B., Trötschel, R., & Dähne, D. (2008). Identity affirmation and social movement support. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 935-946.
67. Sones, T.J. (2007). Choosing between med-arb and arbmed: An exploratory study. Unpublished Master's Thesis (University of Victoria, A. R. Elangovan, Project Director).
68. Starke, F.A., & Notz, W.W. (1981). Pre- and post-intervention effects of conventional versus final offer arbitration. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 832-850.
69. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 263-277.
70. Ten Velden, F.S.T., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: The moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,259-268.
71. Teixeira, C.P., Demoulin, S., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2010). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations.Manuscript submitted for publication.
72. Thibaut, J.W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 98-123.
74. Thompson, L., & Kim, P.H. (2000). How the quality of third parties' settlement solutions is affected by the relationship between negotiators. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 3-14.
75. Tripp, T.M., & Sondak, H. (1992). An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 273-295.
76. TrAötschel, R., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2007). Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 579-598.
77. TrAötschel, R., Hüffmeier, J., Loschelder, D.D., Schwarz, K., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2010). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk towards agreements.Manuscript submitted for publication.
78. Walton, R.E., & McKersie, R.B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
79. Wildschut, T., & Insko, C.A. (2007). Explanations of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 175-211.