How ideology, party status, and risk framing influence employment lawsuit settlement negotiation

Academy of Management 2005 Annual Meeting: A New Vision of Management in the 21st Century, AOM 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages

  Posthuma, Richard A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

Employment; Law; Negotiation

Indexed keywords

CIVIL RIGHTS; CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS; DISTRICT COURT; FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS; NEGOTIATION; RISK FACTORS; SETTLEMENT RATE;

EMPLOYMENT;

EID: 85087245568     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.2005.18778528     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 1985. Guide to judiciary policies and procedures transmittal 64, 11: II: 19-28.
2. Aquino, K., Tripp, T., & Beis, R. J. 2001. How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 52-59.
3. Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. 2000. Negotiations. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279-314.
4. Cooter, R., Marks, S., & Mnookin, R. 1982. Bargaining in the shadow of the law: A testable model of strategic behavior. Journal of Legal Studies, 11: 225-251.
5. Dawes, R. M. 1998. Behavioral decision making and judgment. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lidzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., 497-548. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Eisenberg, T., & Farber, H. S. 1997. The litigious plaintiff hypothesis: case selection and resolution. RAND Journal of Economics, 28: S92-S112.
7. Federal Judicial Center. 2001. Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 1970-2000 [Parts 115-118: Civil Data, 1996-2000] [Computer File]. 2nd ICPSR version. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center [producer], 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
8. Fisher, R., & Ury. W. 1981. Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Gollub Williamson, L., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. 1997. Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 900-912.
10. Goodpaster, G. 1992. Lawsuits as negotiations. Negotiation Journal, July: 221-239.
11. Gould, J. P. 1973. The economics of legal conflicts. Journal of Legal Studies, 2: 279-300.
12. Gross, S. R., & Syverud, K. D. 1991. Michigan Law Review, 90: 319-393.
13. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, D. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263-291.
14. Lottinger v. Shell Oil Co., 143 F. Supp. 2d 743 (S.D., Texas, 2001).
15. Manuel v. Honda R & D Americas, Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 987 (S.D. Ohio, 2001).
16. Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. 1983. The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36: 378-388.
17. Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Roehling, M. V. & Wright, P. 2004. Organizationally sensible vs. legal-centric responses to the eroding employment at-will doctrine. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 16: 89-103.
19. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211: 453-458.
20. van Koppen, Peter J. 1990. Risk taking in civil law negotiation. Law and Human Behavior, 14: 151-165.
21. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hoffman, A. J., Thompson, L. L., Moore, D. A., Gillespie, J. J., & Bazerman, M. H. 2002. Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 27: 41-58.
22. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. McGraw-Hill: New York.