Values and Interests: Impacts of Affirming the Other and Mediation on Settlements

  • Fieke Harinck
  • Daniel DruckmanEmail author


Other-affirmation (thinking positively about the other party) seems to be a promising intervention for settling conflicts in which value differences are salient. Hypotheses from research on regulatory fit theory are evaluated in this study. A 2 × 2 design combines pre-negotiation other-affirmation (as explicit or implicit) and mediator approach (as directive or facilitative). In support of the fit hypothesis, we showed that the implicit-directive combination produced the best joint outcomes. Directional findings showed that the fit between explicit affirmation and facilitative mediation also produced favorable outcomes. Uncertainty reduction was posited as a plausible explanation for these findings. Implications are suggested for interventions intended to resolve conflicts over resources derived from values.


Directive mediation Facilitative mediation Other-affirmation Regulatory fit Resource conflict Uncertainty reduction Value conflict 



  1. Aronson E, Ellsworth P, Carlsmith JM, Gonzales M (1990) Methods of research in social psychology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubert V (1963) Competition and dissensus: two types of conflict and of conflict resolution. J Confl Resolut 7:26–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bercovitch J, Gartner S (2006) Is there method in the madness of mediation? some lessons for mediators from quantitative studies of mediation. Int Interact 32:329–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenninkmeijer AFM, Van Oyen K, Bonenkamp HJ, Prein HCM (2005) Handboek mediation, 4th edn. Sdu Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  5. Cialdini RB, Darby BL, Vincent JE (1973) Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:502–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen GL, Sherman DK, Bastardi A, Hsu L, Mcgoey M, Ross L (2007) Bridging the partisan divide: self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 93:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conlon DE, Carnevale P, Ross WH (1994) The infliuence of third-party power and suggestions on negotiation: the surface value of a compromise. J Appl Soc Psychol 24:1084–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Correll J, Spencer SJ, Zanna MP (2004) An affirmed self and an open mind: self-affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Dreu CKW, Beersma B, Stroebe K, Euwema MC (2001) Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. J Personal Soc Psychol 90:927–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donohue W (1991) Communication, marital dispute, and divorce mediation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Druckman D (1993) The situational levers of negotiating flexibility. J Confl Resolut 37:236–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druckman D (1994) Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: a meta-analysis. J Confl Resolut 38:507–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druckman D, Zechmeister K (1970) Conflict of interest and value dissensus. Hum Relat 23:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Druckman D, Zechmeister K (1973) Conflict of interest and value dissensus: propositions in the sociology of conflict. Hum Relat 26:449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druckman D, Broome B, Korper S (1988) Value differences and conflict resolution: facilitation or delinking? J Confl Resolut 32:489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Druckman D, Druckman J, Arai T (2004) e-mediation: evaluating the impacts of an electronic mediator on negotiating behavior. Group Decis Negot 13:481–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Harinck F, De Dreu CKW (2004) Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: the importance of time pressure and temporary impasses. Eur J Soc Psychol 34:595–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harinck F, De Dreu CKW (2008) Take a break! Or not? The influence of mindsets on negotiation processes and outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol 44:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harinck F, Druckman D (2017) Do negotiation interventions matter? Resolving conflicting interests and values. J Confl Resolut 6:29–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harinck F, Van Kleef GA (2012) Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: conflict issue moderates the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Br J Soc Psychol 51:741–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harinck F, Ellemers N (2014) How conflict issues change the nature of the conflict game. In: De Dreu CKW (ed) Social conflict within and between groups. (Current Issues in Social Psychology). Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK, pp 19–36Google Scholar
  23. Harinck F, Kouzakova M, Ellemers N, Scheepers D (2018) Coping with conflict: testosterone and cortisol changes in men dealing with disagreement about values versus resources. Negot Confl Manag Res. Google Scholar
  24. Higgins ET (2000) Making a good decision: value from fit. Am Psychol 55:1217–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins ET, Cesario J, Hagiwara N, Spiegel S, Pittman T (2010) Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: the role of regulatory fit. J Personal Soc Psychol 98:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Illes RM, Ellemers N, Harinck F (2014) Mediation in value conflict. Confl Resolut Q 31:331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kouzakova M, Ellemers N, Harinck F, Scheepers D (2012) The implications of value conflict: how disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38:798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kouzakova M, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Scheepers D (2014) At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and motivational responses to moral conflicts and resource conflicts. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 5:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kressel K, Wall J (2012) Introduction to the special issue on mediator style. Negot Confl Manag Res 5:334–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kressel K, Henderson T, Reich W, Cohen C (2012) Multidimensional analysis of conflict mediator style. Confl Resolut Q 30:135–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McQueen A, Klein WMP (2006) Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: a systematic review. Self Identity 5:289–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pruitt DG (1991) Strategic choice in negotiation. In: Breslin JW, Rubin JZ (eds) Negotiation theory and practice. The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, CA, pp 27–46Google Scholar
  33. Rexwinkel R, Ellemers N, Harinck F (2011) Wanneer jij OK bent, ben ik ook OK!: Hoe de bevestiging van een ander het oplossen van een waardenconflict vergemakkelijkt [When you are OK, I am OK. How affirming the other helps to resolve a value conflict]. ASPO Jaarboek 2011Google Scholar
  34. Riskin LL (1988) Understanding mediators’ orientations, strategies, and techniques: a grid for the perplexed. Harv Negot Law Rev 7:7–51Google Scholar
  35. Schaller M, Cialdini RB (1988) The economics of empathic helping: support for a mood management motive. J Exp Soc Psychol 24:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherman DK, Cohen GL (2002) Accepting threatening information: self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Am Psychol Soc 11:119–123Google Scholar
  37. Sherman DK, Cohen GL (2006) The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 38. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 183–242Google Scholar
  38. Tetlock PE (1999) Coping with trade-offs: psychological constraints and political implications. In: Lupia S, McCubbins M, Popkin S (eds) Political reasoning and choice. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 239–263Google Scholar
  39. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Personal Soc Psychol 78:853–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trego A, Canary DJ, Alberts JK, Mooney C (2010) Mediators’ facilitative versus controlling argument strategies and tactics: a qualitative analysis using the conversational argument coding system. Commun Methods Meas 4:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wade-Benzoni KA, Hoffman AJ, Thompson LL, Moore DA, Gillespie JJ, Bazerman MH (2002) Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: the role of values and institutions. Acad Manag Rev 27:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkenfeld J, Young K, Asal V, Quinn D (2003) Mediating international crises: cross-national and experimental perspectives. J Confl Resolut 47:279–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social and Organizational PsychologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Schar School of Policy and GovernmentGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Department of Modern History, Politics, and International RelationsMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.School of Political Science and International AffairsUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations