Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 591–620 | Cite as

Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations

  • Lukasz W. JochemczykEmail author
  • Andrzej Nowak
Article

Abstract

Traditional, static negotiation theories focus on descriptions of various external factors that influence the outcome of negotiations. They are useful in predicting the negotiation outcome in a limited way, because the result of the negotiation is ultimately determined not only by objective facts, but is worked out during the negotiation itself. We propose a Dynamical Negotiation Network (DNN) model that links the negotiation outcome with the process of attaining that outcome. This model represents the negotiation process in terms of a dynamically constructed network of interconnected nodes of meaning. The structure of the network and dynamics of its creation determine the outcome of a negotiation. In the presented study, we examined 58 participants who negotiated in dyads. There were many objective facts; those that were taken into consideration, the order they appeared in the negotiation, what structure of relationships they formed, helped determine a ‘shared reality’ that drove negotiation outcomes. We show that the DNN model explains the outcomes of their negotiations more precisely than do the static elements of the situation.

Keywords

Negotiation Bargaining Negotiation outcomes Shared reality Networks Semantic networks Dynamical negotiation networks Group decision making Dynamical systems Complex systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacharach SB, Lawler EJ (1981) Bargaining: power tactics and outcomes. Jossey-Bass Inc., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bales RF, Strodtbeck FL (1951) Phases in group problem-solving. J Abnor Soc Psych 46: 485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabasi AL (2002) Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. Perseus Books Group, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabasi AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286: 509–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry B (2008) Negotiator affect: the state of the art (and the science). Group Decis Negot 17: 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartos O (1977) The simple model of negotiation: a sociological point of view. J Confl Resolut 21: 565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazerman MH, Neale MA (1992) Negotiating rationally. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bazerman MH, Curhan JR, Moore DA et al (2000) Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol 51: 279–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beriker N, Druckman D (1996) Simulating the Lausanne peace negotiations 1922–1923: power asymmetries in bargaining. Simul Gaming 27: 162–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ (2003) The right game: use game theory to shape strategy. In: Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Barry B (eds) Negotiation. Readings exercises and cases. 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown MB, Forsythe AB (1974) The small sample behavior of some statistics which test the equality of several means. Technometrics 16: 129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carley KM (1997) Network text analysis: the network position of concepts. In: Roberts CW (eds) Text analysis for the social sciences: methods for drawing statistical inferences form texts and transcripts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahawahGoogle Scholar
  14. Carnevale PJ, De Dreu CKW (2006) Motive: the negotiator’s raison d’être. In: Thompson L (eds) Frontiers of social psychology: negotiation theory and research. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatterjee K, Samuelson W (1983) Bargaining under incomplete information. Oper Res 31: 835–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman PT (2006) Conflict, complexity, and change: a meta-framework for addressing protracted, intractable conflicts—III peace and conflict. J Peace Psychol 12: 325–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman PT, Bui-Wrzosinska L, Vallacher R et al (2006) Protracted conflicts as dynamical systems: guidelines and methods for intervention. In: Schneider A, Honeyman C (eds) The negotiator’s fieldbook. American Bar Association Book, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman PT, Vallacher R, Nowak A et al (2007) Intractable conflict as an attractor: Presenting a dynamical model of conflict, escalation, and intractability. Am Behav Sci 50: 1454–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diestel R (2006) Graph theory. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Doreian P, Stokman FN (1997) Evolution of social networks. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Druckman D (1986) Stages, turning points, and crises: negotiating military base rights Spain and the United States. J Confl Resolut 30: 327–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Druckman D (with Hoppman PT) (2002) Content analysis. In: Kremenyuk VA (ed) International negotiation: analysis, approaches, issues, Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Druckman D (2005) Doing Research: methods of inquiry for conflict analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Druckman D, Broome BJ (1991) Value differences and conflict resolution. J Confl Resolut 35: 571–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Druckman D, Lyons T (2005) Negotiation processes and postsettlement relationships: comparing Nagorno–Karabakh with Mozambique. In: Zartman IW, Kremenyuk VA (eds) Peace versus justice: negotiating forward- and backward-looking outcomes. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Druckman D, Olekalns M (2008) Emotions in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Druckman D, Broome BJ, Korper SH (1998) Value differences and conflict resolution: facilitation or delinking?. J Confl Resolut 32: 489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (1991) Getting to yes: negotiating an agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Habeeb WM (1988) Power and tactics in international negotiation: how weak nations bargain with strong nations. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardin CD, Higgins ET (1996) Shared reality: how social verification makes the subjective objective. In: Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior. 3rd edn. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris KL (1996) Content analysis in negotiation research: a review and guide. Behav Res Meth Ins C 28: 458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Higgins ET (1992) Achieving ‘shared reality’ in the communication game: a social action that creates meaning. J Lang Soc Psychol 11: 107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson-Laird PN (1989) Mental models. In: Posner MJ (eds) The foundations of cognitive science. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson-Laird PN, Hermann DJ, Chaffin R (1984) Only connections: a critique of semantic networks. Psychol Bull 96: 292–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80: 237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim PH, Pinkley RL, Fragale AR (2005) Power dynamics in negotiation. Acad Manag Rev 30: 799–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lax D (1985) Optimal search in negotiation analysis. J Confl Resolut 29: 456–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lax DA, Sebenius JK (1986) The manager as negotiator: bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Collier Macmillan Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Lax DA, Sebenius JK (1991) The power of alternatives or the limits to negotiation. In: Breslin JW, Rubin JZ (eds) Negotiation theory and practice. The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2003) 3-D negotiation: playing the whole game. Harvard Bus Rev 81: 64–74Google Scholar
  41. Ma Z, Jaeger A (2005) Getting to yes in China: exploring personality effects in Chinese negotiation styles. Group Decis Negot 14: 415–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1987) Parallel distributed processing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. McGillicuddy NB, Welton GL, Pruitt DG (1987) Third-party intervention: a field experiment comparing three different models. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGrath JE, Julian JW (1963) Interaction process and task outcome in experimentally-created negotiation groups. J Psychol Stud 14: 117–138Google Scholar
  45. Messick DM (1999) Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. J Econ Behav Organ 39: 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S et al (2002) Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298: 824–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan GA, Leech NL, Gloeckner GW et al (2004) SPSS for introductory statistics: use and interpretation. 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Morley IE, Stevenson GM (1977) The psychology of bargaining. Allen & Unwin Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Nash JF Jr (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nastase V (2006) Concession curve analysis for inspire negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15: 185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman MEJ, Barabasi AL, Watts DJ (2006) The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. Nowak A, Vallacher R, Bui-Wrzosinska L et al (2006) Attracted to conflict: A dynamical perspective on malignant social relations. In: Golec A, Skarzynska K (eds) Understanding social change: political psychology in Poland. Nova Science Publishers Ltd, HaauppagueGoogle Scholar
  53. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005) The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decis Negot 14: 481–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Park J, Barabasi AL (2007) Distribution of node characteristics in complex networks. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 17916–17920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pinkley RL, Northcraft GB (1994) Conflict frames of reference: implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Acad Manag J 37: 193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pruitt DG, Lewis SA (1975) Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 31: 621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Putnam LL, Holmer M (1992) Framing, reframing and issue development. In: Putnam LL, Roloff ME (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newburry ParkGoogle Scholar
  58. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Rhoades JA, Carnevale PJ (1999) The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: a test of dual concern model. J Appl Soc Psychol 29: 1777–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roemer C, Garb P, Neu J et al (1999) A comparison of American and Russian patterns of behavior in buyer-seller negotiations using observational measures. Int Negot 4: 37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rubin JZ, Brown BR (1975) The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Steinel W, De Dreu CKW (2004) Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. J Pers Socl Psychol 86: 419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stokman FN, van Assen M, van der Knoop J et al (2000) Strategic decision making. Adv Group Process 17: 131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sowa JF (2000) Knowledge representation: logical philosophical and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson L (1990) Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychol Bull 108: 515–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thompson L, Hastie R (1990) Social perception in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Dec 47: 98–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thompson L, Loewenstein G (1992) Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organ Behav Hum Dec 51: 176–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson L, Nadler J, Lount RB Jr (2006) Judgmental biases in conflict resolution and how to overcome them. In: Deutsch M, Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice. 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  69. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Boven L, Thompson L (2003) A look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models in negotiation. Group Process Interg 6: 387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004a) The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol 86: 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004b) The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 87: 510–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  75. Walcott C, Hopmann PT (1978) Interaction analysis and bargaining behaviour. In: Gelembiewski RT (eds) The small group in political science: the last two decades of development. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  76. Walters AE, Stuhlmacher AF, Meyer LL (1998) Gender and negotiator competitiveness: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Dec 76: 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  79. Watts DJ (2003) Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  80. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393: 440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weingart LR, Thompson LL, Bazerman MH et al (1990) Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. Int J Conf Manag 1: 7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weingart LR, Bennet R, Bret J (1993) The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J Appl Psychol 78: 504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weingart LR, Hyder E, Prietula M (1996) Knowledge matters: the effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcomes. J Pers Soc Psychol 70: 1205–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weingart LR, Olekalns M, Smith PL (2004) Quantitative coding of negotiation behavior. Int Negot 9: 441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Young MD (1996) Cognitive mapping meets semantic networks. J Confl Resolut 40: 395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zartman IW (2002) What I want to know about negotiations. Int Negot 7: 5–15Google Scholar
  87. Zartman IW, Rubin JZ (eds) (2000) Power and negotiation. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations