Psychological Dynamics of Insight: Relevance to International Negotiation

  • Neil Sargent
  • Andrea Bartoli


This chapter explores the implications of a key claim in the Insight approach to conflict resolution that the parties to any negotiation need to be seen as historically situated social actors. As goal-directed, purposive actors, the parties’ negotiation strategies and tactics can be seen as an attempt to shape the future in accordance with the parties’ own goals and interests through the negotiation process. But as historically situated social actors, the parties’ conception of that future is also partly shaped by their consciousness of their own past and themselves as historically situated agents in relation to the other parties. Any attempt to reset the boundaries of that imagined future relationship through negotiation thus involves the parties in psychologically readjusting their own relations with their own pasts, which is one of the least understood and most complex psychological dynamics at work in the international negotiation process.


Negotiation Process International Negotiation Interpretive Framework Somatic Marker Double Bind 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aquilar, F., & Galluccio, M. (2008). Psychological processes in international negotiations. Theoretical and practical perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Aquilar, F., & Galluccio, M. (Eds.). (2011). Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation: A cognitive approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1986). Skilled incompetence. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 74–79.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, A. M. S. (1997). Visual intelligence. Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bar-Tal, D. (1989). Delegitimization: The extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice. In D. Bar-Tal, C. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 169–188). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21(2), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  9. Curran, D., & Sebenius, J. K. (2003). The mediator as coalition builder: George Mitchell in Northern Ireland. International Negotiation, 8, 111–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
  11. Dowd, E. T., & Miller, A. N. R. (2011). Tacit knowledge structures in the negotiation process. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation (pp. 75–85). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgement of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faure, G. O. (2011). Escalation of images in international conflicts. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond reason. Using emotions as you negotiate. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings. A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Galluccio, M. (2011). Transformative leadership for peace negotiation. In F. Aquilar & M. Galluccio (Eds.), Psychological and political strategies for peace negotiation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  19. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kelman, H. C. (1987). The political psychology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: How can we overcome the barriers to a negotiated solution? Political Psychology, 8(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keogh, D., & Haltzel, M. H. (Eds.). (1993). Northern Ireland and the politics of reconciliation. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. MacDonagh, O. (1983). States of mind: Two centuries of Anglo-Irish conflict, 1780–1980. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
  23. Melchin, K. R., & Picard, C. A. (2008). Transforming conflict through insight. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Merton, R. (1996). The self-fulfilling prophecy. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), On social structure and science (pp. 183–201). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, G. J. (1999). Making peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, M. (1993). Mirroring and misperception. In K. S. Larsen (Ed.), Conflict and social psychology (pp. 71–80). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Morelli, M. D., & Morelli, E. A. (Eds.). (1997). The Lonergan Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nic Craith, M. (2002). Plural identities – singular narratives. The case of Northern Ireland. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  29. Niebuhr, H. R. (1963). The responsible self. An essay in Christian moral philosophy. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.Google Scholar
  30. O’Leary, B., & McGarry, J. (1996). The politics of antagonism. Understanding Northern Ireland (2nd ed.). London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  31. Picard, C., & Jull, M. (2012). Learning through deepening conversations: A key strategy of insight mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(2), 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Picard, C. A., & Melchin, K. R. (2007). Insight mediation: A learning-centred mediation model. Negotiation Journal, 23, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price, J. (2013). Explaining human conflict. Human needs theory and the insight approach. In K. Avruch & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Conflict resolution and human needs. Linking theory and practice (pp. 108–123). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Pruitt, D., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  35. Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict. Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Sargent, N., Picard, C., & Jull, M. (2011). Rethinking conflict: Perspectives from the insight approach. Negotiation Journal, 27(3), 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, J. G. (1996). Image, identity, and conflict resolution. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Managing global chaos. Sources and responses to international conflict (pp. 93–111). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stein, J. G. (2005). Psychological explanations of international conflict. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmonds (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, C. (1985). Human agency and language. Philosophical papers 1. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  48. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1990). The world in their minds: Information processing, cognition, and perception in foreign policy decisionmaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioural theory of labour negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional processes, patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  51. Watzlawick, P., & Weakland, J. H. (1977). The interactional view. Studies at the Mental Research Institute Palo Alto, 1965–1974. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Sargent
    • 1
  • Andrea Bartoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Conflict Education and Research, Department of Law and Legal StudiesCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations