Advertisement

A Psychological Toolbox for Mediators: From Theory and Research to Best Practices

  • Klaus Harnack
Chapter
Part of the Industrial Relations & Conflict Management book series (IRCM)

Abstract

Maslow’s law of the instrument describes the common phenomenon that once we discovere a way to solve a problem, we tend to use this solution over and over again regardless the specific situation at hand. Especially when the cognitive and emotional load is high, we are more likely to rely on available heuristics Considering that conflict situations are often cognitively and emotionally loaded, the disputants tend to use available heuristics, for instance the fixed pie assumption: the tendency to share divisible goods in a 50–50 manner without considering the underlying interests. As the mediator facilitates the process of conflict resolution, it is the task of the mediator to be aware of these tendencies and to make sure that parties do not fall prey to these heuristics, and instead make parties focus on the underlying interests. The present chapter selects, illustrates, and transforms psychological theories and empirical findings into applicable tools to furnish the psychological toolbox of practitioners in the field of mediation.

Keywords

Mediation Process Prevention Focus Psychological Distance Promotion Focus Psychological Tool 
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.

References

  1. Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. (2014). Trusting others: The polarization effect of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 719–735.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelt, K. C., Zou, X., Arora, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Regulatory fit in negotiation: Effects of “prevention-buyer” and “promotion-seller” fit. Social Cognition, 27, 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnevale, P. J. (2008). Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 235–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B. J., & Van De Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Dreu, C. K. W., Giacomantonio, M., Shalvi, S., & Sligte, D. (2009). Getting stuck or stepping back: Effects of obstacles and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 542–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5, Serial No. 270).Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, R., & William, L. (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  11. Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087–1098.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Mannetti, L. (2010). Now you see it, now you don’t: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 761–774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd, & the ABC Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–34). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 329–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson, M. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effects of abstraction on integrative agreements: When seeing the forest helps avoid getting tangled in the trees. Social Cognition, 27, 402–417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econ Soc, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1235–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. Y. (2009). Humor as a relationship-building tool in online negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459–470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nuttin, J. M. (1985). Narcissism beyond gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orr, D., & Guthrie, C. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State J Disput Resolut, 21, 597–628.Google Scholar
  27. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., & Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorrentino, R. M., Holmes, J. G., Hanna, S. E., & Sharp, A. (1995). Uncertainty orientation and trust in close relationships: Individual differences in cognitive styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Champagne, M. V. (2000). The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2011). Construal level theory. Handb Theor Soc Psychol, 1, 118–134.Google Scholar
  35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PsychologieWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations