 |
International Negotiation
A Journal of Theory and Practice
| This issue |
Guest
editors
|
| |
Methods of Negotiation
Research: II |
|
Peter Carnevale, New York University
Carsten K. W. De Dreu, University of Amsterdam |
Abstracts Vol. 10, no. 1 2005
Methods of Negotiation
Research II |
| |
PETER J. CARNEVALE
Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 577,
New York, NY 10003 USA (peter.carnevale-AT-nyu.edu)
and
CARSTEN K.W. DE DREU
Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (c.k.w.dedreu-AT-uva.nl) |
|
|
| Comparative Case Studies |
| |
I. WILLIAM ZARTMAN
School of Advanced International
Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, 1740 Massachusetts Ave,
Washington, DC 20036 USA (zartman-AT-jhu.edu)
|
| |
Case studies embody a deep knowledge of the
subject and can be used to test or generate theoretical propositions
for explaining negotiated outcomes. Their value is increased when
they are employed comparatively, using a number of instances of negotiation—flawed
or successful—in the same conflict or problem
or a number of negotiations of different conflicts. While it might appear that
statistical studies of large numbers of cases would be even more advantageous,
these studies tend to lose the feel and understanding that comparative cases
can command. Thus, comparative case studies lie at the crossroads of reality
and theory; they present their evidence through the eyes of a knowledgeable specialist
and they test it against the hypothetical constructs of a creative conceptualist.
The challenge is as high as the payoffs. |
| Discourse Analysis: Mucking Around with Negotiation Data |
| |
LINDA L. PUTNAM*
Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 4234 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4234 USA (lputnam-AT-tamu.edu)
|
| |
This article focuses on qualitative research
methods in negotiations, particular textual and discourse analyses.
It defines discourse analysis and reviews the ways that researchers
have used conversational, pragmatics, and rhetorical analyses to
study negotiations. It discusses types of texts available for discourse
analysis and the role of research questions in guiding the selection
of texts and discourse units in bargaining. Discourse analysis helps
researchers unpack the developmental and contextual features of negotiation;
link micro patterns of talk to political, legal, and organizational
processes; and uncover new concepts that extend the knowledge of
negotiation. The final section of the article provides helpful hints
for conducting discourse analysis and for interpreting the bargaining context. |
| Field Experiments on Social Conflict |
| |
SDEAN G. PRUITT
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, 9006
Friars Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 USA (dean-AT-pruittfamily.com)
|
| |
Field experiments, in which the researcher
manipulates one or more variables in a naturally occurring setting,
have sometimes been used in studies of social conflict and should
probably be used more often. They are more useful than observational
studies for assessing the impact of novel conditions, establishing cause and
effect, and reducing confounding. And they are more useful than laboratory experiments
for examining long-term effects and those that involve strong passions, and for
establishing external validity. However field experiments also have their limitations.
Some variables cannot be practically or ethically manipulated and require the
use of observational methods, which are also more useful for looking at the relationships
among a large number of variables and for estimating the strength of association
between variables. Furthermore, laboratory experiments allow more control of
conditions and greater flexibility in designing manipulations. What this suggests
is that all three methods have their value. |
| Laboratory Experiments
on Negotiation and Social Conflict
|
| |
PETER J. CARNEVALE
Social Psychology Program, Department of Psychology, New York University,
6 Washington Place, Room 577, New York, NY 10003 USA (peter.carnevale-AT-nyu.edu)
and
CARSTEN K.W. DE DREU
Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat
15, 1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (c.k.w.dedreu-AT-uva.nl) |
| |
This article describes how laboratory experiments are used by social psychologists
and those in related fields to study conflict, negotiation, and mediation. In
a laboratory experiment, the researcher experimentally controls one or more variables
in controlled, artificial settings that induce processes likely to occur naturally.
Laboratory experiments are the primary method used to establish cause-and-effect
relationships among variables and to reduce alternate explanations; thus they
are primarily concerned with validity of explanation. In this article,
we describe several basic design features including conceptual replication, precise
manipulation, and the use of a moderator variable, which all help
assess the processes underlying a research finding. These design features foster conceptual
internal validity, which describes the impact of one variable on another
and the quality of such an explanation. Conceptual internal validity provides
a basis for generalization of findings and thus new research. It also fosters strong
inference, which builds cumulative knowledge. Laboratory experiments are
not well suited to answer all questions and problems--for example, they could
not develop a deep understanding of a particular historical event and must be
supplemented by other methods, such as surveys and case studies. |
| Managing
Conflict in the Literature: Meta-analysis as a Research Method |
| |
ALICE F. STUHLMACHER
Department of Psychology,
DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614 USA
(astuhlma-AT-depaul.edu)
and
TREENA L. GILLESPIE
Department of Management, California State University-Fullerton, P.O. Box 6848,
Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA (tgillespie-AT-fullerton.edu)
|
| |
No longer on the fringes of research design,
meta-analysis has established a methodological foothold in social
science research. The use of meta-analysis as a research method to
study social conflict, however, remains limited. This article is
designed to increase the accessibility of meta-analyses, while identifying
issues and controversies. To this end, we offer examples from our own experiences
in an overview of the development, choices, and challenges of a meta-analysis,
as well as more technical references for further instruction. |
| When, Where and How: The Use of Multidimensional Scaling Methods in the Study
of Negotiation and Social Conflict |
| |
ROBIN S. PINKLEY
Director of the American Airlines Center for Labor Relations and Conflict Resolution,
Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Fincher Building,
P.O. Box 750333, Dallas, TX 75275 USA (Email: rpinkley-AT-mail.cox.smu.edu)
MICHELE J. GELFAND
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA
(Email: mgelfand-AT-psyc.umd.edu)
and
LILI DUAN
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA
(lduan-AT-psyc.umd.edu) |
| |
MDS (multidimensional scaling) is
a technique that enables researchers to uncover the spatial representation
or “hidden structure” that underlies and defines behavioral
data – such as negotiator or disputant perceptions and preferences.
Although MDS has wide-ranging theoretical and applied appeal, it
has been highly underutilized in the conflict and negotiation literature.
In this paper, we seek to illustrate the promise that MDS offers
in the study of conflict and negotiation. We begin with a discussion
of how MDS can be differentiated from other multivariate techniques,
such as factor analysis. Next we provide a brief overview of multidimensional
scaling techniques -- highlighting the various methods available
for collecting proximity data and the MDS computer analysis programs
that can be used to analyze them. We further review the nature
of the results and the ways in which they are interpreted. We conclude
with some examples of the types of questions that have been addressed
using MDS in the conflict and negotiation literature and a discussion
about the promise this technique has for future research. |
| Markov Chain Models of Communication Processes in Negotiation |
| |
PHILIP L. SMITH
Department of Psychology,
University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia (philipls-AT-unimelb.edu.au)
MARA OLEKALNS
Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne,
200 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia (m.olekalns-AT-mbs.edu)
and
LAURIE R. WEINGAR
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University,
236A Posner Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA (weingart-AT-andrew.cmu.edu)
|
| |
Markov chain analysis provides a way to investigate
how the communication processes in dyadic negotiations are affected
by features of the negotiating context and how, in turn, differences
in communication processes among dyads affect the quality of the
final settlement. In Markov models, the communication process is
represented as a sequence of transitions between states, which describes
how tactics are used and how they are reciprocated during the course
of a negotiation. This article provides an introduction to Markov
chain analysis and shows, using simulated data, how Markov chain
models may be analyzed using widely-available loglinear modeling
software. Model selection, assessment of the order of a chain, analysis
of residuals, and sample size are discussed. |
|
All that Glitters is Not Gold: Examining
the Perils and Obstacles in Collecting Data on the Internet
|
| |
CHA YEOW SIAH
Department of Social Work and Psychology, National University of Singapore, 11
Law Link, Singapore 117570 (swkchays-AT-nus.edu.sg) |
| |
The speed, ease and cost of conducting an
internet-based study has attracted an increasingly large number of
researchers to the medium for data collection. The lure of conducting
research on the internet warrants heightened awareness of the practical
problems one may encounter in the course of design and data collection.
Researchers should also be attuned to the various threats of reliability
and validity that may affect the quality of their data. This article surveys
the past literature and identifies four main areas of concern in internet-based
research: (1) sampling error and generalizability; (2) subject fraud; (3) measurement
errors resulting from extraneous factors, and (4) the ethics of conducting research
on the internet. Before carrying out their research on the internet, researchers
should carefully weigh the sometimes hidden costs against the obvious benefits
to consider whether the results obtained will be seriously compromised by the
problems currently existing with this relatively new medium. However, a more
productive approach recognizes that this research method is here to stay and
thus greater attention needs to be given to refining and clearing the hurdles
that internet-based researchers currently face. |
| The Method of Experimental Economics |
| |
RACHEL CROSON
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 567 Huntsman Hall,
3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6340 USA (crosonr-AT-wharton.upenn.edu)
|
| |
There are many similarities between experimental
economics and psychological research, both substantive and methodological.
However, there are important differences as well. This article discusses
five methodological areas where experimental economists and experimental
psychologists differ: incentives, context, subject pools, deception,
experimental details and data analysis. Within each topic I present
the economists’ methodology and rationale and contrast it with
current practice in psychology and management research. My hope is that this
article will lead not only to a deeper understanding of each field’s choice
of methodology, but also to practical advice for researchers toward having their
work read and accepted by their colleagues in related disciplines. |
| Legal Research on Negotiation |
| |
REBECCA HOLLANDER-BLUMOFF
Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law, 245 Sullivan
Street, New York, NY 10012-1301 USA (hollande-AT-juris.law.nyu.edu)
|
| |
This article addresses the study of negotiation
in the legal context, discussing the methodology used by legal academics
studying negotiation. It describes in brief the nature of current
legal scholarship concerning negotiation and discusses potential
obstacles to studying negotiations between lawyers. The article identifies
two challenges for the study of negotiation in the legal setting: the institutional
problems stemming from the current nature of legal scholarship and the methodological
problems inherent in empirical study of the practice of law. Ways in which empirical
work on negotiation can contribute to legal academia are offered, highlighting
several areas in which further empirical research would be useful. |
|
Methodologies for Studying Personality Processes in Interpersonal
Conflict |
| |
LAURI A. JENSEN-CAMPBELL
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas,
76019-0528 USA (lcampbell-AT-uta.edu)
and
WILLIAM G. GRAZIANO
Department of Child Development & Family Studies, 101
Gates Road, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2020 USA (grazianow-AT-purdue.edu)
|
| |
The inevitability of conflict stems from three
apparently-panhuman psychological tendencies: 1) People differ in
their attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and life experiences; 2) Such
differences induce people to be egocentric, and often to have difficulty
perceiving the perspectives of others; and 3) People are generally
motivated to protect and promote their own self-interests. For this perspective,
conflict is an emergent property of relationships that appears during interaction
between two or more persons. Thus, understanding the influence of personality
on social conflict must look past simple main effects models that focus on either
situations or personality. This article discusses various research methods that
can be used to assess personality’s contribution to conflict behavior.
It then focuses on statistical advances that recognize the complex nature of
interactions between individual, their partners, and the situation when studying
conflict. |
|
The Heart of Darkness: Advice on Navigating Cross-Cultural
Research |
| |
CATHERINE H. TINSLEY
The McDonough School
of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057 USA (Tinsleyc-AT-georgetown.edu)
|
| |
When navigating through cross cultural research
designs, one can get lost in the jungle of several methodological
dichotomies: positivist versus interpretive epistemologies, etic
versus emic perspectives, and inductive versus deductive processes.
To move towards either end of these dichotomies risks compromising
the rigor and validity of one’s study. Thus, cross-cultural research is
an endeavor devoted to managing the tensions created by these dichotomies; they
represent competing interests or paradigms, which are valid concerns, but need
to be addressed with perspective. When embarking on a cross-cultural research
project, one is always striking a balance between competing interests, and continuously
trying to find the middle road. This article discusses this middle road strategy. |
| Disparate Methods and Common Findings in the Study of Negotiation |
| |
CARSTEN K.W. DE DREU
Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (c.k.w.dedreu-AT-uva.nl)
and
PETER J. CARNEVALE
Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 577,
New York, NY 10003 USA (peter.carnevale-AT-nyu.edu) |
| |
In this article, we compare the relative popularity
of a wide variety of methods and techniques used in the study of
conflict and negotiation across five domains of inquiry: political
science, communication sciences, social and personality psychology,
economics, and organizational behavior. An analysis of articles on
conflict and negotiation published between 1997 and 2001 suggests that laboratory
experiments that entail coding of behavior and self-reported data using surveys
are especially popular in psychology, organizational behavior, and communication
sciences. Mathematical modeling, the use of experimental games, and the use of
archival data are especially popular in economics and political science. Diverse
methods can provide convergent insights, and this is observed clearly in work
on gain-loss framing and on reciprocity in negotiation. We suggest that researchers
adopt, or continue to employ, triangulation as an approach to validity:
When two or more methods or data sources converge on a construct, we develop
greater assurance that our conclusions are not driven by an error or artifact
of any one procedure. Each method exhibits strengths and weaknesses, and to the
extent they do not overlap but show common effects, we stand on more solid ground
with our theoretical conclusions. |
|
|
