Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:19:57.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Negotiation and Mediation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Daniel Druckman
Edited by
James N. Druckman ,
Donald P. Greene ,
James H. Kuklinski  and
Arthur Lupia
Daniel Druckman
Affiliation:
George Mason University
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

Knowledge about negotiation and mediation comes primarily from laboratory experiments. The question asked in this chapter is what value is added by experiments for understanding processes of elite bargaining? This question is addressed in the following sections. After describing the international negotiation context, I provide a brief overview of the experimental approach. Then, key studies on distributive and integrative bargaining are reviewed, as well as examples of experiments that capture complexity without forfeiting the advantages of experimental control. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the value added by experiments.

The Context

Negotiating in the international context takes several forms. It occurs from a distance and face to face; deals with multiple complex issues; and includes bilateral, multilateral, and global participation. National leaders often make demands or exchange proposals from a distance. Well-known examples include the bilateral exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union over the 1948–49 blockade of Berlin, between Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962 over Soviet missile bases in Cuba, and between Carter and Khomeini concerning American hostages in Iran in 1979–80. Leaders and their representatives also confront each other face to face to discuss their interests over security, monetary and trade, or environmental issues.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science , pp. 413 - 429
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrod, Robert. 1980. “More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 24: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Otto J. 1995. “Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542: 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, Bernard M. 1966. “Effects on the Subsequent Performance of Negotiators of Studying Issues or Planning Strategies Alone or in Groups.” Psychological Monographs 80: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, Alan, and Druckman, Daniel. 1973. “Salient Solutions and the Bargaining Behavior of Representatives and Non-Representatives.” International Journal of Group Tensions 3: 28–39.Google Scholar
Beriker, Nimet, and Druckman, Daniel. 1996. “Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations 1922–1923: Power Asymmetries in Bargaining.” Simulation & Gaming 27: 162–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S.. 1961. “Loyalty of Representatives to Ingroup Positions during Intergroup Competition.” Sociometry 24: 177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S.. 1962. “Comprehension of Points of Communality in Competing Solutions.” Sociometry 25: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B. 1972. “Transfer of Meaning across National Boundaries.” In Communication in International Politics, ed. Merritt, Richard J.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Bonham, Matthew. 1971. “Simulating International Disarmament Negotiations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15: 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, Richard W. 1970. “A Partial Model of National Political-Economic Systems.” Journal of Peace Research 7: 121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conlon, Donald E., Carnevale, Peter, and Ross, William H.. 1994. “The Influence of Third Party Power and Suggestions on Negotiation: The Surface Value of a Compromise.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24: 1084–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, Wayman J. 1963. “A Study of Strategic Doctrines Using the Inter-Nation Simulation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 7: 580–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreu, Carsten K. W., Weingart, Laurie R., and Kwon, Seungwoo. 2000. “Influence of Social Motives on Integrative Negotiation: A Meta-Analytic Review and Test of Two Theories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 889–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, Morton. 1985. Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1968. “Prenegotiation Experience and Dyadic Conflict Resolution in a Bargaining Situation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4: 367–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1973. Human Factors in International Negotiations: Social-Psychological Aspects of International Conflict. Sage Professional Paper in International Studies, vol. 2, no. 02–020. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, ed. 1977. Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1986. “Stages, Turning Points, and Crises: Negotiating Military Base Rights: Spain and the United States.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30: 327–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1993. “The Situational Levers of Negotiating Flexibility.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 236–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1994. “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 507–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1995. “Situational Levers of Position Change: Further Explorations.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1996. “Bridging the Gap between Negotiating Experience and Analysis.” Negotiation Journal 12: 371–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 2001. “Turning Points in International Negotiation: A Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 519–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 2006. “Uses of a Marathon Exercise.” In The Negotiator's Fieldbook: The Desk Reference for the Experienced Negotiator, eds. Andrea Kupfer Schneider and Christoper Honeyman. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 645–56Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Albin, Cecilia. 2010. “Distributive Justice and the Durability of Peace Agreements.” Review of International Studies. DOI:10.1017/S0260210510000549.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Bonoma, Thomas V.. 1976. “Determinants of Bargaining Behavior in a Bilateral Monopoly Situation II: Opponent's Concession Rate and Similarity.” Behavioral Science 21: 252–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, Broome, Benjamin J., and Korper, Susan H.. 1988. “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Facilitation or Delinking?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32: 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Druckman, James N.. 1996. “Visibility and Negotiating Flexibility.” Journal of Social Psychology 136: 117–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, Daniel, Druckman, James N., and Arai, Tatsushi. 2004. “e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior.” Group Decision and Negotiation 13: 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Ebner, Noam. 2008. “Onstage or Behind the Scenes? Relative Learning Benefits of Simulation Role-Play and Design.” Simulation & Gaming 39: 465–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Green, Justin 1995. “Playing Two Games: Internal Negotiations in the Philippines.” In Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars, ed. I. William Zartman. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 299–331.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Harris, Richard. 1990. “Alternative Models of Responsiveness in International Negotiation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34: 234–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, Harris, Richard, and Ramberg, Bennett. 2002. “Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice.” Group Decision and Negotiation 11: 231–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Hopmann, P. Terrence. 1989. “Behavioral Aspects of Negotiations on Mutual Security.” In Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War, Volume One, eds. Philip E. Tetlock, Jo L. Husbands, Robert Jervis, Paul C. Stern, and Charles Tilly. New York: Oxford University Press, 85–173.Google Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, Olekalns, Mara, and Smith, Philip L.. 2009. “Interpretive Filters: Social Cognition and the Impact of Turning Points in Negotiation.” Negotiation Journal 25: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Robinson, Victor. 1998. “From Research to Application: Utilizing Research Findings in Negotiation Training Programs.” International Negotiation 3: 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel, and Zechmeister, Kathleen. 1973. “Conflict of Interest and Value Dissensus: Propositions in the Sociology of Conflict.” Human Relations 26: 449–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. 1967. “The Kennedy Experiment.” Western Political Quarterly 20: 361–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Roger, and Ury, William. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Follett, Mary Parker. 1940. “Constructive Conflict.” In Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, eds. Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Fouraker, Lawrence E., and Siegel, Sidney. 1963. Bargaining Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review 25: 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guetzkow, Harold, and Valadez, Joseph J.. 1981. Simulated International Processes: Theories and Research in Global Modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. 1950. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hammond, Kenneth R., Todd, Frederick J., Wilkins, Marilyn, and Mitchell, Thomas O.. 1966. “Cognitive Conflict between Persons: Applications of the ‘Lens Model’ Paradigm.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2: 343–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamner, W. Clay, and Yukl, Gary A.. 1977. “The Effectiveness of Different Offer Strategies in Bargaining.” In Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives, ed. Daniel Druckman. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 137–60.Google Scholar
Hopmann, P. Terrence. 1995. “Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542: 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopmann, P. Terrence, and Walcott, Charles. 1977. “The Impact of External Stresses and Tensions on Negotiations.” In Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives, ed. Daniel Druckman. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 301–23.Google Scholar
Irmer, Cynthia, and Druckman, Daniel. 2009. “Explaining Negotiation Outcomes: Process or Context?” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 2: 209–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Dan. 1981. “Intraparty Dissensus and Interparty Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25: 471–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Kenneth. in press. “A Scholar and a Simulation Ahead of Their Time.” Simulation & Gaming.
Johnson, David W. 1967. “The Use of Role Reversal in Intergroup Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7: 135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kressel, Kenneth, Frontera, Edward A., Forlenza, Samuel, Butler, Frances, and Fish, L.. 1994. “The Settlement Orientation versus the Problem-Solving Style in Custody Mediation.” Journal of Social Issues 50: 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindskold, Svenn, Walters, Pamela S., and Koutsourais, Helen. 1983. “Cooperators, Competitors, and Response to GRIT.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27: 521–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lytle, Anne L., and Kopelman, Shirli. 2005. “Friendly Threats? The Linking of Threats and Promises in Negotiation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management, Seville, Spain.
McClintock, Charles, and Nuttin, J.. 1969. “Development of Competitive Behavior in Children across Two Cultures.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 5: 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medvec, Victoria Husted, and Galinsky, Adam D.. 2005. “Putting More on the Table: How Making Multiple Offers Can Increase the Final Value of the Deal.” Negotiation 4: 3–5.Google Scholar
Medvec, Victoria Husted, Leonardelli, Geoffrey L., Galinsky, Adam D., and Claussen-Schulz, Aletha. 2005. “Choice and Achievement at the Bargaining Table: The Distributive, Integrative, and Interpersonal Advantages of Making Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers.” Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM) 18th Annual Conference, Seville, Spain.
Muney, Barbara F., and Deutsch, Morton. 1968. “The Effects of Role-Reversal during the Discussion of Opposing Viewpoints.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 12: 345–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, John. 2000. Negotiating the World Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Organ, Dennis. 1971. “Some Variables Affecting Boundary Role Behavior.” Sociometry 34: 524–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, Charles E. 1962. An Alternative to War or Surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pilisuk, Marc, and Skolnick, Paul. 1968. “Inducing Trust: A Test of the Osgood Proposal.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 121–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pruitt, Dean G., and Lewis, Steven A.. 1977. “The Psychology of Integrative Bargaining.” In Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives, ed. Daniel Druckman. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 161–92.Google Scholar
Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramberg, Bennett. 1978. The Seabed Arms Control Negotiation: A Study of Multilateral Arms Control Conference Diplomacy. Denver: University of Denver Press.Google Scholar
Randolph, Lillian. 1966. “A Suggested Model of International Negotiation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 10: 344–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol. 1960. Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rouhana, Nadim N. 2000. “Interactive Conflict Resolution: Issues in Theory, Methodology, and Evaluation.” In International Conflict Resolution after the Cold War, eds. Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 294–337Google Scholar
Rubin, Jeffrey Z., and Brown, Bert R.. 1975. The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Jack, and Guetzkow, Harold. 1965. “Bargaining and Negotiation in International Relations.” In International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis, ed. Herbert C. Kelman. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Siegel, Sidney, and Fouraker, Lawrence E.. 1960. Bargaining and Group Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, and Ray, Paul. 1966. “Decision-Making in Conflict: From Interpersonal to International Relations.” Menninger Clinic Bulletin 30: 300–12.Google Scholar
Summers, David A. 1968. “Conflict, Compromise, and Belief Change in a Decision-Making Task.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 12: 215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleef, Gerben A., Dijk, Eric, Steinel, Wolfgang, Harinck, Fieke, and Beest, Ilja. 2008. “Anger in Social Conflict: Cross-Situational Comparisons and Suggestions for the Future.” Group Decision and Negotiation 17: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Lynn M. 2008. Problem-Solving and Bargaining in International Negotiations. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Walton, Richard E., and McKersie, Robert B.. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zartman, I. William, and Berman, Maureen R.. 1982. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×