Dear colleagues,
Please see below for a note from Alicia Utecht and Qi Wang:
I am reaching out to share the table of contents for Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (NCMR) 14.2 with AOM's Conflict Management Division. This issue is available online at https://lps.library.cmu.edu/NCMR/issue/61/info/
Stevens, T.M., Aarts, N., and Dewulf, A. (2021). Using emotions to frame issues and identities in conflict: Farmer movements on social media. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(2), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12177
Abstract: Polarization and group formation processes on social media networks have received ample academic attention, but few studies have looked into the discursive interactions on social media through which intergroup conflicts develop. In this comparative case study, we analyzed two social media conflicts between farmers and animal right advocates to understand how conflicts establish, escalate, and return dormant through issue and identity framing and the discursive use of emotions. The results show that the two groups used the same set of frames throughout the three phases. We identify this as a symmetric conflict framing repertoire. The groups both use a dominant moral frame (animal welfare is of absolute value), but express distinct views on policy solutions. This triggers a contestation of credibility (who knows best and who cares most for animals) in which the two groups use the same set of issue and identity frames to directly oppose each other. The binary opposition is initially established through issue framing but escalates into an identity conflict that involves group labeling and blaming. The discursive use of emotion reinforces this escalation in two ways. First, it reinforces a vicious cycle in the contestation of credibility: While emotions are implicitly used to frame oneself as caring and trustworthy, emotion is explicitly used to frame the other party as deceptive and irrational. Second, disputants use collective emotions as a response to the other group's offensive actions (blaming) and as a justification of one's own collective actions. We discuss how this conflict differs from previously studied conflicts to provide plausible explanations for these findings.
Muir, K., Joinson, A., Collins, E., Cotterill, R., and Dewdney, N. (2021). When asking "what" and "how" helps you win: Mimicry of interrogative terms facilitates successful online negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(2), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12179
Abstract: Strategic word mimicry during negotiations facilitates better outcomes. We explore mimicry of specific word categories and perceptions of rapport, trust, and liking as underlying mechanisms. Dyads took part in an online negotiation exercise in which word mimicry was manipulated: Participants were instructed to mimic each other's words (both-mimic), one participant mimicked the other (half-mimic), or neither participant mimicked (neither-mimic). When given a simple instruction to mimic their partner, participants mimicked both the style (personal pronouns, adverbs, linguistic style, interrogative terms) and the content (affiliation terms, power terms, and assents) of their partner's messages. Mimicry was associated with greater joint and individual points gain and perceptions of rapport from the mimicked partner. Further, mimicry of interrogative terms (e.g., how, why) mediated positive effects of mimicry upon negotiation outcomes, suggesting the coordination of question asking between negotiators is an important strategy to create beneficial interactions and add value in negotiations.
Yao, J., Zhang, Z.-X., and Liu, L.A. (2021). When there is no ZOPA: Mental fatigue, integrative complexity, and creative agreement in negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(2), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12178
Abstract: How to reach a creative agreement in negotiations when the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) does not apparently exist? To answer this question, we drew on the cognitive flexibility theory and proposed a model predicting that negotiators' mental fatigue would engender fewer creative agreements, and their integrative complexity acted as an underlying mechanism. Across four studies, we measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Studies 2–4) mental fatigue to test our hypotheses. We found that negotiation dyads with higher mental fatigue were less likely to display integrative complexity and hence less likely to reach creative agreements in negotiations without an apparent ZOPA. We also demonstrated that in this kind of negotiation, simply identifying additional issues or proposing packaging offers were not enough; negotiators need to do both to construct creative agreements. This research contributes to the literature of negotiation, creative problem-solving, and the cognitive flexibility theory.
McCarter, M.W., Kopelman, S., Turk, T.A., and Ybarra, C.E. (2021). Too many cooks spoil the broth: Toward a theory for how the tragedy of the anticommons emerges in organizations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(2), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12174
Abstract: In organizations, conflict revolves around the use of shared resources. Research on property rights, territoriality, and social dilemmas suggests that to reduce such conflict, organizations could facilitate the psychological privatization of commons resources. We introduce a model that helps understand how psychologically privatizing organizational commons resources-to prevent the overuse problem of the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, G. Science, 162, 1968, 1243)-can lead to the emergence of another resource dilemma. We develop a model that illustrates how resource complexity and group complexity increase psychological marking and defending behaviors. These behaviors potentially lead to a problem of resource underuse-a tragedy of the anticommons (Heller, M. A. Harvard Law Review, 111, 1998, 621)-in organizational settings. The conceptual model, integrating insights from research on property rights, territoriality, and social dilemmas with law and social psychology, provides a bottom-up behavioral explanation of the emergence of the tragedy of the anticommons in organizations and outlines opportunities for future research.