The evolution of policy arguments in teachers' negotiations

Argument is a critical component in policy deliberations. In this study, negotiation is viewed as a type of policy deliberation, one characterized by attack and defense of proposals, interdependence between disputants, and mixed motives of cooperation and competition. Argument in negotiation, then, functions as a reason-giving activity to enact policy. Employing a category system based on rhetorical stasis, the researchers examine whether bargainers specialize in their use of argument types and whether this specialization remains consistent throughout a teacher-school board negotiation and whether it differs for the type of settlement of agenda items. Results of the study suggest that bargainers specialize in argument types at different times during the bargaining. In the early stages of negotiation, teachers center on harm and workability arguments to prepare their case and justify the merits of their proposals, but in the latter phases of bargaining they switch to arguments on implementation to reaffirm their demands and to prioritize issues. Board members, in the early stages, rely on disadvantage, workability, and implementation arguments to establish resistance points and to refute appeals for change, but in the latter stages of negotiation they employ harm-inherency and disadvantage arguments to weigh the costs of concessions and to rationalize the settlement. This study, then, supports the existence of phase variation in bargaining and argues for a developmental approach in deciphering how negotiators who hold antithetical positions reach mutually satisfactory settlements.     

Hot or cold: is communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation?

Is communicating anger or threats more effective in eliciting concessions in negotiation? Recent research has emphasized the effectiveness of anger communication, an emotional strategy. In this article, we argue that anger communication conveys an implied threat, and we document that issuing threats is a more effective negotiation strategy than communicating anger. In 3 computer-mediated negotiation experiments, participants received either angry or threatening messages from a simulated counterpart. Experiment 1 showed that perceptions of threat mediated the effect of anger (vs. a control) on concessions. Experiment 2 showed that (a) threat communication elicited greater concessions than anger communication and (b) poise (being confident and in control of one's own feelings and decisions) ascribed to the counterpart mediated the positive effect of threat compared to anger on concessions. Experiment 3 replicated this positive effect of threat over anger when recipients had an attractive alternative to a negotiated agreement. These findings qualify previous research on anger communication in negotiation. Implications for the understanding of emotion and negotiation are discussed.     

A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality

Survival duration and health quality are fundamentally important aspects of health. A utility model for survival duration and health quality is a model of the subjective value of these attributes. We investigate the hypothesis that the utility (subjective value) of survival duration and health quality is determined by a multiplicative model. According to this model, there are separate subjective scales for the utility of survival duration and health quality. If F(Y) equals the utility of surviving Y years, and G(Q) equals the utility of living in health state Q, then the multiplicative model proposes that F(Y)G(Q) equals the utility of surviving Y years in health state Q. This model provides a simple explanation for several intuitively compelling relationships. First, the distinction between better-than-death and worse-than-death health states corresponds to the assignment of positive or negative utilities to different health states. Second, a zero duration of survival removes any reason to prefer one health state over any other, just as multiplying the utility of health quality by zero eliminates differences between the utilities of different health states. Third, the subjective difference between Y years in pain and Y years free from pain increases as Y increases as if the difference in utility between pain and no pain were being multiplied by the utility of surviving Y years. A critical prediction of the multiplicative model is the hypothesis that preferences between gambles for health outcomes satisfy a property called utility independence. Individual analyses revealed that most subjects satisfy utility independence, thereby supporting the multiplicative utility model. Some subjects appear to violate a fundamental assumption of utility theory: They appear to violate the assumption that a single utility scale represents both the ordinal preference relations between certain outcomes and the subjective averaging that underlies the utility of gambles. The violation is inferred from an inconsistency between preferences for multiattribute outcomes when they are viewed as certain outcomes and when they are viewed as the outcomes of gambles.     

Weakness as Strength: The Use and Misuse of a "My Hands Are Tied" Ploy in Bargaining

This study was designed to evaluate empirically the notion that in bargaining weakness can be turned into strength. Subjects participated in simulated labor-management negotiations. The results indicate that a "my hands are tied" ploy is effective in eliciting concessions when used to induce an adversary to accept a settlement which is included in the bargaining range. In contrast, the use of the ploy in an effort to settle negotiations outside the bargaining range enhanced the adversary's intransigence. The implications of the differential effects of a "my hands are tied" ploy for the process of negotiations are discussed.     

Negotiators who give too much: unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining

A series of studies found that the personality dimension of unmitigated communion (H. L. Fritz & V. S. Helgeson, 1998) leads negotiators to make concessions to avoid straining relationships. Results indicate that even within the population of successful business executives, this dimension of relational anxiety can be identified distinctly from more general relational orientations, such as agreeableness, and that it distinctly predicts accommodating tendencies in everyday conflicts. In economic games, unmitigated communion predicts giving in contexts in which the relational norm of reciprocity applies, but not in contexts tapping instrumental or altruistic motives for cooperation. In distributive negotiations, the effect of unmitigated communion in lowering a negotiator's outcome is mediated by prenegotiation anxieties about relational strain and plans to make large concessions if needed to avoid impasse (lower reservation points). In integrative negotiations, high unmitigated communion on both sides of the negotiation dyad results in relational accommodation, evidenced by decreased success in maximizing economic joint gain but increased subjective satisfaction with the relationship.     

An empirical assessment of the form of utility functions

Utility functions, which relate subjective value to physical attributes of experience, are fundamental to most decision theories. Seven experiments were conducted to test predictions of the most widely assumed mathematical forms of utility (power, log, and negative exponential), and a function proposed by Rachlin (1992). For pairs of gambles for real monetary gains, undergraduate and nonstudent subjects either reported an equalizing amount for 1 outcome that made the gambles subjectively equal or chose between gambles where the amounts were varied across trial, which allowed the equalizing amount to be estimated from their pattern of choices. Using a novel method that eliminates several limitations of previous research, I manipulated the outcomes across trials such that each type of utility function predicted a linear relationship between the equalizing amounts and the amounts of the other outcomes, and made point predictions for either the slope or intercept of that relationship. In a meta-analysis across experiments, systematic departures from the point predictions were observed for each type of utility function. Thus, the data imply that despite their historical importance and incorporation in many psychological and economic decision theories, the most widely assumed models of utility are incorrect.     

Some results concerning the quality of vertex solutions found by a method for multiple-objective linear programming

The Zionts-Wallenius algorithm for multiple-objective linear programming terminates with an extreme point solution that is locally but not necessary globally optimal. To find the globally optimal solution, a search along the facets of the solution space polyhedron may be required. In this paper we report the results of an experiment to determine how close the local and global optima are. We discuss the concept of closeness and propose one measure. Computer simulation is used to determine, in general, the quality of the solution found by the Zionts-Wallenius method for two types of non-linear utility functions. The merits of a search procedure are discussed in the context of the results.     

Bargaining ability,the utility of playing a game,and models of coalition formation

A utility function for playing a given position in a game is developed as a natural extension of the utility function which defines the rewards available in the game. This function is determined by a player's opinion of his bargaining ability. A characterization of such utilities is obtained which generalizes previous results that the Shapley value and Banzhaf-Coleman index are both cardinal utility functions which reflect different bargaining abilities. The approach taken here is related to models of coalition formation.     

Canadian bulk water exports: Analyzing the sun belt conflict using the graph model for conflict resolution

A conflict over the proposed bulk export of water from Canada is systematically studied using the graph model for conflict resolution in order to illustrate how strategic conflicts of this type can be better understood and managed. The ongoing conflict involving a US company, Sun Belt Water Inc., and the Canadian federal and provincial governments is modeled and analyzed using the graph model methodology. This dispute reflects the kinds of controversies that can arise when international trade laws, which stress competition and profits, are in conflict with environmental and social laws. The Sun Belt conflict is especially interesting because of its evolution over several stages; at each stage of the conflict, the objectives of the disputants, and their strategic implications, can be realistically modeled and thereby investigated using the graph model. Amer Obeidi received his B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Jordan in 1990 and M.A.Sc. in Management Sciences in 2002 from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He is currently pursuing a PhD degree in the Department of Systems Design Engineering, at the University of Waterloo. His currents research interests include confrontation analysis, conflict analysis, negotiation, cognitive and emotional processes effect on decision making, and choice theory. Dr. Hipel’s major research interests are the development and application of conflict resolution and time series analysis techniques from a systems design engineering perspective. The main application areas of these decision technologies are water resources management, hydrology, environmental engineering and sustainable development. Dr. Hipel is the author/co-author of four books, nine edited books, many journal papers and is an associate editor of six international journals. Moreover, he is a professional Engineer and has carried out consulting activities with engineering firms, government agencies, and utilities in many countries. Director of the Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies, and Adjunct Professor of Systems Design Engineering at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Kilgour’s research interests lie at the intersection of mathematics, social science, and engineering. He has applied game theory and related formal techniques to analyze decision problems in international security and arms control, environmental management, negotiation and arbitration, voting, fair division, and coalition formation, and has pioneered the development of systems for decision support in strategic conflict. His most recent books are Perfect Deterrence (Cambridge) and Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management (Edward Elgar).     

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.     

Get angry, get out: The interpersonal effects of anger communication in multiparty negotiation

Research on multiparty negotiation has investigated how parties form coalitions to secure payoffs but has not addressed how emotions may affect such coalition decisions. Extending research on bilateral negotiations which has generally argued that it is beneficial to communicate anger, we argue that it constitutes a considerable risk when there are more than two people present at the negotiation table. Using a computer-mediated coalition game we show that communicating anger is a risky strategy in multiparty bargaining. The main findings of three studies were that participants: (1) form negative impressions of players who communicate anger and therefore (2) exclude such players from coalitions and from obtaining a payoff share, but (3) make considerable concessions on those rare occasions that they choose to form a coalition with an angry player, or (4) when they had to form a coalition with an angry player. We discuss the implications of these results for theorizing on emotions, negotiations, and coalition formation.     

Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes

The authors address the long-standing mystery of stable individual differences in negotiation performance, on which intuition and conventional wisdom have clashed with inconsistent empirical findings. The present study used the Social Relations Model to examine individual differences directly via consistency in performance across multiple negotiations and to disentangle the roles of both parties within these inherently dyadic interactions. Individual differences explained a substantial 46% of objective performance and 19% of subjective performance in a mixed-motive bargaining exercise. Previous work may have understated the influence of individual differences because conventional research designs require specific traits to be identified and measured. Exploratory analyses of a battery of traits revealed few reliable associations with consistent individual differences in objective performance-except for positive beliefs about negotiation, positive affect, and concern for one's outcome, each of which predicted better performance. Findings suggest that the field has large untapped potential to explain substantial individual differences. Limitations, areas for future research, and practical implications are discussed.     

Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way.     

Decision Theory and Vocational Counseling: Important Concepts and Questions

Ignorance of specifics of career decision-making processes has prevented development and use of more effective vocational counseling procedures. Simply giving clients vocational information and assuming rational use of it is criticized. Contemporary decision theories suggest several relevant variables. Two variables, subjective probabilities (individual's self-estimates of success) and utilities (desirabilities held for outcomes or alternatives), are discussed in relation to presenting clients with objective probability information concerning future plans. Some relevant research is reviewed and two questions are discussed: (1) How do different methods of presenting information influence subjective probabilities? (2) How are utilities influenced by objective probability data?     

How Negotiator Self-Efficacy Drives Decisions to Pursue Mediation

We examined the role of self-efficacy in negotiators' choice of dispute-resolution procedures and responsiveness to third-party recommendations after an impasse. Results show that high self-efficacy negotiators were more likely to choose continued negotiation over mediation than were their low self-efficacy counterparts. In addition, we found that these negotiators were more likely to reject a mediator's recommendation for settlement, even when this recommendation was evenhanded and met their interests. As predicted, however, the influence of self-efficacy on the acceptance of recommendations was moderated by mediator credibility. When disputants perceived that the mediator had low credibility, the pattern of effects remained unchanged. However, when disputants viewed the mediator as being highly credible, self-efficacy had no influence on the acceptance/rejection of mediator recommendations.     

Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: it is just not worth the risk

A modification of the procedure originally used by Davidson, Suppes, and Siegel (1956) to measure subjective utility was used to study the influence of positive affect on individuals' perceived value (utility) functions. Results indicated, as expected, that persons in whom positive affect had been induced showed a more negative subjective utility for losses than did controls. This indicates that losses seem worse to people who are feeling happy than to those in a control condition. The subjective utility functions of the two groups did not differ as much, however, when people were considering potential gain. Thus, at least in the situation tested in this study, potential gains did not seem to be more appealing (nor less so) for affect subjects than they did for controls. These findings are discussed in relation to theoretical issues in decision making and work suggesting that positive affect can promote increased sensitivity to losses in situations of potential meaningful loss.     

Interethnic Factors as Predictors of the Subjective Well‐Being of Minority Individuals in a Context of Recent Societal Changes

Our research examined the impact of contextual intergroup variables on the subjective well‐being of ethnic Russians in Estonia (N = 190) who have experienced major social changes with the demise of the Soviet Union. A mediational model was tested where aspects of intergroup relations (i.e., relative deprivation, status legitimization, and temporal comparisons) acted as mediators of the influence of cultural identity and representations of history on subjective well‐being. Preliminary analyses indicated polemical representations of history in which Estonian historical narratives are established around the struggle for independence, and Russian representations of history are consolidated around victory in World War II. Mediation analyses demonstrated that the importance of Russian history increased the perceptions of relative deprivation, status delegitimization, and the frequency of temporal comparisons, which negatively affected life satisfaction. At the same time, the importance of Estonian history led to positive perceptions of the intergroup situation and, in turn, to greater subjective well‐being. The effect of Russian identity on well‐being was mediated by delegitimizing beliefs, but not by relative deprivation and temporal comparisons. Estonian identity did not exert a significant effect on the proposed mediators. The research demonstrates the salience of the effects of contextual intergroup factors on subjective well‐being, and the article discusses implications for the study of intergroup relations and subjective well‐being.     

Assessing risky public investments with MUSTARD

This paper presents a practical implementation of multicriteria methodologies based on the UTA model by Jacquet‐Lagrèze and Siskos and Quasi‐UTA model by Beuthe and Scannella, which are specified with a non‐linear, but piecewise linear, additive utility function. In contrast with the general UTA model, the Quasi‐UTA specification structures the partial utilities as recursive exponential functions of only one curvature parameter. This allows for a reduction of the quantity of information necessary to build the utility function. The software MUSTARD implements different variants of these models. Firstly, it offers the basic deterministic UTA model of disaggregation, but also its first programmed stochastic version. In both cases, the software proceeds stepwise and interactively helping the decision maker to formulate the problem and state preferences between projects; in the stochastic case, the decision maker is even helped to build the criteria distributions. The Quasi‐UTA specification can be introduced in this disaggregation model. Secondly, the software offers an aggregation model whereby the Quasi‐UTA partial utility functions are built separately through specific questioning processes. The questions relating to deterministic criteria are of the ‘direct rating type’, while those of the stochastic criteria are either of the ‘variable probability’ or the ‘variable outcome’ type. The criteria weights can be assessed by the ‘swing weight’ method or by a UTA‐II side‐program. As an example as well as a test of the Quasi‐UTA aggregation approach, the paper presents its application to a real problem of selecting road investment projects in Belgium. Several experts and civil servants were interviewed, and their individual utility functions derived. The projects are ranked according to their rate of return, which is computed on the basis of the projects certain equivalent money value. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A stochastic model for paired comparisons of social stimuli

A stochastic model for paired comparisons of multiattribute social stimuli is proposed where one objective is to find the relative importance of the attributes for a judge. The model can be conceived as a special strict binary utility model, i.e., a BTL-model, and is related to of the stimuli are linear combinations of functions of the attributes of the stimuli. The model neither assumes that the functions are fixed in advance nor that different judges have the same set of functions. The choice among such functions, however, is admitted only within a finite scope. Within the framework of exponential families, maximum likelihood estimators and tests are derived and applied to data coming from two psychological experiments.     

破解“通勤悖论”:通勤时间如何影响幸福感

本文从社会过渡带和心理过渡带两个方面对"通勤悖论"进行解析,构建了通勤时间影响幸福感的理论模型。通过对广州市白领的追踪调查和多项式回归分析,结果发现:(1)婚姻状态(社会过渡带)具有调节作用,未婚员工通勤时间负向影响生活满意度,已婚员工通勤时间对生活满意度和快乐度有曲线影响;(2)恢复体验(心理过渡带)具有交互效应,心理解脱调节了未婚员工通勤时间与通勤效用的关系,放松体验调节了未婚员工通勤时间与快乐度的关系;(3)已婚员工通勤时间与通勤效用和快乐度的关系受放松体验调节,与生活满意度的关系受心理解脱调节;(4)通勤时间对生活满意度和快乐度的影响,以及婚姻状态和恢复体验的交互效应,以通勤效用为中介;(5)员工在"通勤时间陷阱"(1.75~2.75小时)的效用均衡。结论有助于分析"通勤悖论"的深层原因,对城市管理、企业管理和个人都具有积极启示。