Third Party Power: Some Negative Effects of Positive Incentives

The present study simulated an organizational dispute to examine the effects of reward and coercive third party power on negotiator concessions and negotiator perceptions of the third party. The results indicated that the possibility of third party rewards inhibited negotiator concessions, and the possibility of third party punishments facilitated concessions. This effect was enhanced by negotiator limit. When negotiators had high limits, they made the fewest concessions if the third party could compensate; when negotiators had low limits, they made the greatest concessions if the third party could press. Taken together, the results suggest that negotiators sometimes use concession making as a strategy to affect third party behavior. When negotiators want third parties to provide compensation, as when they have high limits, they reduce their concession making as a way of eliciting the compensation; when they want to avoid third party behavior that is punitive, and they have low limits and room to make concessions, they hasten their concessions to reach agreement quickly and thereby stem the third party's involvement.     

以计算机为中介的交流与权力对谈判结果的影响

采用2×2被试问实验设计,通过128名被试组成64个两人组参加的一项模拟商业谈判,考察了CMC与权力对分配式谈判结果的影响。结果发现：（1）EM与IM两种不同CMC条件下,成交价没有显著差异;（2）卖方权力较大时,成交价显著高于买卖双方权力平等的条件;（3）IM条件下,权力不平等时,女性组的成交价显著高于男性组;（4）IM条件下,权力平等的谈判者的主观价值感显著高于权力不平等者;权力不平等的条件下,男性的主观价值感显著高于女性。     

Justice and Third Party Risk: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation

abstract  The question of when it is permissible to inflict risks on others without their consent is one that we all face in our everyday lives, but which is often brought to our attention in contexts of technological innovation and scientific uncertainty. Xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs or tissues from animals to humans, has the potential to save or improve the lives of many patients but gives rise to the possibility of infectious agents being transferred from donor animals into the human population. As well as being an important ethical issue in its own right it therefore provides a useful vehicle for exploring the more general question of how to balance the benefits of a practice against the risks to third parties. This paper focuses on the Rawlsian, justice-based analysis of the risks of xenotransplantation proposed by Robert Veatch. It argues that Veatch is right to take considerations of distributive justice into account, but that his particular approach is flawed. It is hoped that consideration of Veatch's arguments, and of the underlying assumptions will suggest better ways of executing a justice-based approach.     

Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion

Coercion by the recipient of consent renders that consent invalid. But what about when the coercive force comes from a third party, not from the person to whom consent would be proffered? In this paper I analyze how threats from a third party affect consent. I argue that, as with other cases of coercion, we should distinguish threats that render consent invalid from threats whose force is too weak to invalidate consent and threats that are legitimate. Illegitimate controlling third party threats render consent invalid just as they do in two party cases. However, knowing that the consent is invalid is not sufficient to tell the recipient of consent what she may or should do. I argue that when presented with a token of consent from someone whom she thinks is experiencing an illegitimate controlling threat, the recipient may act on that token if and only if doing so represents a reasonable joint decision for her and the victim of coercion. The appropriate action for someone faced with third party coercion therefore depends on the other options open to her and those open to the victim of coercion.     

The Influence of Task Difficulty on Context Effect - Compromise and Attraction Effects

Research in psychology finds strong context effects in consumer behavior and help consumer make up their mind from choice set when none of each option better than the others in all aspects. Context effect signifies that when evaluating a focal option, individuals take into consideration characteristics of other comparative alternatives rather than only the features of that focal alternative, complicating the decision-making process. The compromise effect and attraction effect (known together as context effect) explain the underlying motivations that cause consumers to choose the middle option and introduce an inferior option to make the originally dominated option more preferable. But past research on this domain has predominantly used an easy-to-count choice scenario (refers to the ease of using individual’s math skill on comparative attributes in the choice task) which is not ideally existed in real world situation. In real world purchasing situations, most of the time consumers become confused by a variety of products presented with irregular pricing, packaging or attributes which are apparently difficult to compare by math skill. This paper aim to examine “When the level of difficulty changed while processing the comparative task on the context of a choice set, how does this influence the resultant occurrence of context effect?” Results from four experiments demonstrate that both compromise and attraction effects decreased when the choice task become more difficult.     

Playing with Dreams: The Introduction of a Third Party into the Transference Dynamic of the Couple

Dreams in couple therapy are expressions of the multiple discontinuous selves of partners and of interpersonal defenses. Two dreams offered during analytic couple therapy illustrate the use of transference and countertransference to observe disturbances in self-cohesion, communication of self-states, and attempts to affectively influence the partner. Dreams transferentially communicate the state of the realtionship, activate a third formation expressing shared pathology, and facilitate the growth of new aspects of the self seeking a more loving bond.     

Compromise: The Forgotten Dimension of Career Decision-Making

The study of compromise in career decision-making has been neglected. Out of Pryor's adoption of Gottfredson's compromise formulation, a programme of research was undertaken to investigate the basic dimensions of career compromise. The results of four separate studies are reported, investigating compromise conceptions, compromise plans, compromise choices and compromise interventions. These data support the importance of the three Gottfredson dimensions — psychological characteristics, prestige and sex-type-in the process of career compromise. The major deficiency of the Gottfredson compromise model is the need for elaboration of several of its aspects, such as sex differences in compromise strategies, 'refusal to compromise', the existence of more than one compromise paradigm and the interrelatedness of the compromise dimensions.     

An Evaluation of Two Mediation Techniques,Negotiator Power,and Culture in Negotiation1

This study examines the effects of 4 factors in a mediated transfer‐pricing negotiation: (a) the mediator's suggestion that negotiators have concern for the other (opposing) negotiator; (b) the mediator's proposal of moderate goals; (c) negotiator power; and (d) culture. In the simulated negotiations that were mediated by a corporate official, participants were 374 subjects from Hong Kong and the United States. Negotiators obtained lower joint outcomes when urged by the mediator to show concern for the other than when not given this admonition. When the mediator proposed moderate (vs. high) goals, the negotiators received lower joint outcomes but had a higher opinion of the mediator. While we expected negotiator power (equal vs. unequal) to interact with suggested concern for the other, it did so only for the negotiators' individual outcomes. Finally, culture produced a main effect: Hong Kong negotiators obtained higher joint outcomes than did their U. S. counterparts.     

The World of Mad Men: Power,Surface and Passion

Mad Men is disturbing to post-millennium viewers, particularly those of a “certain” age, on three counts. First, it invokes a particular historical context of gender oppression; second it captures the prevailing post-War injunction that emotional distress is unseemly and distasteful; and third, it captures the zeitgeist's celebration of surface over substance in relationship. However, just as disturbing as these historically situated interpersonal premises is the niggling question that each relationship pairing and each episode leaves with the viewer. To wit: How much of the disconnection and the unrequited longings are reflective of a particular historical era, and to what degree do they reflect timeless aspects of character and relationship? Thus Mad Men provides an exquisitely rendered sociocultural tableau in which the viewer struggles, however articulated or not, with one of the essential knots of psychoanalytic as well as couples treatment: the complicated interpenetration of culture and character, of time and timelessness.     

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.     

Victims' Satisfaction With Compensation: Effects of Initial Disadvantage and Third Party Intervention

Two experiments examined the reactions of victims of disadvantage to compensation designed to improve their lot. In Experiment 1, subjects participated in an organizational simulation where they were disadvantaged with respect to their pay. Subsequently, a third party intervened with one of a number of strategies which varied according to whether or not the subjects received compensation and whether or not the person responsible for their disadvantage suffered. The interaction between compensation and suffering was significant on a satisfaction measure and the pattern indicated that subjects were most satisfied when the harmdoer suffered to provide compensation. This interaction was not significant on a measure of perceptions of fairness. Experiment 2 examined the possibility that the intervention of the third party in Experiment 1 may have created feelings of indebtedness. In a similar paradigm, subjects were either disadvantaged by a harmdoer or by external events and received compensation that either was or was not accompanied by a request for repayment. When subjects had been disadvantaged by external events, they were more satisfied and felt more fairly treated when there was an opportunity for reciprocation than when there was not, while the opposite pattern was the case when the harmdoer was responsible for the disadvantage. The results were discussed in the context of the complexity of the receipt of aid phenomenon and possible implications for the design of ameliorative social programs.     

Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence1

In response to new theoretical conceptualizations (Raven, 1992, 1993), an instrument was developed to measure 11 bases of power, the original 6 French and Raven (1959; Raven, 1965) bases of power, with 3 of these further differentiated: reward (personal, impersonal), coercion (personal. impersonal), legitimate (position, reciprocity, equity, dependence), expert, referent, and information. In Study 1, 317 American student respondents rated the likelihood that each of these power bases contributed to a supervisor successfully influencing a subordinate in a series of hypothetical situations. The internal consistency of the items which made up the 11 power bases proved adequate. Factor analysis found 7 factors and 2 categories of bases: harsh and soft. In Study 2, which used 101 Israeli health workers, the earlier findings were generally supported. In addition, job satisfaction was found to be positively related to the attribution of soft bases to the supervisor.     

Condom Negotiation in Heterosexually Active Men and Women: Development and Validation of a Condom Influence Strategy Questionnaire

The ability to negotiate condom use with a partner is a skill that sexually active men and women must have in order to avoid sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. Despite this fact, there is no psychometrically valid instrument in the literature to measure condom influence strategies. This investigation reports on the development and initial validation of the condom influence strategy questionnaire (CISQ). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses revealed and confirmed six influence strategies used by heterosexually active men and women to negotiate condom use. These CISQ subscales accounted for variance in safer sexual variables including sexual assertiveness, self-efficacy, and partner communication. Further, those who endorsed CISQ subscales were more likely to have intentions to use condoms consistently and to use condoms. Gender differences in subscales favoring women as the ones most likely to use influence strategies also emerged. Implications of these results as well as future directions for research are discussed.     

The Social Power of a Uniform1

The degree and basis of social power of uniformed figures was investigated in two field experiments. In the first experiment, subjects were stopped in the street by an experimenter dressed in one of three ways: a civilian, a milkman, or a guard. They were asked to pick up a paper bag, or to give a dime to a stranger, or to move away from a bus stop. The results indicated that the subjects complied more with the guard than with the civilian or milkman. In the second field experiment, designed to examine the basis of the guard's power, subjects were asked to give a dime to a stranger under conditions of either surveillance or nonsurveillance. The guard's power was not affected by the surveillance manipulation. A logical analysis of social power indicated that the guard's power was most likely based on legitimacy. Two questionnaire studies indicated, however, that college students did not perceive the guard as having either more. power or more legitimacy than the milkman or civilian. The nature and importance of understanding legitimacy was discussed.     

Women and Salary Negotiation: The Costs of Self-Advocacy

Introducing the concepts of self- and other-advocacy should prove useful as a means of understanding the different contexts in which women and men can effectively and comfortably exert power and influence when making requests. In this conceptual paper, social psychological research is reviewed demonstrating that women can advocate effectively on behalf of others without incurring costs, but gender-linked stereotypes, roles, and norms constrain them from advocating as freely and effectively for themselves. It is argued that women do not frequently make requests for themselves, because they have learned that they may ultimately lose more than they gain. This gendered difference has implications for ongoing pay and promotion inequities.     

权力、社会动机和问责对谈判知觉、行为和结果的影响

采用工作面试的谈判任务,运用模拟实验方法,探讨了不同权力谈判者(人事经理与应聘者)的社会动机在不同问责条件下对谈判的影响。156名(78组)大学生按同性别陌生人进行一对一的模拟谈判。结果表明:(1)包含亲社会人事经理的谈判组整体的固定馅饼知觉偏差较小。(2)问责提高了相同社会动机谈判组的联合收益和问题解决行为,但减少了混合社会动机谈判组的联合收益和问题解决行为。     

Positive Effects of Within-Group Cooperation on Between-Group Negotiation1

The present study simulated an organizational dispute to test two sets of alternative hypotheses regarding the effects of within-group cooperation and conflict on a subsequent negotiation with an out-group. The first set of hypotheses concerned in-group cooperation. We expected that either (a) in-group cooperation would produce greater cooperation toward an out-group, the result of a carryover effect; or (b) in-group cooperation would increase group cohesiveness and strengthen group boundaries, and thus produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group. The second set of alternative hypotheses concerned in-group conflict. We expected that either (a) in-group conflict would produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group, the result of a carry-over effect; or (b) in-group conflict would decrease group cohesiveness and weaken group boundaries, and thus produce less competitiveness toward an out-group. Subjects in three-person groups negotiated first with one another on a cooperative or competitive task, and then as a group, with another group. The data supported the carryover hypothesis for the effects of both in-group cooperation and conflict. Groups that experienced internal cooperation were more cooperative in the subsequent between-group negotiation and, to a lesser extent, groups that experienced internal conflict were more competitive in the subsequent between-group negotiation, relative to a control condition that had no prior in-group negotiation. Taken together, the results were consistent with recent research on dispute intervention that suggested that mediators in between-group conflict should foster within-group cooperation prior to between-group negotiations.     

The Impact of Value Similarity and Power on the Perception of Threat

Threat perception is a powerful tool in international and intergroup conflict. Realists in international relations argue that the perception of threat in intergroup conflict is a function of power asymmetries between groups. In contrast, social constructivists in international relations suggest that a shared sense of identity or similarity can reduce, and in some cases eliminate, perceptions of intergroup threat. Consequently, threat perception might be influenced by both the value similarities and the power asymmetries between the ingroup and the outgroup. In this article, we present an attempt to test empirically how individuals evaluate the similarity of cultural and political values compared with another nation (outgroup) and assess its implications for cooperation among states in the international system. The results of two experiments demonstrate that both power and perceived value similarity play an important role in threat perception among states and discuss implications for future research.