False Consensus,Stereotypic Cues,and the Perception of Integrative Potential in Negotiation1

We argue that negotiators' fixed-sum perceptions are caused by the same judgment process that creates false consensus. Bargainers' reliance on their own preferences as a cue to others' preferences leads them to anticipate a fixed-sum conflict. When presented with stereotypic cues, subjects in a negotiating experiment anticipated the variable-sum nature of the task and subsequently realized highly efficient settlements extremely quickly. Surprisingly, even when the party's preferences were unrepresentative of the stereotype, agreements were no less efficient than in the absence of the cue. The implications of these findings for bargaining research and practice are discussed.     

Causal Attributions for Poorly Performing Projects: Their Effect on Project Continuation Decisions

This study examined the escalation problem within an attribution theory framework. Students read a case scenario containing causal attribution information that described a poorly performing project under their supervision. They made estimates of its future success, as well as a decision whether to continue it. Perceived stability of causality had the primary effect on expectancy of success. A project whose performance downturn was attributed to a stable cause had a lower expectancy. Locus of causality had a smaller but still significant effect. Project downturns attributed to internal causes had a lower expectancy. Expectancy of success was significantly correlated with project continuation decisions. Discrepancies between these results and those reported by Staw and Ross (1978) are accounted for in terms of Weiner's (1985, 1986) attributional analysis.     

Relations in Monadic Third-Order Logic

The representation of quantification over relations in monadic third-order logic is discussed; it is shown to be possible in numerous special cases of foundational interest, but not in general unless something akin to the Axiom of Choice is assumed.     

Current status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method

The current scientific, clinical, and professional status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is reviewed with respect to its psychometric properties, the applied purposes it can be expected to serve, the extent of its use, and the nature of prevailing attitudes toward it. Available evidence indicates that the RIM is a psychometrically sound measuring instrument that provides valid assessments of personality characteristics and can facilitate differential diagnosis and treatment planning and evaluation. The RIM continues as in the past to be widely used by both clinicians and researchers. However, the esteem in which it is held by practitioners, who are generally agreed that clinical psychologists should be competent in Rorschach assessment, is not universally shared by academicians, many of whom presently question the future place of Rorschach training in graduate education.     

MEMORY PROCESSES IN DELAYED SPATIAL DISCRIMINATIONS: RESPONSE INTENTIONS OR RESPONSE MEDIATION?

Pigeons were trained on a pair-comparison task in which left versus right choices were reinforced following different sequences of two center-key stimuli. Choice accuracy was higher when retention intervals occurred after the entire sequence than when they separated the two stimuli comprising it, and this effect occurred independently of whether the initial and terminal stimuli came from the same or different dimensions. The initial stimulus from the prior trial was a source of proactive interference only in groups for which the retention interval separated the two sequence stimuli. By contrast, differential delay-interval behavior was observed only in groups for which the retention interval followed presentation of the entire sequence. These results indicate that coding processes in delayed discriminations are influenced by the location of the retention interval, and that response mediation affects retention performances if the reinforced choice can be determined prior to the interval.     

Toward a theory of verbal behavior

This paper is a reply to an accompanying set of six commentaries by Sidman; Hayes and Barnes; Schusterman, Kastak, and Reichmuth; Tonneau and Sokolowski; Lowenkron; and Moerk. Those commentaries were prompted by our article “On the Origins of Naming and Other Symbolic Behavior” (1996), which was, in turn, followed by 26 commentaries and a reply. In the course of the present reply, we further develop the naming account to embrace more complex verbal relations such as same, different, more, and less. We also examine what we see as the lack of conceptual coherence in equivalence theories, including relational frame theory, and the disparities between these accounts and the findings from empirical research.