CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

90 OLEKALNS, PUTNAM, WEINGART, AND METCALF
Individual Level: Analyses of the Frequencies of Strategy Use
A frequency approach examines the amount or total use of different
types of negotiation strategies during a given negotiation. Researchers
interested in knowing which behaviors negotiators use typically count
the number of times a specific strategy or tactic is employed, control for
(divide by) the total number of communicative behaviors, and compare the
(relative) frequencies across tactics, groups, or experimental conditions.
Researchers who employ a frequency approach typically characterize
integrative and distributive processes as mutually exclusive (Putnam,
1990). This distinction allows researchers to focus on the links
between inputs to a negotiation and each bargainer’s use of strategies.
One input factor that dominates research on strategy frequencies is
outcome goals. As negotiators make choices to maximize their own
aims or their joint gains, the frequency with which they use integrative
or distributive strategies is likely to reflect their individualistic
or cooperative outcome goals, respectively. In this section, we review
the literature that links outcome goals to strategy use, and then we
examine the more recent streams of research that connect culture and
emotion to negotiation strategy.
Outcome Goals and Strategy Use. In experimental research, a negotiator’s
goals often arise explicitly from the instructions (or incentives) that
participants receive or implicitly from the differences in negotiators’ characteristics
(e.g., culture, personality). Whether goal differences are established
explicitly or implicitly, the effect is to establish a dominant strategic
orientation that is typically cooperative or competitive.
Goals that predispose a negotiator to adopt a cooperative orientation
increase the frequency with which negotiators use integrative strategies,
such as information exchange, concessions, and process management
(Hyder, Prietula, & Weingart, 2000; Lewis & Fry, 1977; O’Connor, 1997;
Olekalns & Smith, 2003b; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Schulz & Pruitt, 1978; Weingart,
Bennett, & Brett, 1993; Weingart, Hyder, & Prietula, 1996). Negotiators
who embrace a cooperative orientation are also more likely to express
support for the other party (Olekalns & Smith, 1999). Moreover, a cooperative
orientation mitigates the effects of unequal power, resulting in more
cooperative and less competitive behavior (Giebels, De Dreu & Van de
Vliert, 2000). However, some of these relationships may be moderated by
the level of trust present in the negotiating relationship: When trust is low,
negotiators with cooperative goals often reduce the level and accuracy of
information exchange (De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliert, 1998; Olekalns
& Smith, 2005). In contrast, when goals encourage a competitive orientation,
negotiators are more likely to use such strategies as argumentation,
substantiation, demands, and threats (Carnevale & Lawler, 1987; Hyder
et al., 2000; Lewis & Fry, 1977; Olekalns & Smith, 2000; Pruitt & Lewis,
1975; Schulz & Pruitt, 1978).