IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v36y1983i3p378-388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret A. Neale
  • Max H. Bazerman

Abstract

This study investigates whether the ability of negotiators to adopt the perspective of their opponents is a key to success in negotiating under conventional and final-offer arbitration. The authors tested this question in an experiment in which 80 pairs of students engaged in two sets of negotiations. The results suggest that both the perspective-taking ability of the negotiators and the type of arbitration affect negotiations—as measured by concession rate, number of issues resolved, and outcome success (the dollar value of the contract obtained)—and such attitudes as perceived agreement with and control over the outcome. The authors also find that negotiating experience affects various process and outcome measures of the negotiation as well as perceived control over and agreement with the outcome.

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret A. Neale & Max H. Bazerman, 1983. "The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 36(3), pages 378-388, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:36:y:1983:i:3:p:378-388
    DOI: 10.1177/001979398303600304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979398303600304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/001979398303600304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    2. Ma-Kellams, Christine & Lerner, Jennifer S., 2016. "Trust Your Gut or Think Carefully? Examining Whether an Intuitive versus a Systematic Mode of Thought Produces Greater Empathic Accuracy," Working Paper Series 16-017, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Ilya R. P. Cuypers & Youtha Cuypers & Xavier Martin, 2017. "When the target may know better: Effects of experience and information asymmetries on value from mergers and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 609-625, March.
    4. Sujin Lee & Wendi L. Adair & Seong-Jee Seo, 2013. "Cultural Perspective Taking in Cross-Cultural Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 389-405, May.
    5. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    6. Sherman, Gary D. & Lerner, Jennifer & Renshon, Jonathan & Ma-Kellams, Christine & Joel, Samantha, 2015. "Perceiving Others’ Feelings: The Importance of Personality and Social Structure," Scholarly Articles 34721613, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    9. Fietkau, Hans-Joachim, 1991. "Entwicklung ökologischer Verantwortung in Mediationsverfahren," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 89-102.
    10. Don A. Moore & John M. Oesch & Charlene Zietsma, 2007. "What Competition? Myopic Self-Focus in Market-Entry Decisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 440-454, June.
    11. Leonard Greenhalgh & Roderick Gilkey, 1997. "Clinical Assessment Methods in Negotiation Research: The Study of Narcissism and Negotiator Effectiveness," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 289-316, July.
    12. Ma-Kellams, Christine & Lerner, Jennifer, 2016. "Trust your gut or think carefully? Examining whether an intuitive, versus a systematic, mode of thought produces greater empathic accuracy," Scholarly Articles 37093806, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Rocio Ramo de Villarreal, 2001. "Presidential Leadership and Decision-Making in Policy Reforms. The First 150 Days of Vicente Fox," CID Working Papers 75A, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    14. Lawrence Hadley & John Ruggiero, 2006. "Final-offer arbitration in major league baseball: A nonparametric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 201-209, July.
    15. Tabea Franziska Hirth-Goebel & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2019. "Management accountants and ethical dilemmas: How to promote ethical intention?," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 287-322, October.
    16. Derek Cabrera & Laura Cabrera & Erin Powers, 2015. "A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 534-545, September.
    17. Mafael, Alexander & Gottschalk, Sabrina A. & Kreis, Henning, 2016. "Examining Biased Assimilation of Brand-related Online Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 91-106.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:36:y:1983:i:3:p:378-388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.