Empathy profiles

67 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cmIncludes abstract.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 58-67).Negotiation is a critical component of job performance across a variety of occupations. Though many factors influencing negotiation performance have been studied, research on individual (specifically personality) traits has lagged behind. The current research addresses this gap by studying individual-level empathy and its impact on negotiation performance. Using archival data, latent profile analyses were conducted to identify profiles based on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), a measure of four empathy facets (Davis, 1983). ANOVAs were used to link profiles to distributive and integrative negotiation outcomes. Four empathy profiles emerged that were replicated across two samples. The profiles showed no significant relationships with negotiation performance, however, significant correlations were found with the Big Five personality traits and Emotional Intelligence. Results contribute to the realm of negotiation and empathy research by testing the underlying factors of Dual Concern Theory and discovering empathy profiles that broaden the possibilities of future research

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self In Negotiations

Although negotiation research is thriving, it has been criticized as having an arelational bias—emphasizing autonomy, competition, and rationality over interdependence, cooperation, and relationality. In this article, we advance a new model of relationality in negotiation. Drawing on research in social psychology, we describe the construct of relational self-construals (RSC) and present a temporal model of RSC and negotiation. After delineating the conditions through which RSC becomes accessible in negotiation and conditions that inhibit its use, we discuss how RSC affects negotiators\u27 pre-negotiation psychological states, early and later tactics, and negotiation outcomes. We illustrate a number of distinct relational dynamics that can occur based on the dyadic composition of RSC, each of which brings distinct benefits and costs to the negotiation table. Implications for the science and practice of negotiation are discussed

The Interpersonal Style and Complementarity Between Crisis Negotiators and Forensic Inpatients

Previous negotiation research has explored the interaction and communication between crisis negotiators and perpetrators. A crisis negotiator attempts to resolve a critical incident through negotiation with an individual, or group of persons in crisis. The purpose of this study was to establish the interpersonal style of crisis negotiators and complementarity of the interpersonal interaction between them and forensic inpatients. Crisis negotiators, clinical workers and students (n = 90) used the Check List of Interpersonal Transactions-Revised (CLOIT-R) to identify interpersonal style, along with eight vignettes detailing interpersonal styles. Crisis negotiators were most likely to have a friendly interpersonal style compared to the other non-trained groups. Complementarity theory was not exclusively supported as submissive individuals did not show optimistic judgments in working with dominant forensic inpatients and vice versa. Exploratory analysis revealed that dominant crisis negotiators were optimistic in working with forensic inpatients with a dominant interpersonal style. This study provides insight into the area of interpersonal complementarity of crisis negotiators and forensic inpatients. Whilst further research is required, a potential new finding was established, with significant ‘similarity’ found when dominant crisis negotiators are asked to work with dominant forensic inpatients

Sartorial symbols of social class elicit class-consistent behavioral and physiological responses: a dyadic approach.

Social rank in human and nonhuman animals is signaled by a variety of behaviors and phenotypes. In this research, we examined whether a sartorial manipulation of social class would engender class-consistent behavior and physiology during dyadic interactions. Male participants donned clothing that signaled either upper-class (business-suit) or lower-class (sweatpants) rank prior to engaging in a modified negotiation task with another participant unaware of the clothing manipulation. Wearing upper-class, compared to lower-class, clothing induced dominance--measured in terms of negotiation profits and concessions, and testosterone levels--in participants. Upper-class clothing also elicited increased vigilance in perceivers of these symbols: Relative to perceiving lower-class symbols, perceiving upper-class symbols increased vagal withdrawal, reduced perceptions of social power, and catalyzed physiological contagion such that perceivers' sympathetic nervous system activation followed that of the upper-class target. Discussion focuses on the dyadic process of social class signaling within social interactions

Being tough doesn’t always pay off: The culture of honor vs dignity in negotiation

Early work on cross-cultural negotiation has focused on East-West differences. In the current study we investigate the negotiation scripts employed by Middle Eastern negotiators, more specifically Iranian negotiators, in an intracultural interaction, compared to North American negotiators. We examine how the Iranian worldviews, beliefs, norms, and social behavior influence their goals and aspirations, negotiation tactics, and ultimately final outcome. We formulated our hypotheses based on the theory of honor-dignity cultures and illustrate how the importance of preserving and maintaining honor influences the Iranian negotiation strategies in business dealings. Our results illustrate that consistent with the culture of honor, Iranian negotiators are more likely to be competitive, express emotions, and employ distributive tactics compared to Canadian negotiators. Moreover, this competitive mindset leaves Iranian negotiators at a disadvantage as the overall joint gain is significantly lower than Canadian negotiators

Negotiating over mobile phones: calling or being called can make the difference

Mobile phones pervade our everyday life like no other technology, but the effects they have on one-to-one conversations are still relatively unknown. This paper focuses on how mobile phones influence negotiations, i.e., on discussions where two parties try to reach an agreement starting from opposing preferences. The experiments involve 60 pairs of unacquainted individuals (120 subjects). They must make a “yes” or “no” decision on whether several objects increase the chances of survival in a polar environment or not. When the participants disagree about a given object (one says “yes” and the other says “no”), they must try to convince one another and reach a common decision. Since the subjects discuss via phone, one of them (selected randomly) calls while the other is called. The results show that the caller convinces the receiver in 70 % of the cases ( p value = 0.005 according to a two-tailed binomial test). Gender, age, personality and conflict handling style, measured during the experiment, fail in explaining such a persuasiveness difference. Calling or being called appears to be the most important factor behind the observed result

Constitutional Talk: Exploring Institutional Scope Conditions for Effective Arguing

[From the introduction]. Arguing, understood as reason-giving, is all pervasive in international politics: Negotiating actors give reasons for their demands at almost any time, regardless of whether talks are con-ducted in public or behind closed doors. And yet, since negotiations have most often been conceived of as processes of bargaining in which actors seek to adjust their behavior through the exchange of threats and incentives, arguments have primarily been treated as rather epiphenomenal to strategic interaction. In this paper we argue that under certain circum-stances arguments affect negotiating actors’ preferences, and subsequently lead to outcomes that are not easily explained in pure bargaining terms. Arguing and bargaining as different modes of interaction, however, are not contending but rather complementing explanations. As a result, we have to ask which scope conditions are particularly conducive to enabling arguing to prevail in decentralized negotiations and, thus, to affect both process and outcome. In a structured-focused comparison of Intergovernmental Conferences (IGCs) with the European Convention we aim to unveil institutional factors that induce actors to take validity claims into account and change their preferences accordingly. At the example of negotiations on sim-plification and the single legal personality of the European Union we seek to demonstrate that the transparency of the debate in conjunction with a higher degree of uncertainty about appro-priate behavior made arguing in the Convention particularly effective

Computer-Aided Tools in Negotiation: Negotiable Issues, Counterfactual Thinking, and Satisfaction

Negotiations research has identified both economic and social-psychological outcomes are important for negotiations. Despite the economic advantages of having multiple issues to negotiate, inconsistencies exist between objective economic outcomes and negotiator satisfaction. Although having more negotiable issues yields better objective payoffs, it can result in more thoughts about different possible outcomes. Such counterfactual thoughts about different outcomes can reduce overall satisfaction due to increased cognitive complexity and thoughts about different outcomes. In this study, we explore how information technology can influence negotiator satisfaction and better manage counterfactual thoughts and post-negotiation satisfaction. Results support the prediction that having a computer aid to better manage cognitively complex issues, even a relatively simple one, reduces participants’ counterfactual thoughts about better possible outcomes. As a result, the use of some type of technology—even a simple technology such as a spreadsheet—may improve overall negotiator satisfaction, while maintaining desirable economic outcomes

Exploring efficacy in personal constraint negotiation: an ethnography of mountaineering tourists

Limited work has explored the relationship between efficacy and personal constraint negotiation for adventure tourists, yet efficacy is pivotal to successful activity participation as it influences people’s perceived ability to cope with constraints, and their decision to use negotiation strategies. This paper explores these themes with participants of a commercially organised mountaineering expedition. Phenomenology-based ethnography was adopted to appreciate the social and cultural mountaineering setting from an emic perspective. Ethnography is already being used to understand adventure participation, yet there is considerable scope to employ it further through researchers immersing themselves into the experience. The findings capture the interaction between the ethnographer and the group members, and provide an embodied account using their lived experiences. Findings reveal that personal mountaineering skills, personal fitness, altitude sickness and fatigue were the four key types of personal constraint. Self-efficacy, negotiation-efficacy and other factors, such as hardiness and motivation, influenced the effectiveness of negotiation strategies. Training, rest days, personal health, and positive self-talk were negotiation strategies. A conceptual model illustrates these results and demonstrates the interplay between efficacy and the personal constraint negotiation journey for led mountaineers