Third Party Intervention and the Bargaining Behavior of Group Representatives

Abstract

The present study compared the effects of content, process, and passive types of third party intervention on the bargaining behavior of pairs of group representatives. The setting was a simulated school board-teachers' union dispute over a new contract. Each side was represented by one person who was instructed to bargain tenaciously and to obtain as much as possible. The job of the representatives was either in jeopardy (high accountability) or not (low accountability). In the content intervention condition, a reasonable settlement was suggested to the representatives by the third party. In the process intervention condition, he taught them how to paraphrase. In the passive condition he had them take a break from their negotiations. For the high accountable representatives, as predicted, the order of effectiveness of the interventions (number of agreements, average joint profit, and speed of resolution), from most to least, was content, process, and passive. Contrary to expectations, the process intervention did not produce the highest average joint profit for the low accountability representatives. The representatives who did reach agreement in the low accountability process and content conditions, however, achieved higher joint profits than the representatives in the passive condition. Directions for further research were indicated.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BAKER, K. (1974) “Experimental analysis of third-party justice behavior.” J. of Personality and Social Psychology 30: 307–316.

BENTON, A. A. (1975) “Bargaining visibility and the attitudes and negotiation behavior of male and female group representatives.” J. of Personality.

BENTON, A. A. (1974) “Some effects of reelection on the attitudes and negotiation behavior of group representatives.” University of Illinois, Chicago Circle, (unpublished)

BENTON, A. A. (1972) “Accountability and negotiations between group representatives, ” pp. 227–228 in Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Convention. American Psychological Association Convention, Hawaii.

BURTON, J. W. (1969) Conflict and Communication. New York: Free Press.

DOOB, L. W. [ed.] (1970) Resolving Conflict in Africa. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

DOOB, L. W. [ed.] and W. J. FOLTZ (1974) “The impact of a workshop upon grass-roots leaders in Belfast.” J. of Conflict Resolution 18: 237–256.

DOOB, L. W. [ed.] (1973) “The Belfast workshop, an application of group techniques to a destructive conflict.” J. of Conflict Resolution, 17: 489–512.

EDWARDS, A. L. (1972) Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

10.

ERICKSON, B. , J. G. HOLMES , R. FREY , L. WALKER , and J. THIBAUT (1974) “Functions of a third party in the resolution of conflict: the role of a judge in pre-trial conferences.” J. of Personality and Social Psychology 30: 293–306.

11.

FINN, J. D. (1969) “Multivariate analysis of repeated measures data.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 4: 411–413.

12.

FISHER, R. J. (1972) “Third party consultation: a method for the study and resolution of conflict.” J. of Conflict Resolution 16: 67–95.

13.

GOODSTEIN, L. D. and R. K. BOYER (1972) “Crisis intervention in a municipal agency: a conceptual case history.” J. of Applied Behavioral Sci. 8: 318–340.

14.

GRUDER, C. L. and N. ROSEN (1971) “Effects of intragroup relations on intergroup bargaining.” International J. of Group Tensions 1: 301–317.

15.

HALBERSTRAM, D. (1972) The Best and the Brightest. New York: Random House.

16.

HERMANN, M. C. and N. KOGAN (1968) “Negotiations in leader and delegate groups.” J. of Conflict Resolution 12: 332–344.

17.

HORNSTEIN, H. A. and D. W. JOHNSON (1966) “The effects of process analysis and ties to his group upon the negotiator's attitudes towards the outcomes of negotiations.” J. of Applied Behavioral Sci. 2: 449–463.

18.

HORWITZ, M. (1971) “The intergroup psychology of humanistic psychologists.” J. of Applied Behavioral Sci. 7: 548–556.

19.

JOHNSON, D. F. and W. L. TULLAR (1972) “Style of third party intervention, face saving, and bargaining behavior.” J. of Experimental Social Psychology 8: 319–330.

20.

JOHNSON, D. W. (1971) “Role reversal: a summary and review of the literature.” International J. of Group Tensions 1: 318–334.

21.

JOHNSON, D. W. (1967) “Use of role reversal in intergroup competition.” J. of Personality and Social Psychology 7: 135–141.

22.

KAHN, A. S. and J. W. KOHLS (1972) “Determinants of toughness in dyadic bargaining.” Sociometry 35: 305–315.

23.

KELLEY, H. H. (1966). “A classroom study of the dilemma in interpersonal negotiations, ” In K. Archibald (ed.) Strategic Interaction and Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Institute of International Studies.

24.

KLIMOSKI, R. J. (1972) “The effects of intragroup forces on intergroup conflict resolution.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 8: 363–383.

25.

KLIMOSKI, R. J. and R. A. ASH (1974) “Accountability and negotiator behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11: 409–425.

26.

LEVIN, S. G. and D. P. STEIN (1970) “System intervention in a school-community conflict.” J. of Applied Behavioral Sci. 6: 351–363.

27.

LEWIS, S. A. and D. G. PRUITT (1971) “Orientation, aspiration level, and communication freedom in integrative bargaining, ” pp. 221–222 in Proceedings of the Seventy-Ninth Annual Convention. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

28.

MILLER, E. J. and A. K. RICE (1967) Systems of Organization. London: Tavistock.

29.

MONTGOMERY, D. , C. BUZZARD , and A. RESNIKOFF (1973) “Two different techniques for reducing conflict between groups.” International J. of Group Tensions 3: 252–267.

30.

PAYNE, P. A. and D. M. GRALINSKI (1968) “Effects of supervision style and empathy on counselor perceptions in simulated counseling.” J. of Counseling Psychology 15: 517–521.

31.

PAYNE, P. A. , S. G. WEISS , and R. A. KAPP (1972) “Didactic, experiential, and modeling factors in the learning of empathy.” J. of Counseling Psychology 19: 425–429.

32.

PAYNE, P. A. , D. E. WINTER , and G. E. BELL (1972) “Effects of supervisor style on the learning of empathy in a supervision analogue.” Counselor Education and Supervision 11: 262–269.

33.

PRUITT, D. G. (1971) “Indirect communication and the search for agreement in negotiation.” J. of Applied Social Psychology 1: 205–239.

34.

PRUITT, D. G. and D. F. JOHNSON (1970) “Mediation as an aid to face saving in negotiation.” J. of Personality and Social Psychology 14: 239–246.

35.

RAPOPORT, A. (1960) Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.

36.

ROGERS, C. R. and F. J. ROETHLISBERGER (1952) “Barriers and gateways to communication.” Harvard Business Rev. 30, 4: 46–52.

37.

SATIR, V. (1967) Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books.

38.

SCHMUCK, R. A. , P. J. RUNKEL , S. L. SATUREN , R. T. MARTELL , and C. B. DERR (1972) Handbook of Organization Development in Schools. Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press Books.

39.

SHAW, J. I. , C. S. FISCHER , and H. H. KELLEY (1973) “Decisionmaking by third parties in settling disputes.” J. of Applied Social Psychology 3: 197–218.

40.

SPIEGEL, J. P. (1973) “The social role of antagonists and third-party intervenors in violent confrontations.” International J. of Group Tensions 3: 142–151.

41.

STEVENS, C. M. (1963) Strategy and Collective Bargaining Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

42.

WALTON, R. E. (1969) Interpersonal Peacemaking: Confrontations and Third Party Consultation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

43.

WALTON, R. E. and R. B. McKERSIE (1965) A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

44.

WOZNIAK, J. and T. OAKES [eds.] (1972) “Evaluation of Miami Outreach, Summer, 1972, Part 1.” Submitted to the research and development division of the national board of YMCAs.

45.

YOUNG, O. R. (1972) “The intermediaries: additional thoughts on third parties.” J. of Conflict Resolution 16: 51–65.