Search results

The starting point of this paper is the propositional model of conflict resolution which was presented and critically discussed in Lempp (2016). Based on this model, a software implementation, called ProCON, is introduced and applied to three scenarios. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate how ProCON can be used by negotiators and to evaluate ProCON’s practical usefulness as an automated negotiation support system.

The propositional model is implemented as a computer program. The implementation consists of an input module to enter data about a negotiation situation, an output module to generate outputs (e.g. a list of all incompatible goal pairs or a graph displaying the compatibility relations between goals) and a queries module to run queries on particular aspects of a negotiation situation.

The author demonstrates how ProCON can be used to capture a simple two-party, non-iterative prisoner’s dilemma, applies ProCON to a contract negotiation between a supplier and a purchaser of goods, and uses it to model the negotiations between the Iranian and six Western governments over Iran’s nuclear enrichment and stockpiling capacities.

A limitation of the current version of ProCON arises from the fact that the computational complexity of the underlying algorithm is EXPTIME (i.e. the computing time required to process information in ProCON grows exponentially with respect to the number of issues fed into the program). This means that computing time can be quite long for even relatively small negotiation scenarios.

The three case studies demonstrate how ProCON can provide support for negotiators in a wide range of multi-party, multi-issue negotiations. In particular, ProCON can be used to visualise the compatibility relations between parties’ goals, generate possible outcomes and solutions and evaluate solutions regarding the extent to which they satisfy the parties’ goals.

In contrast to standard game-theoretic models of negotiation, ProCON does not require users to provide data about their preferences across their goals. Consequently, it can operate in situations where no information about the parties’ goal preferences is available. Compared to game-theoretical models, ProCON represents a more general approach of looking at possible outcomes in the context of negotiations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which mediation constitutes an appropriate and effective intervention in cases of alleged workplace bullying.

Data was collected from 25 practising mediators in New Zealand by way of semi-structured interviews. The transcribed data was analysed by way of thematic analysis using the software NVivo11. The features of bullying cases identified as potential concerns for mediation in the literature acted as a coding framework, alongside the analytical framework for assessing dispute resolution processes developed by John Budd and Alexander Colvin.

A thematic analysis of the data revealed four key features of bullying experiences that mediators believed influenced the efficacy of the mediation process: emotional stability of the parties; power imbalance between the parties; insight and differing interpretations; and the impact of organisational context. Further, the analysis revealed two strategies to overcome barriers to the efficacy of mediation: considering mediation as part of a broader range of dispute resolution processes; and encouraging early low-level mediation intervention.

This study only elicited the views of workplace mediators, many of whom were self-employed. Thus, the participants in the sample were likely to speak positively about the use of mediation. In part, this was helpful because the mediators spoke largely about how they made the process work allowing identification of techniques to improve the efficacy of mediation. However, future research is needed to explore the views of other parties, including parties to a bullying mediation, managers and/or human resources (HR) personnel.

Five recommendations for workplace mediators dealing with bullying cases are suggested: mediators should screen the emotional stability of the parties during the initial stages of the mediation; mediators should discuss with the parties the possibility and potential benefits of bringing along a support person; mediators should view their role more widely to influence the wider organisational contexts in which bullying occurs; informal mediation should take place before the escalation of a bullying experience; and mediators should consider completing an investigation prior to the start of the mediation.

Prior empirical studies on the efficacy of workplace mediation have not specifically investigated the use of mediation for bullying cases. This study addresses this gap in that it provides empirical support for the proposition that mediation in cases of bullying may only be appropriate under certain circumstances and that a flexible approach to mediation is required.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the use of humor in one-shot online negotiations affects the chance that the target of the humor will accept the offer. This study/paper proposes two competing hypotheses in this specific context: humor could be perceived as impertinent and thus decrease offer acceptance, or it could be perceived as friendly and thus increase offer acceptance.

To test these hypotheses, this study/paper conducted an experimental scenario study among 589 participants in a negotiation about selling a wardrobe on an online marketplace. Participants took the perspective of the seller, and this study/paper compared a condition in which the buyer used a joke versus a condition in which the buyer did not use a joke.

The use of humor by a buyer significantly increased the chance of offer acceptance by the seller. Without humor, 62% of sellers accepted the buyer’s offer. With humor, 82% of sellers accepted the offer. Further analysis suggests this is explained by the buyer being perceived as friendlier in the humor condition relative to the no humor condition. There were no effects on perceptions of buyer’s impertinence.

The findings indicate that humor is beneficial for buyers in a one-shot online negotiation. On the flipside, this implies that sellers should be cautious about being manipulated into accepting inferior deals by buyers who use humor in one-shot online negotiations.

The significant increase in the number of transactions on online marketplaces (such as AliExpress or eBay) justifies having a fresh look at the role of humor in one-shot online negotiations that are at the core of such transactions. Research in this domain is relatively scarce. In particular, there is no study that specifically tests whether humor is beneficial or detrimental in one-shot online negotiations. This study/paper extends the existing literature to the area of one-shot online interactions characterized by psychological distance.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new agent-based simulation model of bilateral negotiation based on a synthesis of established theories and empirical studies of negotiation research. The central units of the model are negotiators who pursue goals, have attributes (trust, assertiveness, cooperativeness, creativity, time, etc.) and perform actions (proposing and accepting offers, exchanging information, creating value, etc).

Methodologically, the model follows the agent-based approach to modeling. This approach is chosen because negotiations can be described as complex, non-linear systems involving autonomous agents (i.e. the negotiators), who interact with each other, pursue goals and perform actions aimed at achieving their goals.

This paper illustrates how the model can simulate experiments involving variables such as negotiation strategy, creativity, reservation value or time in negotiation. An example simulation is presented which investigates the main and interaction effects of negotiators’ reservation value and their time available for a negotiation. A software implementation of the model is freely accessible at https://tinyurl.com/y7oj6jo8.

The model, as developed at this point, provides the basis for future research projects. One project could address the representation of emotions and their impact on the process and outcome of negotiations. Another project could extend the model by allowing negotiators to convey false information (i.e. to bluff). Yet another project could be aimed at refining the routines used for making and accepting offers with a view to allow parties to reach partial settlements during a negotiation.

Due to its broad scope and wide applicability, the model can be used by practitioners and researchers alike. As a decision-support system, the model allows users to simulate negotiation situations and estimate the likelihood of negotiation outcomes. As a research platform, it can generate simulation data in a cost- and time-effective way, allowing researchers to simulate complex, large-N studies at no cost or time.

The model presented in this paper synthesizes in a novel way a comprehensive range of concepts and theories of current negotiation research. It complements other computational models, in that it can simulate a more diverse range of negotiation strategies (distributive, integrative and compromise) and is applicable to a greater variety of negotiation scenarios.

The purpose of this study is to explore the views of practicing negotiators on their experiences of deception and their strategies for detecting deceptive behavior. A thematic analysis of interview data complements the existing experimental literature on deception and negotiation. The authors compare the experiences of practicing negotiators with the results found in experimental studies and provide practical recommendations for negotiators and managers regarding the detection of deception.

Data was collected from 19 practicing commercial negotiators in France by way of semi-structured interviews. The transcribed data was analyzed by way of thematic analysis using the software NVivo 12. Experiences and behaviors identified in the negotiation literature as key factors for the detection of deception acted as a coding framework.

A thematic analysis of the data revealed four themes related to the experience of deception that negotiators perceived as particularly important: the frequency, form, interpretation and consequences of deception. Further, the analysis revealed four factors that negotiators believed influenced their ability to detect deceptive communication: physical cues, such as body language and micro-expressions, and verbal cues, including contradictions and inconsistencies, emotional cues and environmental cues. Finally, the strategies described by negotiators to detect deception could be classified according to six themes: careful listening, asking questions, emotional intelligence, intuition, checking consistency and requesting evidence.

This study elicited the views of commercial negotiators without collecting information from their negotiation counterparts. Hence, it was not possible to verify whether the reported detection of deceptive communication was accurate. Because of optimism bias, the participants in the sample were likely to overrate their ability to detect deception. In part, this was helpful because the negotiators spoke freely about their strategies for dealing with deceptive counterparts allowing the identification of techniques to improve the efficacy of detecting deceptive communication.

Participants overwhelmingly expressed that there is a lack of training on deception in negotiation. It is suggested that the results of this study inform the development of training courses on the detection of deception. In particular, it is recommended that training courses should cover the following topics: how to anticipate and avoid deceptive behavior; how to effectively respond to deceptive behavior; the role of emotional intelligence in detecting deceptive behavior; careful listening and asking questions; and the role of intuition in detecting deception.

Prior empirical studies on the detection of deception have not specifically investigated the range of self-reported strategies used by practicing negotiators to detect deceptive communication. This study addresses this gap. This study complements existing experimental works by widening the spectrum of potential variables that play a role in the effective detection of deceptive communication.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which formal logic can be applied to conflict analysis and resolution. It is motivated by the idea that conflicts can be understood as inconsistent sets of interests.

A simple propositional model, based on propositional logic, which can be used to analyze conflicts, has been introduced and four algorithms have been presented to generate possible solutions to a conflict. The model is illustrated by applying it to the conflict between the Obama administration and the Syrian Government in September 2013 over the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

The author shows how different solutions, such as compromises, minimally invasive solutions or solutions compatible with certain pre-defined norms, can be generated by the model. It is shown how the model can operate in situations where the game-theoretic model fails due to a lack of information about the parties’ utility values.

The model can be used as a theoretical framework for future experimental research and/or to trace the course of particular conflict scenarios.

The model can be used as the basis for building software applications for conflict resolution practitioners, such as negotiators or mediators.

While the idea of using logic to analyse the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies, the model presented in this paper provides a novel way of understanding conflicts for both researchers and practitioners.

This paper has two main purposes. First, it considers the detrimental effects of four politically‐salient asymmetries on the policy choices of liberal democracies when dealing with the problem of human‐induced climate change. Second, it outlines and evaluates possible solutions for reducing or countering these asymmetries.

The approach involves an analysis and evaluation of policy options based on a survey of the relevant literature.

The paper highlights the serious mismatch between the magnitude and urgency of the climate change problem and the current political will to overcome or mitigate the problem. Although four categories of potential solutions, and the various mechanisms through which they might operate, are discussed, it is recognized that all the available options have significant drawbacks, not least limited political feasibility and doubtful effectiveness. In short, action within liberal democracies to mitigate climate change is likely to remain seriously constrained by the four asymmetries discussed, thus increasing the risk of dangerous climate change.

The paper highlights the complexities, both international and national, of confronting human‐induced climate change. In particular, it identifies four systemic reasons, in the form of politically‐salient asymmetries, why liberal democracies have struggled to take effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provides a systematic assessment of possible solutions to these asymmetries. These include changes to accounting frameworks to ensure that the impact of humanity on the environment and future generations is more transparent.

This paper aims to set out several of the key issues and areas of the inter‐disciplinary field of climate change research based in accounting and accountability, and to introduce the papers that compose this AAAJ special issue.

The paper provides an overview of issues in the science of climate, as well as an eclectic collection of independent and inter‐disciplinary contributions to accounting for climate change. Through additional accounting analysis, and a shadow carbon account, it also illustrates how organisations and nations account for and communicate their greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints and emissions behaviour.

The research shows that accounting for carbon and other GHG emissions is immensely challenging because of uncertainties in estimation methods. The research also shows the enormity of the challenge associated with reducing those emissions in the near future.

The paper surveys past work on a wide variety of perspectives associated with climate change science, politics and policy, as well as organisational and national emissions and accounting behaviour. It provides an overview of challenges in the area, and seeks to set an agenda for future research that remains interesting and different.