No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Field Experiments on Social Conflict
Abstract
Field experiments, in which the researcher manipulates one or more variables in a naturally occurring setting, have sometimes been used in studies of social conflict and should probably be used more often. They are more useful than observational studies for assessing the impact of novel conditions, establishing cause and effect, and reducing confounding. And they are more useful than laboratory experiments for examining long-term effects and those that involve strong passions, and for establishing external validity. However field experiments also have their limitations. Some variables cannot be practically or ethically manipulated and require the use of observational methods, which are also more useful for looking at the relationships among a large number of variables and for estimating the strength of association between variables. Furthermore, laboratory experiments allow more control of conditions and greater flexibility in designing manipulations. What this suggests is that all three methods have their value.
... Confidence that causal relationships have been discovered turns on the use of control groups, which are easier to establish in the laboratory than in the field. For detailed treatments of this method in the context of studies on negotiation, the reader is encouraged to consult and Druckman (2005, chapters 3 and 4), and Pruitt (2006). ...
This edited book showcases Christophe Dupont's outstanding contribution to research in negotiation, together with chapters contributed by leading researchers. This book inaugurates a series titled "Careers in Negotiation and Conflict Management Research", which aims to honor scholars who have opened original paths in uncharted areas of our field.
... Others have moved from an emphasis on quantitative methods to the application of more qualitative techniques, such as comparative case studies (Hopmann 2002; Zartman 2005). Qualitative techniques are found suitable for making subtle, nuanced analyses as it considers behavior in the total negotiation context (Friedman 2005; Hopmann 2002; Pruitt 2005). As a research domain expands, there is a growing need for a comprehensive assessment of the methods and techniques employed (Scandura and Williams 2000). ...
This study provides insight into the dominant methodological practices that have shaped the field of negotiation over the past four decades, and sheds light on possible gaps and trade-offs. We content analyzed 941 peer reviewed negotiation articles (published between 1965-2004) for methodology. We distinguished key issues in negotiation research and identified methodological trends over time (1965-2004). The results reveal significant changes in reliability, validity and triangulation issues. In addition, the rise of multivariate statistics and multiple data-sources displays a positive evolution towards more sophisticated methodologies. However, more attention is needed to address the enduring lack of longitudinal designs and qualitative techniques in negotiation research.
The open negotiation procedure seeks to direct the parties towards viable agreements, based on the transparency of the information. In order to test this hypothesis, a laboratory test was carried out, in which a group of respondents was subjected to two scenarios, one that served as control and the other on which variables of experimental interest operated. The results of the investigation were conclusive regarding the application of a predictive model in the negotiation processes, whose theorem is as follows: the parties will reach an agreement only after having reached the point of convergence of their opportunity costs. In addition, a counter-factual axiom of the open negotiation was found: the negotiation processes in which the parties do not provide relevant and relevant information, regarding their situation and expectations, or speculate with it, do not become viable, beneficial or sustainable. According to this new paradigm, it is more profitable to inform, rather than suppose, to hide or speculate.
This article examines the bases of social power, namely individual information power, expert power, legitimate power, and referent power on successful international business negotiations (IBNs). The author conducted an online survey among international business executives working in the UK for multinational corporation subsidiaries who were asked to report on the success of their most recent negotiating experience in terms of cooperative (integrative) and competitive (distributive) outcomes. Information power, expert power, and referent power were supported by these results in terms of significance. Unexpectedly, however, information power was positively correlated with integrative or cooperative outcomes and processes. The correlation related to legitimate power was negative but not statistically significant so this hypothesis was not supported. Our results not only contribute to international negotiation theory, but also can assist in the selection and training of practitioners. The academic contribution of this study also relates to model exploration. It brings causal statistical objectivity to qualitatively developed concepts as an essential step in development of knowledge. These theoretical and managerial implications of the study are examined. Furthermore, directions for future research that build on the findings of the study are indicated.
The purpose of this review essay is to examine the use of experimental methods and its contributions to international studies research. Following a general discussion of the experimental approach, including the advantages and disadvantages of experimentation in International Relations (IR), this review moves to a categorized discussion of the ways in which experimental methods have contributed to the field of international studies. By invoking economist Alvin Roth’s three purposes of experiments—searching for facts, speaking to theorists, and influencing policy debates—this classification scheme helps to identify the overarching purposes of a wide variety of experiments in the field. However, this review seeks to move beyond merely presenting a basic review of the copious experimental literature by also providing an analytical assessment of the function that experimentation serves in IR; that is, to identify and elaborate on experimental research that serves an integrative function, as a bridge across the multiple divides in the landscape of IR. To this end, we introduce a second and original classification framework that allows us to profile in detail a number of singularly significant experimental studies. We then conclude the analysis by highlighting a set of “growth areas” for experimental research that can maintain and expand the already significant contributions of experimental methods to our field.
This article celebrates the achievements made by the community of negotiation researchers. Looking back on what has been accomplished, the article addresses three questions: How have we thought about negotiation? How have we studied it? And what have we discovered through conducting research? Of particular interest are counterintuitive findings about processes at the negotiating table, around the table, and away from the table. Building on these contributions, the article looks forward by asking: What are some avenues for further research? The article concludes optimistically by noting that there will be even more to celebrate at the journal's fiftieth anniversary.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.