Search

Purpose: This paper aims to critique the rationalist theoretical framework of international mediation, which ignores emotions in analyzing the decision by conflict parties to pursue a negotiated settlement or continue fighting, and to present an alternative framework that integrates emotions. Design/methodology/approach: The paper draws on psychology research on emotions and conflict to develop an emotionally informed framework for analyzing conflict parties' decision-making regarding a settlement. It demonstrates the framework's validity and value through a case study of the 2000 Camp David mediation to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Findings: A rationalist approach to mediation does not have adequate explanatory and predictive power theoretically. In practice, it can reduce the prospect of success. Research limitations/implications: The paper highlights the necessity for mediation researchers to study the effects of emotion, draw on psychology studies on conflict and explore the emotional implications of different mediation strategies and tactics. Practical implications: The framework highlights the challenge of designing and conducting mediation in a way that cultivates emotions favorable to a settlement and lessens emotions unfavorable to a settlement. Originality/value: This is the first study, to the best of the authors' knowledge, to critique the rationalist framework of international mediation studies and develop an alternative framework that integrates emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to add to the current knowledge about conflict management by examining the relationships between conflict type, conflict expression intensity and the use of the conflict management approach. Design/methodology/approach: The authors test theory-based hypotheses using a field study of new product development teams in an interdisciplinary Masters program (Study 1) and an experimental vignette study (Study 2). Findings: Results show that people are more likely to respond to task conflict and conflicts expressed with less intensity using collectivistic conflict management approaches (i.e. problem-solving, compromising and yielding), and to relationship conflicts and conflicts expressed with higher intensity through forcing, an individualistic conflict management approach. Information acquisition and negative emotions experienced by team members mediate these relationships. Practical implications: Knowing how the characteristics of the conflict (type and expression intensity) affect conflict management, managers can counteract the tendency to use dysfunctional, forcing conflict management approaches in response to high intensity conflicts, as well as to relationship conflicts and support the tendency to use collectivistic conflict management approaches in response to low intensity conflict, as well as task conflicts. Originality/value: The authors examine an alternative to the prevailing view that conflict management serves as a moderator of the relationship between conflict and team outcomes. The research shows that conflict type and intensity of conflict expression influence the conflict management approach as a result of the information and emotion they evoke. The authors open avenues for future research on the complex and intriguing relationships between conflict characteristics and the conflict management approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Drawing from the emotions as social information theory, this paper aims to investigate the differential effects of emotions in inter vs intracultural negotiations. Design/methodology/approach: The authors used one face-to-face negotiation and two experimental scenario studies to investigate the influence of emotions (anger vs happiness) and negotiation type (intercultural vs intracultural) on concession behavior. Findings: Across the three studies, the results consistently show that angry opponents from a different national culture obtain larger concessions from negotiators. A face-to-face negotiation shows that happy opponents from the same culture are able to obtain larger concessions from negotiators. Additionally, the negotiator's intentions to compromise and yield mediate the relationship between the interaction of emotions and counterpart's culture on concessions. Research limitations/implications: Two limitations are that the studies were conducted in a single country and that they use different types of role-playing designs. The empirical implications provide evidence of the moderating effect of the counterpart's culture on the effect of anger on concessions. Then, providing two different mechanisms for concessions. Practical implications: The research helps global negotiators who face counterparts from different nationalities. It suggests that these negotiators should be mindful of their counterpart's emotions in intercultural negotiation as anger seems to generate more concessions in this setting. Originality/value: The article is among the first studies to show that the combination of the counterpart's culture and emotions has an effect on concessions in negotiation. Compromising and yielding are mediating mechanisms for this moderated effect. As opposed to previous studies that use one type of research design, the research combines face-to-face and scenario methodologies to test the predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]