以权利为中心、以利益为中心的争论者:争论策略中的移情缺失

Brian C. Gunia, Erik G. Helzer
{"title":"以权利为中心、以利益为中心的争论者:争论策略中的移情缺失","authors":"Brian C. Gunia, Erik G. Helzer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2955269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decades of negotiation research suggest that deal-making negotiators and disputants achieve the best outcomes when they focus extensively on interests. However, research on whether and how they can actually do that is much more voluminous for deal-making negotiations than disputes. Integrating research on disputes and empathy gaps, we examine that possibility that disputants (naturally in a “hot state”) may have a distinctly hard time implementing their “cold state” intentions to focus on interests. After validating the importance of an interests focus in disputes, our second study documents the difficulty of implementing interest-focused intentions in disputes. Finally, we describe a third, planned study examining an intervention to help disputants implement their interest-focused intentions. These studies highlight a potential disconnect between disputants’ intentions and behavior, suggesting that disputing research may benefit from a new and unique set of theoretical assumptions.","PeriodicalId":127641,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances (Topic)","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rights-Focused, Interests-Focused Disputant: Empathy Gaps in Disputing Strategy\",\"authors\":\"Brian C. Gunia, Erik G. Helzer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2955269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Decades of negotiation research suggest that deal-making negotiators and disputants achieve the best outcomes when they focus extensively on interests. However, research on whether and how they can actually do that is much more voluminous for deal-making negotiations than disputes. Integrating research on disputes and empathy gaps, we examine that possibility that disputants (naturally in a “hot state”) may have a distinctly hard time implementing their “cold state” intentions to focus on interests. After validating the importance of an interests focus in disputes, our second study documents the difficulty of implementing interest-focused intentions in disputes. Finally, we describe a third, planned study examining an intervention to help disputants implement their interest-focused intentions. These studies highlight a potential disconnect between disputants’ intentions and behavior, suggesting that disputing research may benefit from a new and unique set of theoretical assumptions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2955269\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2955269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年的谈判研究表明,当达成协议的谈判者和争论者广泛关注利益时,他们会取得最好的结果。然而,关于他们是否以及如何真正做到这一点的研究,在交易谈判中要比在争端中多得多。整合对争议和同理心差距的研究,我们研究了争议者(自然处于“热状态”)可能在实施其“冷状态”意图以关注利益方面明显困难的可能性。在验证了利益焦点在争议中的重要性之后,我们的第二项研究记录了在争议中实施利益焦点意图的困难。最后,我们描述了第三项有计划的研究,该研究考察了一种干预措施,以帮助争议者实现以利益为中心的意图。这些研究强调了争论者的意图和行为之间的潜在脱节,表明争论研究可能受益于一套新的、独特的理论假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Rights-Focused, Interests-Focused Disputant: Empathy Gaps in Disputing Strategy
Decades of negotiation research suggest that deal-making negotiators and disputants achieve the best outcomes when they focus extensively on interests. However, research on whether and how they can actually do that is much more voluminous for deal-making negotiations than disputes. Integrating research on disputes and empathy gaps, we examine that possibility that disputants (naturally in a “hot state”) may have a distinctly hard time implementing their “cold state” intentions to focus on interests. After validating the importance of an interests focus in disputes, our second study documents the difficulty of implementing interest-focused intentions in disputes. Finally, we describe a third, planned study examining an intervention to help disputants implement their interest-focused intentions. These studies highlight a potential disconnect between disputants’ intentions and behavior, suggesting that disputing research may benefit from a new and unique set of theoretical assumptions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信