skip navigation
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Login | Subscribe/Register | Manage Account | Shopping Cartshopping cart icon | Help | Contact Us | Home     
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
  Advanced Search
Search Help
     
| | | | |
place holder
Administered by the Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Criminal Justice Reference Service Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Topics
A-Z Topics
Corrections
Courts
Crime
Crime Prevention
Drugs
Justice System
Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement
Victims
Left Nav Bottom Line
Home / NCJRS Abstract

Publications
 

NCJRS Abstract


The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 110834  
Title: Group Negotiation: Effects of Decision Rule, Agenda, and Aspiration
Author(s): L L Thompson ; E A Mannix ; M H Bazerman
Corporate Author: Northwestern University
J L Kellogg Graduate School of Management
Dispute Resolution Research Ctr
United States
Publication Date: 1987
Pages: 40
Type: Applied research
Origin: United States
Language: English
Note: Working Paper No. 9
Annotation: Small group negotiation is characterized as a mixed motive task involving both cooperation and competition.
Abstract: This study examines the impact of two group decisionmaking processes (majority rule and agenda) and one cognitive-motivational frame (aspiration level) on the quality of negotiated outcomes in small groups. Negotiation groups using a unanimous decision rule were more likely to integrate interests to achieve higher group outcomes than were groups using a majority rule. Negotiation groups following an explicit agenda and using a majority decision rule distributed resources more unequally and were more likely to form coalitions against a remaining party than were groups with no agenda/majority rule, explicit agenda/unanimity rule, and no agenda/unanimity rule. There was no support for the hypothesis that group members who held high aspirations and followed a majority decision rule would distribute resources more unequally than groups with high aspirations/unanimity rule, low aspirations/majority rule, and low aspirations/unanimity rule. Also not supported was the fact that adherence to explicit agendas would lead to lower group profits and the absence of high aspirations would lead to lower group profit. The results are discussed in terms of a mixed motive analysis of group decisionmaking. The implications of methods designed to increase the effectiveness of small group decisionmaking are examined. 4 tables, 8 footnotes, and about 70 references. (Author abstract modified)
Main Term(s): Negotiation
Index Term(s): Arbitration ; Arbitrators
 
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=110834

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.


Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | USA.gov

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Office of National Drug Control Policy

place holder