Ross, L., & Stillinger, C. Barriers to Conflict Resolution, Negotiation
Journal, 1991, 8, 389-404.
Adversaries in negition seek "gains of trade". Each must
give up something that it values less than their adversary to obtain something
they value more than their adversary.
Conflicts differ in their "tractibility". Tractable conflicts
are "win-win" situations on "non-zero -sum" games.
Intractiable conflicts have no win-win alternatives. The arms race is an
example where it would have been mutually beneficial to reduce arms, but
the two parites could never agree. This represents an inefficiency in the
barganing process. While some may practice such inefficienties as a negotiating
strategy, this paper concerns the psychological barriers to negotiation.
Strategic Barriers
Secrecy and Deception
Parties may concel interest or feign over-interest in a particular bargaining
chip. However, sometimes this causes adversaries to not put forward that
which would offer the greatest mutual advantage.
Instransigence
Some adversaries may believe that unwillingness in current negotiations
may give them a better position in future negotiations. Maybe it is thought
better to "delay gratification" longer than the adversary. They
also may believe eagerness in negotiation may be exploited by the other
side. However, "standing pat" runs the risk that the other party
will do the same and nothing happens. It can actually cause the status
quo to deteriorate for both parties.
Psychological Barriers
Comparative Gains and Equity Considerations
A proposed change may be rejected out of a sense of "fairness".
Issues of comparative gains are also problematic.
Loss Aversion
Decision makers tend to attach greater weight to prospective losses then
prospective gains. This makes them reluctant to trade concessions.
Biases in the Construal Process
Parites may view the concessions they have to make in a way to maximize
their importance and value, and view the concessions they will receive as
less important or valuable. They will then not agree on the equity of the
concessions.
They proabably also have different construals of the causes for the conflict
as well, and the motives of each party. Each believe they were more grieved
in the past and is deserving of more concessions.
Reactive Devaluation of Compromises and Concessions
People also devalue proposals that were made by their adversary. This bias
may cause us to view gains as smaller and concessions as larger. People
also might devalue what is offered and value more what was not offered in
the negotiation. Big concessions may bolster more "hard bargaining".
Small concessions will be seen as trivial.
Dissonance about the past, Unrealistic Hopes about the future
It is dissonant to accept terms today that could have been accepted long
ago without the costs of delay. One to reduce this dissonance is to view
the past rejection in part because the deal was one-sided, so bigger concessions
need to be made by the other this time.
Complexities and added Dimensions
Multiple interest groups and agency problems
Political and Consituency Considerations
Politicians often have more to lose from a mistake in negotiating than to
gain from any breakthrough. Merely continuing negotiations shows dedication
and firmness of resolve, protecting one's interests.
Desire for Formal Adjudication and Vindication
Some want court vindication.
Broder Linkages to other conflicts
Problem of Enmity
They might feel that any gain by the adversary is a loss to themselves (and
vice versa).
Some Implications for Conflict Resolution
A concession made bilaterally will be seen better than one made unilaterally,
especially if it has been proposed by one's adversary. Offering the adversary
a menu of small concessions to start the negotiation process may work (with
a stipulation of reciprocation).
Managing Attributions
The use of deadlines can help remove attributions to negotiation destroying
factors (trust, etc.). The deadline also will use dissonance to its benefit
by forcing both sides to confront the realities of not making concessions.
The deadlines must be mutually agreed, however.
Role of Third Parties.
The drive to maintain the third partie's good will can make the adversaries
more reasonable. Both sides can been seen as "compromising" rather
than conceding. Mediators may help to create a more problem solving environment.
Awarness of Negotiation Process
Simple awareness of the barriers in negotiation can help reduce some of
the impact of them. Edcuation about social and psychological processes
involved in negotiation can help both sides better use the tool.
Finally, both sides must believe a resolution is possible for negotiation
to actually work.