Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology
- Apply for Authority
- P-ISSN1229-0653
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-0653
Article Contents
- 2024 (Vol.38)
- 2023 (Vol.37)
- 2022 (Vol.36)
- 2021 (Vol.35)
- 2020 (Vol.34)
- 2019 (Vol.33)
- 2018 (Vol.32)
- 2017 (Vol.31)
- 2016 (Vol.30)
- 2015 (Vol.29)
- 2014 (Vol.28)
- 2013 (Vol.27)
- 2012 (Vol.26)
- 2011 (Vol.25)
- 2010 (Vol.24)
- 2009 (Vol.23)
- 2008 (Vol.22)
- 2007 (Vol.21)
- 2006 (Vol.20)
- 2005 (Vol.19)
- 2004 (Vol.18)
- 2003 (Vol.17)
- 2002 (Vol.16)
- 2001 (Vol.15)
- 2000 (Vol.14)
- 1999 (Vol.13)
- 1998 (Vol.12)
- 1997 (Vol.11)
- 1996 (Vol.10)
- 1995 (Vol.9)
- 1994 (Vol.8)
- 1993 (Vol.7)
- 1992 (Vol.6)
- 1991 (Vol.6)
- 1990 (Vol.5)
- 1989 (Vol.4)
- 1988 (Vol.4)
- 1987 (Vol.3)
- 1986 (Vol.3)
- 1985 (Vol.2)
- 1984 (Vol.2)
- 1983 (Vol.1)
- 1982 (Vol.1)
Experimental Research of Multilateral Negotiation with Game Theory
- Downloaded
- Viewed
Abstract
In this study, the method was sought that all the parties of the multilateral negotiation in interest conflict can win together without anyone to take advantage or handicap. The method that used very well in the negotiations is logrolling method that every party in negotiation sticks their most important issues and concedes the less important one to the another party. This method works best, because it gives better outcomes than general bargaining, and is known as a very superior method, is widely used in the actual negotiation also. However, logrolling was being invested and used quite in bilateral relations, but whether it can be applied to multilateral negotiations has not been studied well yet, except for some works (e.g. Binder, 2005, Binder & Diehl,2008). In this study was complemented Binders research and examined the issues through experimental research on the multilateral negotiations and invested under what conditions it can be conduce to optimal resolution. Results of three rounds of the studies of the experiment are as follows:1. Difficulties of multilateral negotiation grows with the increase the number of parties to negotiate and the increasing complexity of the conflict structure, the negotiation results are also suboptimal. 2. The more important than the number of negotiators matters is the complexity of the interest structure. While the main point of logrolling, to yield less important interest to win the more important interest, is relatively easy to understand and also actually well used, the reverse logrolling methods, to yield the most important interest for the benefits of all parties is difficult to understand, not acceptable, and difficult to practice. Information change and accountability for the negotiation’s success enhance the negotiation behavior, but not optimal. 3. It has been tried to reach the optimal results by the ingroup-leader and the mediation by third person. Mediator ist more effective than ingroup-leader of negotiators. Therefore, for the enhancing of the use of reverse logrolling methods it is necessary a variety of ways to try.
- keywords
- multilateral negotiation, conflicts of interest, cooperation, mediation, decision making in groups, 다자협상, 게임이론, 집단의 의사결정, 경쟁과 협조
Reference
김지경 (2006). 신뢰와 사회적 가치지향이 사회적 딜레마 상황에서 협동행동에 주는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 20(3), 31-44.
남기덕 (1994). 동맹 협상에서 상황 맥락이 동맹 결과에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구: 비교문화적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회심리학, 8(2), 70-84.
남기덕 (2000). 자원 딜레마에서 상황 조건, 성격 특성및 협동 행동간의 관계에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 14(3), 21-36.
남기덕 (2003). 자원 딜레마에서 성격 특성과 협동 행동간의 유관성이 표출되는 상황 조건 및 그 성격특성의 탐색에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회및 성격, 17(1), 69-86.
심준섭, 허식, 이한영, 손병권 (2008). 협상의 이해. 박영사.
이달곤 (2005, 3rd). 협상론. 법문사.
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A. (2004).The Death and Rebirth of the Social Psychologyof Negotiation, In: M. B. Brewer & M.Hewstone, Applied Social Psycholgy, Blackwell Publishing, 268-300.
Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 51, 279-314.
Binder, J. (2005). Konflikt managment in multilateralen Verhandlungen. Dissertation. Universit aet Tuebingen.
Binder, J. & Diehl, M. (2008). Entscheidungsregeln inmultilateralen Konflikten, Research Report,Deutsche Stiftung Friedensforschung, Osnabrueck.
Buchanan, J. M. & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculusof Consent: Logical Foundations ofConstitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.
Carnevale, P. J. & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiationand mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,511-582.
De Dreu, C. K. & Van Lange, P. A. (1995). Theimpact of social value orientations on negotiatorcognition and behavior. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 21, 1178-1188.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and competition. InM. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Hrsg.), Thehandbook of conflict resolution. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Druckman, D. & Zechmeister, K. (1973). Conflict ofinterest and value dissensus: Propositions in thesociology of conflict. Human Relations, 26, 449-466.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Towards a social-psychologicalmodel of intergroup conflict. In K. Larsen(Hrsg.), Conflict and Social Psychology. London:Sage.
Fisher, R. J. (2000). Intergroup conflict. In M.Deutsch & P. Coleman (Hrsg.), The handbook ofconflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gamson, W. A. (1964). Experimental studies ofcoalition formation. Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 1, 81-110.
Giebels, E., De Dreu, C. K. W. & van de Vliert, E.(2003). No way out or swallow the bait of two-sided exit options in negotiation: Theinfluences of social motives and interpersonaltrust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,6, 369-386.
Gillespie, J. J., Brett, J. M. & Weingart, L. R. (2000).Interdependence, social motives, and outcomesatisfaction in multiparty negotiation. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 30, 779-797.
Hocker, J. L. & Wilmot, W. W.(1991), InterperonalConflict. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
Kelley, H. H. (1966). A classroom study of thedilemmas in interpersonal negotiations. In K.Archibald (Hrsg.), Strategic interaction andconflict. Berkely: Institute of InternationalStudies.
Kelley, H. H. and Thibaut, J. (1978) Interpersonalrelations: A theory of interdependence, NewYork: Wiley
Komorita, S. S. (1984). Coalition bargaining.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18,183-245.
Kressel, K. & Pruitt, D. G. (1989). Conclusion: AResearch Perspective on the Mediation of SocialConflict. In K. Kressel & D. Pruitt (Hrsg.),Mediation Research: The Process andEffectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawyer, John(1994), Negotiation: Theory andPractice. Henneberry Hill Consultants, Inc.
Lewicki, R., J., Liatterer, J. A., Minton, J. W.,Saunders, D. W. (1999). Negotiation, Burr Ridge,IL: Irwin.
Messick, D. M. & McClintock, C. G. (1968).Motivational basis of choice in experimentalgames. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 4, 1-25.
Neale, M. A. & Bazerman, M. H. (1992). Negotiatorcognition and rationality: A behavioral decisionmaking theory perspective. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision MakingProcesses, 51, 157-175.
Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory ofgames and economic behavior. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
Polzer, J. T., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (1998).Interest Alignment and Coalition in MultipartyNegotiation, Academy of Management Journal,41(1). 42-54.
Pruitt, D. G., Carnevale, P. J., Forcey, B. & VanSlyck, M. (1986). Gender effects in negotiation:Constituent surveillance and contentious behavior,Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,264-275.
Pruitt, D. G. & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development ofintegrative solutions in bilateral negotiation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,31, 621-633.
Pruitt, D. & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict:Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York:Random House.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation.Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Rapoport, A. & Chammah, A. M. (1965). Prisoner’sdilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Rubin, J. Z. & Brown, B. (1975). The socialpsychology of bargaining and negotiation. NewYork: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996).Interdependence processes. In E. Higgins & A.Kruglanski (Hrsg.), Social Psychology: Handbookof basic principles. New York: The GuilfordPress.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature andCauses of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, II.London: Strahn and Cadell.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountabilityon judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. Zanna (ed.). Advancesin experimental social psychology, 25, AcademicPress, 331-376.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglectedsocial context of judgment and choice. In L.Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior: Judgment processes, 7,JAI Press, 297-332.
Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior andoutcomes: Empirical evidence and theoreticalissues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-532.
Thompson, L. L., Mannix, E. A. & Bazerman, M. H.(1988). Group negotiation: Effects of decisionrule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 86-95.
Van Beest, I., & Van Dijk, E. (2007). Self-interestand fairness in coalition formation: A socialutility approach to understanding partnerselection and payoff allocations in groups.European Review of Social Psychology, 18,132-174.
Walters, E., Stuhlmacher, F., Meyer, L. (1998).Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 76, 1-29.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations