Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- 25 ARGUMENT
- 26 Group Working Relationships Coding System
- 27 Micro-Conflict Coding Scheme
- 28 OFFER
- 29 VTCS
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
28 - OFFER
Behaviorally Coding Indirect and Direct Information Exchange in Negotiations
from Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- 25 ARGUMENT
- 26 Group Working Relationships Coding System
- 27 Micro-Conflict Coding Scheme
- 28 OFFER
- 29 VTCS
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 483 - 490Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Yao, J., Brett, J., & Zhang, Z. X. n.d. Multi-issue offers: A low-trust path to joint gains in negotiations. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management conference, Berlin, Germany, July 2017.Google Scholar
Yao, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Brett, J. (2017). Understanding trust development in negotiations: An interdependent approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 712–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organization Science, 16(1), 33–51. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: The United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371–385. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.371CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curhan, J., & Pentland, A., (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 802–811. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, C., Evers, A. Beersma, B., Klewer, E., Nauta, A. (2001). A theory based measure of conflict management in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645–668. doi:10.1002/job.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. (White paper). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. L. 2006. Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kong, D. T., Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and direction for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1235–1255. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 148–169. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01342.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M. Brett, J. M., & Weingart, L. R. 2004. Phases, transitions and interruptions: The processes that shape agreement in multi-party negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management: Special Issue on Processes in Negotiation, 14(3), 191–211. doi:10.1108/eb022898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2000). Understanding optimal outcomes: The role of strategy sequences in competitive negotiations. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 527–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00768.xGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, D., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Thompson, L. L., Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(1), 7–31. doi:10.1108/eb022839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by