The Deutsch And Krauss Interpersonal Bargaining Experiment

1. The researcher in this experiment was psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The study took place at Yale University in the year 1963. The researcher’s hypothesis was that if there is a demanding authoritive figure, then the other person will obey that authoritive figure just because of their position, even if it violates their morality and their ethical beliefs. He based this of his theory that people who would never hurt someone purposely, would if told to do so by a figure of authority.

“Instead of approaching the problem in a competitive as distributive bargaining (claiming value only for one), the integrative negotiation the parties adopt an attitude aimed at solving the problem and seek a favorable outcome for both” (Business Blog Review, 2011).

The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on

The negotiations class was an insightful experience. It helped me attain a better understanding of my strengths and weaknesses both personally and professionally. It helped put into perspective a lot of my theoretical analysis conducted on group dynamics and, most importantly, has helped me become a more effective negotiator. My goal with this paper is to communicate the evolution of my negotiation skills during the progression of the course.

A skilled negotiator spends enough amount of time in preparation and planning. In the preparation and planning of this negotiation I gathered all the positive points to my advantage and planned how to put them in a sequence so that my opponent could

In Solomon E. Asch’s social pressure experiment, subjects were shown a line on a piece of paper and instructed to choose a line of the same length on a different piece of paper with two other lines of varying lengths. All but one of the subjects in each experiment group were instructed to choose the wrong answer on purpose, unbeknownst to the last member. The last member of the group, who did not know

These examples are rather obvious once stated, and the people predicting the scenario will usually admit the importance of such factors (Ross and Nisbett 575).

Milgram wanted to know if the solders that were involved in the tragic Holocaust willingly were a part of slaughtering more than six million people in the concentration camps. Were the solders psychopaths, or were they just doing as they were told? Werhane also informed that the experiment took place at Yale University in 1960 that consisted of three participants, one was said to be the teacher, the second was the experimenter, and the third was the learner. Although it appeared to the teacher that the roles were assigned by drawing lots, the roles were pre-determined. The teacher was told that the experiment was to help understand the effect of punishment on

When two people take opposite sides on any particular issue in a dispute, they both often refuse to budge from their divergent viewpoints. Most likely outcome is a stalemate. If a solution is found then both will win. Negotiation interests largely relate to basic human needs. They are powerful influences in our decision making processes. Interests not only include those tangible desires which correspond to the specific problem at hand such as increasing sales or productivity. They also link to our more basic human emotions that are less obvious to the participants (Negotiations).

Consequently, negotiation is a process that can be approached in many ways. No matter what strategy we choose, success lies in how well we prepared. The key to negotiating a beneficial outcome is the negotiators’ ability to consider all the elements of the situation carefully and to identify and think through the options. At the same time, negotiators must be able to keep events in perspective and be as fair and honest as circumstance allows. Because a common ground or interest has brought the parties to the negotiating table, a negotiator can benefit by trying to capitalize on this common

Simply put resting at a conclusion after a negotiation may not necessarily be the ideal outcome unless cooperative is achieved by both parties. Bargaining in general could involve parents, friends, teachers, spouses, employers, and so on (Anderson, 2013). Likewise companies also negotiation contracts with one another or individuals involved within the companies.

Both our approaches were directed towards addressing the issues with a collaborative spirit for the greatest benefit to both sides. We agreed that both sides wanted to establish a long term a relationship with each other and were willing to give genuine consideration to each other’s particular needs and interests. This experience has enabled me to reflect on my personal approach towards negotiation, as well as analyze my strengths and potential areas for improvement as a negotiator.

The Face-Negotiation theory suggests there are three goals that any conflict will revolve around; content, relational and identity, or rather, needs, interests or goals. Based on M. Afzalur Rahim’s work, Dr. Ting-Toomey and later John Oetzel, identified eight distinct responses to conflicting situations based on an incompatibility (Griffin

An effective negotiator is a strategic negotiator, who is able to switch back and forth between different phases of a negotiation without losing the goal in mind. An effective negotiator takes time to process what is happening during the negotiation and ensures that the right problem is being resolved while taking into consideration other party’s intrests to finding a common ground. Concequently those type of actions facilitate in the process of a negotiation by creating a cooperative environment and enhance the furture relationship between the parties (Fells 2012; Sebenius 2001). An effective negotiator aknowledges that no party is the same and as every negotiation, every negotiator is different from one another. These variations explain the DNA of negotiation that requires an effective negotiator to take into considerations the strands of the DNA, such as “reciprocity, trust, power, information exchange, ethics, and outcome” that vary from person to person (Fells 2012, pg 8).

In today’s competitive scenario, achieving successful results through negotiations has become more important. But often negotiations face either complete failures or achieve far less than its actual potential. Also, such unsuccessful negotiations may perennially damage the reputation and relationships amongst the counterparties involved.