Томас Лис - Психология переговоров. Как добиться большего
17
Huber V. L., Neale M. A. Effects of self and competitor goals on performance in an interdependent bargaining task // Journal of Applied Psychology. – 1987. – № 72(2). – P. 197; Huber V. L., Neale M. A. Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiator performance and subsequent goal setting // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1986. – № 38(3). – P. 342–365.
18
Pinkley R. L., Neale M. A., Bennett R. J. The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1994. – № 57(1). – P. 97–116.
19
Wiltermuth S. S., Neale M. A. Too much information: The perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations // Journal of Applied Psychology. – 2011. – № 96(1). – P. 192.
20
Galinsky A., Mussweiler T., Medvec, V. Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations in negotiation. The role of negotiator focus // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 2002. – № 83. – P. 1131–1140.
21
Pruitt D. G. Negotiation behavior (Vol. 47). – New York: Academic Press, 1981.
22
Tuncel E., Mislin A., Desebir S., Pinkley R. The Agreement Bias: Why Negotiators Prefer Bad Deals to No Deal at All // Working paper. – St. Louis, MO: Webster University, 2013.
23
Wiltermuth S., Tiedens L. Z., Neale M. A. Dominance complementarily in negotiations. Symposium presentation. – Academy of Management annual meeting, San Antonio, TX, 2011.
24
Messick D. M., McClintock C. G. Motivational bases of choice in experimental games // Journal of experimental social psychology. – 1968. – № 4(1). – P. 1–25.
25
Подробнее об этой стратегии создания ценности см. Bazerman M. H., Gillespie J. J. Betting on the future: The virtues of contingent contracts // Harvard Business Review. – 1999. – September – October.
26
Polzer Jeffrey T., Neale Margaret A. Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting within the context of negotiation // Human Performance. – 1995. – № 8. – P. 3–26.
27
Marks G., Miller N. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review // Psychological Bulletin. – 1987. – № 102(1). – P. 72.
28
Cao J., Phillips K. W. Team diversity and information acquisition: How homogeneous teams set themselves up to have less conflict // Working paper, Columbia Business School. – 2013.
29
Stuhlmacher A. F., Walters A. E. Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis // Personnel Psychology. – 1999. – 52(3). – P. 653–677; Bowles H. R., Babcock L., McGinn K. L. Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation // Journal of personality and social psychology. – 2005. – 89(6). – P. 951.
30
Morris M. W., Larrick R. P., Su S. K. Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: When situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 1999. – № 77(1). – P. 52.
31
Wilson T., Lisle D., Wetzel C. Preferences as expectations-driven inferences: Effects of affective expectations on affective experiences // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 1989. – № 56. – P. 519–530.
32
Lee L., Frederick S., Ariely D. Try it, You’ll like it // Psychological Science. – 2006. – № 17. – P. 1054–1058.
33
Tinsley C. H., O’Connor K. M., Sullivan B. A. Tough guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 2002. – № 88(2). – P. 621–642; Neale M. A., Fragale A. R. Social cognition, attribution, and perception in negotiation: The role of uncertainty in shaping negotiation processes and outcomes // Negotiation theory and research. – 2006. – P. 27–54.
34
Staw B. M., Sandelands L. E., Dutton J. E. Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis // Administrative science quarterly. – 1981. – P. 501–524; Ocasio W. The enactment of economic adversity – a reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity // Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews. – 1995. – Vol. 17. – P. 287–331.
35
Kruglanski A. W. The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition // Psychological Bulletin. – 1989. – № 106. – P. 395–409.
36
Kruglanski A. W., Webster D. M. Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing and freezing” // Psychological Review. – 1996. – № 103. – P. 263–283; Mayseless O., Kruglanski A. W. What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1987. – № 39. – P. 162–183; Webster D., Kruglanski A. W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 1994. – № 67. – P. 1049–1062.
37
De Dreu C. K. W. Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 2003. – № 91. – P. 280–295.
38
Dual-process theories in social psychology / Chaiken S., Trope Y. (Eds.). – New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
39
Lerner J. S., Tetlock P. E. Accounting for the effects of accountability // Psychological Bulletin. – 1999. – № 125. – P. 255–275; Tetlock P. E. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model // Advances in experimental social psychology / L. Berkowitz (Ed.). – New York: Academic Press, 1992. – Vol. 25. – P. 331–376.
40
Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion // Advances in experimental social psychology / L. Berkowitz (Ed.). – New York: Academic Press, 1986. – Vol. 19. – P. 123–205.
41
De Dreu C. K. W., Koole S., Steinel W. Unfixing the fixed-pie: A motivated information processing of integrative negotiation // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. – 2000. – № 79. – P. 975–987.
42
Но даже в такой экстремальной ситуации, как показывают исследования, диктаторы хотя бы отчасти принимают в расчет интересы своих «подчиненных». Подробнее см., например: Cason T. N., Mui V. L. Social influence in the sequential dictator game // Journal of Mathematical Psychology. – 1998. – № 42(2). – P. 248–265; Bolton G. E., Katok E., Zwick R. Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness // International Journal of Game Theory. – 1998. – № 27(2). – P. 269–299.
43
Güth W., Tietz R. Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results // Journal of Economic Psychology. – 1990. – № 11(3). – P. 417–449.
44
Henrich J. Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon // American Economic Review. – 2000. – P. 973–979; Oosterbeek H., Sloof R., Van De Kuile G. Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis // Experimental Economics. – 2004. – № 7(2). – P. 171–188.
45
Solnick S. J. Gender differences in the ultimatum game // Economic Inquiry. – 2001. – № 39(2). – P. 189–200.
46
Ball S. B., Bazerman M. H., Carroll J. S. An evaluation of learning in the bilateral winner’s curse // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1991. – № 48(1). – P. 1–22.
47
White S. B., Neale M. A. The role of negotiator aspirations and settlement expectancies in bargaining outcomes // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1994. – № 57(2). – P. 303–317.
48
Messick D. M., McClintock C. G. Motivational bases of choice in experimental games // Journal of experimental social psychology. – 1968. – № 4(1). – P. 1–25.
49
Miller N. G., Sklarz M. A. Pricing strategies and residential property selling prices // Journal of Real Estate Research. – 1987. – № 2(1). – P. 31–40.
50
Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment // Organizational behavior and human performance. – 1971. – № 6(6). – P. 649–744.
51
Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases // Science. – 1974. – № 185. – P. 1124–1131.
