1932

Abstract

This review article examines the literature regarding the role played by principles of justice in negotiation. Laboratory experiments and high-stakes negotiations reveal that justice is a complex concept, both in relation to attaining just outcomes and to establishing just processes. We focus on how justice preferences guide the process and outcome of negotiated exchanges. Focusing primarily on the two types of principles that have received the most attention, distributive justice (outcomes of negotiation) and procedural justice (process of negotiation), we introduce the topic by reviewing the most relevant experimental and field or archival research on the roles played by these justice principles in negotiation. A discussion of the methods used in these studies precedes a review organized in terms of a framework that highlights the concept of negotiating stages. We also develop hypotheses based on the existing literature to point the way forward for further research on this topic.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033308
2016-01-04
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/67/1/annurev-psych-122414-033308.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033308&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adams JS. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67:422–36 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 62:335–43 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albin C, Druckman D. 2012. Equality matters: negotiating an end to civil wars. J. Confl. Resolut. 56:155–82 [Google Scholar]
  4. Albin C, Druckman D. 2014a. Procedures matter: justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 20:1014–42 [Google Scholar]
  5. Albin C, Druckman D. 2014b. Bargaining over weapons: justice and effectiveness in arms control negotiations. Int. Negot. 19:426–58 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett-Howard E, Tyler TR. 1986. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:296–304 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartoli A. 1999. Mediating peace in Mozambique. Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World CA Crocker, FO Hampson, P Aall 245–74 Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazerman M, Curhan JR, Moore DA, Valley KL. 2000. Negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:279–314 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bercovitch J, Diehl PF. 1997. Conflict management of enduring rivalries: frequency, timing, and short-term impact of mediation. Int. Interact. 22:299–320 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bremer B, Hammond KR. 1977. Cognitive factors in interpersonal conflict. Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives D Druckman 70–103 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  11. Brickman P. 1975. Adaptation level determinants of satisfaction with equal and unequal outcomes in skill and chance situations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 32:191–98 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brockner J, Tyler TR, Cooper-Schneider R. 1992. The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:241–61 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brockner J, Wiesenfeld BM. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychol. Bull. 120:189–208 [Google Scholar]
  14. Burton JW. 1986. The history of international conflict resolution. International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice EE Azar, JW Burton 40–55 Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publ. [Google Scholar]
  15. Casper JD, Tyler TR, Fisher B. 1988. Procedural justice in felony cases. Law Soc. Rev. 22:483–507 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chebat J-C, Slusarczyk W. 2005. How emotions mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study. J. Bus. Res. 58:664–73 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohn ES, White SO, Sanders J. 2000. Distributive and procedural justice in seven nations. Law Hum. Behav. 24:553–79 [Google Scholar]
  18. Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:386–400 [Google Scholar]
  19. Conlon DE. 2012. Introduction to the special issue on justice, conflict, and negotiation. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 5:1–3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Conlon DE, Carnevale P, Ross WH. 1994. The influence of third-party power and suggestions on negotiation: the surface value of a compromise. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:1084–113 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cook KS. 1975. Expectations, evaluations, and equity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 40:372–88 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cook KS, Hegtvedt KA. 1983. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9:217–41 [Google Scholar]
  23. Deutsch M. 1985. Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Donohue WA, Hobbler GD. 2002. Relational frames and their ethical implications in international negotiation: an analysis based on the Oslo II negotiations. Int. Negot. 7:143–67 [Google Scholar]
  25. Druckman D. 1994. Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: a meta-analysis. J. Confl. Resolut. 38:507–56 [Google Scholar]
  26. Druckman D. 2005. Doing Research. Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  27. Druckman D. 2006. Uses of a marathon exercise. The Negotiator's Fieldbook: The Desk Reference for the Experienced Negotiator AK Schneider, C Honeyman 645–56 Washington, DC: Am. Bar Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  28. Druckman D, Albin C. 2011. Distributive justice and the durability of peace agreements. Rev. Int. Stud. 37:1137–68 [Google Scholar]
  29. Druckman D, Olekalns M. 2013. Motivational primes, trust, and negotiator's reaction to a crisis. J. Confl. Resolut. 57:966–90 [Google Scholar]
  30. Folger R, Konovsky MA. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 32:115–30 [Google Scholar]
  31. Garrett J, Libby WL. 1973. Intention and chance reward allocations in the dyad as determinants of equity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 28:21–27 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gelfand MJ, Smith V, Raver J, Nishii L, O'Brien K. 2006. Negotiating relationally: the dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:427–45 [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldman B, Pearsall M, Shapiro D. 2013. When is mediating employee grievances chosen versus rejected as a dispute-resolution procedure: an anticipatory justice perspective. Presented at Int. Assoc. Confl. Manag., 26th, Takoma, WA
  34. Harmon D, Kim P. 2013. Trust repair via distributive justice rationales: the contingent implications of equity, equality, and need. Presented at Int. Assoc. Confl. Manag., 26th, Takoma, WA
  35. Hauenstein NMA, Mcgonigle T, Flinder SW. 2001. A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: implications for justice research. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 13:39–56 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hirschman AO. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Hollander-Blumoff R, Tyler TR. 2008. Procedural justice in negotiation: procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law Soc. Inq. 33:473–500 [Google Scholar]
  38. Holtz BC. 2013. Trust primacy: a model of the reciprocal relations between trust and perceived justice. J. Manag. 39:1891–923 [Google Scholar]
  39. Homans GC. 1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms New York: Harcourt, Brace & World [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopmann PT. 1995. Two paradigms of negotiation: bargaining and problem solving. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 542:24–47 [Google Scholar]
  41. Irmer C, Druckman D. 2009. Explaining negotiation outcomes: process or context?. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 2:209–35 [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 2012. Restorative justice in the classroom: necessary roles of cooperative context, constructive conflict, and civic values. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 5:4–28 [Google Scholar]
  43. Joy VL, Witt LA. 1992. Delay of gratification as a moderator of the procedural justice-distributive justice relationship. Group Org. Manag. 17:297–308 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kabanoff B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16:416–41 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kapstein EB. 2008. Fairness considerations in world politics: lessons from international trade negotiations. Polit. Sci. Q. 123:229–45 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kelman HC. 2006. Interests, relationships, identities: three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:1–26 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kramer RM, Newton E, Pomeranke PL. 1993. Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: effects of self-esteem and mood. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 56:110–33 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lerner MJ. 1974. The justice motive: “equity” and “parity” among children. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 29:539–50 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lerner MJ. 1980. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
  50. Leventhal GS, Weiss T, Long G. 1969. Equity, reciprocity and reallocating rewards in the dyad. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 13:4300–5 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lilja J. 2012. Trust and treason: social network structure as a source of flexibility in peace negotiations. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 5:96–125 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lind EA, Kanfer R, Earley PC. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59:952–59 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
  54. Machura S. 2003. Fairness, justice, and legitimacy: experiences of people's judges in South Russia. Law Policy 25:123–50 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mikula G. 1980. Justice and Social Interaction New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  56. Mikula G, Schwinger T. 1973. Liking towards one's partner and need for social approval as determinants of allocations of group rewards. Psychol. Beiträge 15:396–407 [Google Scholar]
  57. Mikula G, Wenzel M. 2000. Justice and social conflict. Int. J. Psychol. 35:2126–35 [Google Scholar]
  58. Miller DT. 2001. Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:527–53 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mittone L, Ploner M. 2012. Asset legitimacy and distributive justice in the dictator game: an experimental analysis. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25:2135–42 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mulder M. 1977. The Daily Power Game Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff [Google Scholar]
  61. Müller H. 2013. Conclusion: agency is central. Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice H Müller, C Wunderlich 337–65 Athens: Univ. GA Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Neu J. 2012. Pursuing justice in the midst of war: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 5:72–95 [Google Scholar]
  63. Peterson RS. 1999. Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25:3313–24 [Google Scholar]
  64. Piaget J. 1948. The Moral Development of the Child Glencoe, IL: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
  66. Pruitt DG, Peirce RS, McGillicuddy NB, Welton GL, Castrianno LM. 1993. Long-term success in mediation. Law Hum. Behav. 17:313–30 [Google Scholar]
  67. Pruitt DG, Peirce RS, Zubek JM, Welton GL, Nochajski TH. 1990. Goal achievement, procedural justice, and the success of mediation. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 1:33–45 [Google Scholar]
  68. Quimpo NG. 2001. Options in the pursuit of a just, comprehensive, and stable peace in the Southern Philippines. Asian Surv. 41:2271–89 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rawls J. 1958. Justice as fairness. Philos. Rev. 67:2164–94 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosoux V. 2013. Is reconciliation negotiable?. Int. Negot. 18:471–93 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rouhana NN. 2000. Interactive conflict resolution: issues in theory, methodology, and evaluation. International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War PC Stern, D Druckman 294–337 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  72. Schuller RA, Hastings PA. 1996. What do disputants want? Preferences for third party resolution procedures. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 28:130–40 [Google Scholar]
  73. Solomon D, Druckman D. 1972. Age, representatives' prior performance, and the distribution of winnings with teammates. Hum. Dev. 15:2244–52 [Google Scholar]
  74. Spector BI, Zartman IW. 2003. Getting It Done: Postagreement Negotiation and International Regimes Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace [Google Scholar]
  75. Stedman SJ. 2000. Spoiler problems in peace processes. International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War PC Stern, D Druckman 178–224 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  76. Sugawara I, Huo YJ. 1994. Disputes in Japan: a cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model. Soc. Just. Res. 7:129–44 [Google Scholar]
  77. Swaab R, Postmes T, Neijens P, Keirs MH, Dumay ACM. 2002. Multi-party negotiation support: the role of visualization's influence on the development of shared mental models. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 19:1129–50 [Google Scholar]
  78. Swaab R, Postmes T, van Beest I, Spears R. 2007. Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:187–99 [Google Scholar]
  79. Thibaut J. 1968. The development of contractual norms in bargaining: replication and variation. J. Confl. Resolut. 12:102–12 [Google Scholar]
  80. Thompson LL, Wang J, Gunia BC. 2010. Negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61:491–515 [Google Scholar]
  81. Törnblom KY. 1977. Magnitude and source of compensation in two situations of distributive injustice. Acta Sociol. 20:75–95 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tyler TR. 1987. Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: a test of four models. J Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52:333–44 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tyler TR. 1988. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc. Rev. 22:301–55 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tyler TR. 1994. Governing amid diversity: the effect of fair decision-making procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law Soc. Rev. 28:809–31 [Google Scholar]
  85. Tyler TR. 2000. Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int. J. Psychol. 35:2117–25 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tyler TR. 2005. Procedural Justice, vols. I and II Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publ. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tyler TR, Blader SL. 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7:349–61 [Google Scholar]
  88. Tyler TR, McGraw KM. 1986. Ideology and the interpretation of personal experience: procedural justice and political quiescence. J. Soc. Issues 42:115–28 [Google Scholar]
  89. van den Bos K, Vermunt R, Wilke HAM. 1997. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:195–104 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wagner L, Druckman D. 2012. The role of justice in historical negotiations. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 5:49–71 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wagner L, Druckman D. 2015. Drivers of peace: the role of justice in negotiating civil war termination. Presented at Intl. Stud. Assoc. Conf., 56th, New Orleans
  92. Wagner LM. 2008. Problem-Solving and Bargaining in International Negotiations Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publ. [Google Scholar]
  93. Walster E, Walster GW, Berscheid E. 1978. Equity: Theory and Research Boston: Allyn & Bacon [Google Scholar]
  94. Wemmers JA, van der Leeden R, Steensma H. 1995. What is procedural justice: criteria used by Dutch victims to assess the fairness of criminal justice procedures. Soc. Justice Res. 8:329–50 [Google Scholar]
  95. Zartman IW, Druckman D, Jensen L, Pruitt DG, Young HP. 1996. Negotiation as a search for justice. Int. Negot. 1:79–98 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033308
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033308
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error