Communication, Negotiation and Bargaining Between Participants

  • K. J. Radford


The interactions that are the major part of the process of resolution of a complex decision situation are primarily a process of negotiation and bargaining between the participants. The negotiations between the participants may be explicit and direct as in the case where they meet with the express purpose of resolving the issue. In other cases, the communication may be less direct such as when a participant issues a statement for general consumption or when the negotiations are conducted through an agent not directly involved in the decision situation. Each participant enters into an interaction with a set of perceptions of each of the other participants, of the possible final outcomes and of the participants’ preferences between them.1 These perceptions may have been built up over a period of time by observing the behaviour of the others involved, by studying their writings or verbal declarations or possibly by previous direct communication between participants. The perceptions of any participant at any time are usually neither complete nor certain.


Decision Situation Structural Move Tactical Decision Threatened Action Pure Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kriesberg, Louis, The Sociology of Social Conflicts, Prentice Hall, 1973, pp. 28–34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Snyder, G.H., “Crisis Bargaining”, in International Crises, C.F. Herman (ed) The Free Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schelling, T.C., The Strategy of Conflict, Oxford University Press, paperback edition, 1963, pp. 24–28.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neuthen. F. Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare, Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1930, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walton, R.E., and R. B. McKersie, A Behavioral Theory of Labour Negotiations, McGraw Hill 1965, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snyder, G.H., op cit., pp. 239–231.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schelling, T.C., op cit., p. 26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid, pp. 187–203.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Snyder, G.H., op cit., p. 234.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richardson, J.L., Germany and the Atlantic Alliance, Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 252–254.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher, R., International Conflict for Beginners, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 40.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lieberman, J.E., “Threat and Assurance in the Conduct of Con flict”, in International Conflict and Behavioral Science, R. Fisher (ed), Basic Books, 1964, pp. 110–122.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vickers, G., “The Management of Conflict”, Futures, Vol. 4, pp. 126–141.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lieberman, J.E., op cit., pp. 119–122.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schelling, T.C., op cit., pp. 77–80.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    White, R.K., “Nobody Wanted War”, Doubleday, 1968, p. 6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shlaim, A., “Failures In National Intelligence Estimates: The Case of the Yom Kippur War”, World Politics, Vol. 28, Apr., 1986, p. 373.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shubik, M. Games For Society, Business & War, Elseview Scientific Publishing Company, 1975, pp. 203–243.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Radford, K.J., “Simulating Involvement in Complex Decision Situations”, Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 12(2), 1984, pp. 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisher, R., op cit., p. 15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snyder, G.H., op cit., pp. 247–248 and 252.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisher, R., op cit., p. 149.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher, R., “Fractionating Conflict”, in International Conflict and Behavioral Science, R. Fisher(ed) Basic Books, 1964, pp. 91–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The author 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. J. Radford

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations