Abstract
Maslow’s law of the instrument describes the common phenomenon that once we discovere a way to solve a problem, we tend to use this solution over and over again regardless the specific situation at hand. Especially when the cognitive and emotional load is high, we are more likely to rely on available heuristics Considering that conflict situations are often cognitively and emotionally loaded, the disputants tend to use available heuristics, for instance the fixed pie assumption: the tendency to share divisible goods in a 50–50 manner without considering the underlying interests. As the mediator facilitates the process of conflict resolution, it is the task of the mediator to be aware of these tendencies and to make sure that parties do not fall prey to these heuristics, and instead make parties focus on the underlying interests. The present chapter selects, illustrates, and transforms psychological theories and empirical findings into applicable tools to furnish the psychological toolbox of practitioners in the field of mediation.
“If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”- Abraham Maslow (1966)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sample Items – Need for closure scale (Webster and Kruglanski 1994)
References
Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. (2014). Trusting others: The polarization effect of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 719–735.
Appelt, K. C., Zou, X., Arora, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Regulatory fit in negotiation: Effects of “prevention-buyer” and “promotion-seller” fit. Social Cognition, 27, 365–384.
Carnevale, P. J. (2008). Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 51–63.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 280–295.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 235–291.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J., Emans, B. J., & Van De Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S. L., & Oldersma, F. L. (1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giacomantonio, M., Shalvi, S., & Sligte, D. (2009). Getting stuck or stepping back: Effects of obstacles and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 542–548.
Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5, Serial No. 270).
Fisher, R., & William, L. (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Group.
Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087–1098.
Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Mannetti, L. (2010). Now you see it, now you don’t: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 761–774.
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd, & the ABC Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–34). New York: Oxford University Press.
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 329–358.
Henderson, M. D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7–15.
Henderson, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effects of abstraction on integrative agreements: When seeing the forest helps avoid getting tangled in the trees. Social Cognition, 27, 402–417.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econ Soc, 47, 263–291.
Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1235–1255.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. Y. (2009). Humor as a relationship-building tool in online negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 377–397.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 364–369.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523–534.
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459–470.
Nuttin, J. M. (1985). Narcissism beyond gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 353–361.
Orr, D., & Guthrie, C. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State J Disput Resolut, 21, 597–628.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., & Ledgerwood, A. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 525–548.
Sorrentino, R. M., Holmes, J. G., Hanna, S. E., & Sharp, A. (1995). Uncertainty orientation and trust in close relationships: Individual differences in cognitive styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 314–327.
Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Champagne, M. V. (2000). The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 471–491.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109–124.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2011). Construal level theory. Handb Theor Soc Psychol, 1, 118–134.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harnack, K. (2016). A Psychological Toolbox for Mediators: From Theory and Research to Best Practices. In: Bollen, K., Euwema, M., Munduate, L. (eds) Advancing Workplace Mediation Through Integration of Theory and Practice. Industrial Relations & Conflict Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42842-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42842-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42841-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42842-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)