International Journal of Conflict Management

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF SOCIALLY-INDUCED POSITIVE

AFFECT
Robert A. Baron Suzanne P. Fortin Richard L. Frei Laurie A. Hauver Melisa L. Shack

Article information:

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Robert A. Baron Suzanne P. Fortin Richard L. Frei Laurie A. Hauver Melisa L. Shack,
(1990),"REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF SOCIALLY-INDUCED POSITIVE
AFFECT", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1 Iss 2 pp. 133 - 152
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022677
Downloaded on: 19 June 2016, At: 20:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 349 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2002),"TOWARD A THEORY OF MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT", International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 206-235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022874
(2000),"MANAGING CONFLICT APPROPRIATELY AND EFFECTIVELY: AN APPLICATION OF THE
COMPETENCE MODEL TO RAHIM'S ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT STYLES", International Journal
of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 Iss 3 pp. 200-226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022840
(2001),"EMOTION IN CONFLICT FORMATION AND ITS TRANSFORMATION: APPLICATION TO
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol.
12 Iss 3 pp. 259-275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022858

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:486125 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The International Journal of Conflict Management

1990, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April), pp. 133-152

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT:

THE ROLE OF SOCIALLY-INDUCED
POSITIVE AFFECT*
Robert A. Baron
Suzanne P. Fortin
Richard L. Frei
Laurie A. Hauver
Melisa L. Shack
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Two studies were conducted to investigate the impact of sociallyinduced positive affect on organizational conflict. In Study I, male and
female subjects were provoked or not provoked, and then exposed to
one of several treatments designed to induce positive affect among
them. Results indicated that several of these procedures (e.g., mild flattery, a small gift, self-deprecating remarks by an opponent) increased
subjects' preference for resolving conflict through collaboration, but
reduced their preference for resolving conflict through competition. In
addition, self-deprecating remarks by an opponent (actually an accomplice) increased subjects' willingness to make concessions to this person
during negotiations. In Study 2, male and female subjects were exposed
to two treatments designed to induce positive affect (humorous remarks,
mild flattery). These were presented before, during, or after negotiations
with another person (an accomplice). Both treatments reduced subjects'
preferences for resolving conflict through avoidance and increased their
preferences for resolving conflict through collaboration, but only when
delivered during or immediately after negotiations. Together, the results
of both studies suggest that simple interventions designed to induce
positive affect among the parties to conflicts can yield several beneficial
effects.
A growing body of research evidence indicates that affective states can
influence a wide range of organizational processes (cf., Isen, 1987; Park, Sims,
& Motowidlo, 1986). For example, relatively mild positive affect, induced
through a wide range of procedures, has been found to enhance performance
appraisals (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Sinclair, 1988) and interviewers' reactions
*The senior author wishes to express his appreciation to Laura Bain, Eric D. Davis, and Tammy
Macharaschwili for their aid in collecting the data for Study 1.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

134

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

to job applicants (Baron, 1987; Williams & Keating, 1987), as well as to influence managers' choice of strategies for dealing with poor performance by subordinates (Dobbins & Russell, 1986). Positive affect, as additional findings suggest, enhances prosocial organizational behaviors (e.g., Organ, 1988; Puffer,
1987), plays a role in leader-member relations (Wakabayashi, Graen, Graen, &
Graen, 1988), and even reduces voluntary turnover (George, 1989).
The present study was designed to extend this previous work by examining
the potential impact of positive affect on another important process: organizational conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1984; Thomas, in press). Two lines of evidence
suggest that positive affect may indeed be relevant to this important and often
costly process. First, a number of studies focused on human aggression indicate
that exposure to stimuli or events designed to induce positive affect may lower
both anger and overt hostility among persons who have previously been provoked (Baron, 1977, 1983). Since feelings of anger and resentment play an
important role in many instances of organizational conflict (Thomas, in press),
it seems possible that reducing such feelings might be a useful step toward the
effective management of many conflicts. Evidence that this is indeed the case is
provided by the results of a previous study (Baron, 1984). In this investigation,
individuals exposed to procedures designed to induce positive affect (e.g., exposure to humorous cartoons, receipt of a small gift) expressed weaker tendencies
than subjects not exposed to these affect-induction treatments to handle future
conflicts through avoidance, and stronger tendencies than control subjects to
handle such conflicts through collaboration.
Second, a study by Carnevale and Isen (1986) indicates that positive affect
(also induced through a small gift and exposure to humorous materials) can
increase cooperativeness and reduce the frequency of contentious tactics during
face-to-face negotiations. Since negotiations are a very common procedure for
resolving conflicts in organizational settings, these results provide support for
the suggestion that the induction of positive affect may prove helpful in reducing
the intensity or frequency of at least some forms of organizational conflict.
The present research sought to extend these previous findings in several
ways. First, it examined the impact of two additional means of inducing positive
affect among the parties to a conflict: self-deprecation (mildly unfavorable
statements about one's own abilities or characteristics), and flattery (positive
statements about the target's abilities or attributes). Both of these procedures
are frequently used by individuals seeking to enhance their own attractiveness to
others (cf., Liden & Mitchell, 1988), and both have been found, in recent
research, to be quite effective in inducing liking and other positive affective
reactions among recipients (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986).
A second important feature of the present research involved the nature of
the procedures used for inducing positive affect among subjects. In previous
research, these procedures were performed prior to the occurrence of face-toface negotiations (cf., Carnevale & Isen, 1986). In this study, in contrast, such
procedures took place during face-to-face negotiations. It seemed possible that

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R. A. BARON ET AL.

135

presented in this manner, they might be somewhat less obtrusive, and so perhaps more useful in actual conflict situations.
Finally, the present investigation also examined the potential effects on
negotiations and conflict of another tactic sometimes used in face-to-face
encounters: extreme (excessive) flattery. It was reasoned that this tactic would
be recognized by subjects as insincere and, as a result, would induce negative
rather than positive affect among them. To the extent this was the case, excessive flattery might "backfire" and intensify rather than reduce ongoing conflicts.
Some support for this reasoning is provided by the finding that negotiators react
negatively to signs of insincerity on the part of their opponents (Baron, 1988a;
Lewicki & Litterer, 1985). In accordance with the reasoning summarized above,
and the results of previous research (e.g., Baron, 1984; Carnevale & Isen, 1986),
it was predicted that subjects exposed to conditions that caused them to experience positive affect would (1) adopt a more conciliatory approach to negotiations (e.g., make more and larger concessions to their opponent), (2) rate their
opponent more favorably, and (3) report stronger preferences for resolving
future conflicts with this person through collaboration or compromise, and
weaker tendencies for resolving future conflicts through avoidance or competition.
In order to investigate these and related hypotheses, two studies were conducted. In the first, male and female subjects were provoked or not provoked by
a same-sex accomplice. Then, they participated in face-to-face negotiations with
this person. During negotiations, the accomplice (subjects' opponent) either
engaged or did not engage in actions designed to induce positive affect among
subjects. (The accomplice offered them a small gift, engaged in self-deprecation
or flattery, or performed none of these activities). In an additional group, the
accomplice engaged in excessive flattery.
Following completion of the negotiations, subjects rated the accomplice
on several personal dimensions and reported on their reactions to his or her
behavior. Finally, they rated the likelihood of using each of five different strategies for resolving future conflicts (avoidance, competition, compromise, collaboration, accommodation; Rahim, 1983; Thomas, in press).
In a follow-up investigation, the timing of the accomplice's affect-inducing
behaviors was varied. For one group these took place prior to the start of the
negotiations. For a second group, they occurred during the negotiations. Finally,
for a third, they occurred after the negotiations had been completed. Since mild
increments in positive affect are relatively short-lived in nature, it was reasoned
that such shifts would be more successful in reducing anger and hostility when
they followed the arousal of these negative feelings. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the impact of positive affect would be greater when it was induced
during or after the negotiations than when it was induced prior to their start.

136

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

STUDY I
Method
Subjects. Seventy-eight undergraduates (thirty-eight males, forty females)
participated in the study. Subjects took part in the investigation in order to satisfy a course requirement.
Design. A 2 X 2 x 5 factorial design based on sex of subject, two levels of
provocation (unprovoked, provoked), and five treatment conditions (control,
gift, self-deprecation, flattery, excessive flattery) was employed. Subjects were
randomly assigned to one of the cells of this design as they appeared for their
appointments.
Procedure
Provocation. Procedures employed for the purpose of provoking or not
provoking subjects were highly similar to those used in a previous study (Baron,
1984). Briefly, subjects were asked to discuss a business-related problem with
another person (a same-sex accomplice). During these discussions, they were to
present their own views and to indicate why they agreed or disagreed with those
expressed by the other subject. The accomplice always adopted a position
opposed to the one endorsed by subjects. However, the manner in which the
accomplice expressed such disagreement differed sharply in the two conditions.
In the unprovoked condition, the accomplice expressed disagreement with the
subject's views in a calm and reasonable manner. For example, he or she made
such remarks as "I can see why you feel that way, but I guess I disagree..." In
the provoked condition, in contrast, the accomplice disagreed in an arrogant and
condescending fashion. For example, he or she made such commentsas: "Oh
come on, you've got to be kidding!" These procedures have previously been
found to be successful in inducing different levels of annoyance or anger among
subjects (Baron, 1984). The issue discussed by subjects and accomplice involved
the question of whether a company should move its operations to the "Sunbelt."
Negotiation Situation and Affect-Induction Procedures. The negotiation
phase, too, was based on procedures used in several previous studies (Baron,
1988a, b). The subject and the accomplice (the same individual who previously
provoked or did not provoke them) were asked to imagine that they were executives in a large company and that they represented the Marketing and Production Departments, respectively. They were asked to negotiate about two issues:
how $1,000,000 in surplus funds in the budget for equipment and supplies
should be divided between their departments, and how twenty position cuts
necessitated by a reduction in the budget for personnel should be allocated to
their respective units. An exchange of ten offers and counter-offers then followed. The accomplice began by requesting $750,000 and indicating a willingness to accept only six of the twenty cuts. He or she then made three small
monetary concessions of $50,000 each and three concessions in position cuts on

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R. A. BARON ET AL.

137

trials 3, 5, and 8. (The accomplice's final offer, then, was $650,000 and 9 position
cuts, respectively.)
Procedures for inducing positive affect among subjects occurred on trials 2
and 6, and were as follows. In the gift condition, the accomplice took out a
package of cherry Life-Savers and offered one to the subject before stating his
or her position. In the self-deprecation condition the accomplice made mildly
self-disparaging remarks (e.g., this person noted that he or she had no experience in making such decisions, and commented unfavorably on his or her own
tendency to be somewhat rigid). In the flattery condition, in contrast, the
accomplice complimented the subject for doing a good job in representing his
or her department, and for being persuasive. Finally, in the excessive flattery
condition, the accomplice was much more effusive in his or her praise. For
example, he or she remarked: "Gee, my opponent makes a lot of sensehe
(she) is one of the sharpest people I've met recently...I like the way he (she)
puts things..." The comments employed in the self-deprecation, flattery, and
excessive flattery conditions were chosen on the basis of pilot research. This
preliminary research indicated that they were effective in inducing the expected
reactions among subjects, and also as sounding natural and unrehearsed to
subjects. (In the control condition, the negotiations proceeded without any
efforts to influence participants' affective state.)
Dependent measures for the negotiations included subjects' initial and
final offers to the accomplice (with respect both to division of the $1,000,000
and position cuts), the number of concessions made by subjects during the
negotiations, and the total magnitude of such concessions.
Additional Dependent Measures. Following completion of the negotiations,
subjects completed a questionnaire designed to yield information on their reactions to the accomplice, their affective states during the study, and their preferred modes of resolving future conflicts with the accomplice. Various items on
this questionnaire asked subjects to rate the accomplice on several personal
traits (e.g., unreasonable-reasonable; unfair-fair; unpleasant-pleasant;
unfriendly-friendly), and to rate their own feelings during the study on five
dimensions (tense-calm, bad-good, irritated-pleased, negative-positive,
unhappy-happy). Additional items (which served partly as manipulation checks)
asked participants to rate the extent to which the accomplice had tried to get as
much as possible for his or her own department, had tried to put them in a good
mood so that they would make concessions, had tried to build an image of
"toughness," had flattered them, or had engaged in self-deprecation.
A final set of items assessed subjects' preferences for five different modes
(styles) of resolving future conflicts: avoidance, accommodation, competition,
compromise, and collaboration. These five patterns have been identified by
Rahim (1983) and Thomas (in press) as basic modes of behavior in many conflict situations. The items used to assess subjects' preferences for each of these
strategies were identical to ones used in several previous studies (e.g., Baron,
1988a,b). They have been found to correlate positively with appropriate scales

138

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

on the MODE instrument (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977). An overview of the

procedures employed in this study is presented in Figure 1.

RESULTS
Effectiveness of the Experimental Manipulations
Several items were included in the study to assess the effectiveness of the
experimental procedures. These pertained primarily to success of the various
affect-induction procedures, the impact of provocation, and the effects of
flattery.
Subjects' Reported Affective States. The five items designed to measure
subjects' affective states correlated highly (average r = .78). Thus, they were
summed to provide a single measure of affective reactions. An analysis of variance performed on these data revealed only an interaction between provocation
and affect-induction condition, F(4,60) = 3.18, p < .05. Examination of the
appropriate means indicated that this interaction stemmed from the fact that in
the unprovoked condition, subjects in the excessive flattery condition reported
higher levels of negative affect (M = 23.75) than those in the flattery (M =
28.90) and gift (M = 29.05) conditions (p < .05). In the provoked condition,
however, none of the differences between the various groups were significant.
(All were more negative than the corresponding values in the unprovoked
condition.)
Provocation. Evidence for the effectiveness of the provocation manipulation is provided by two findings. First, subjects rated the accomplice as less
friendly in the provoked (M = 5.23) than in the unprovoked condition (M =
5.85), F(l,58) = 5.38, p < .025. Second, subjects in the provoked condition
reported perceiving the accomplice as trying to build an image of being tough to
a greater degree in the provoked (M = 3.77) than in the unprovoked condition
(M = 2.69),F(1,58) = 10.19, p < .002.

R. A. BARON ET AL.

139

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

Flattery. One item on the questionnaire completed by subjects asked them

to rate the extent to which the accomplice flattered them so that they would be
more willing to make concessions. As expected, subjects in the flattery and
excessive flattery conditions rated the accomplice as engaging in such tactics to
a greater extent (M = 2.63, 3.44, respectively) than subjects in any of the other
groups, F(l,58) = 3.18, p < .02.
Negotiations
Separate analyses of variance were performed on measures of subjects'
behavior during the negotiations. Significant effects were obtained for several of
these measures. First, a significant interaction between provocation and sex was
obtained for subjects' initial monetary offer to the accomplice, F(4,58) = 2.80,
p < .05. Comparison of the appropriate means indicated that this effect
stemmed primarily from the fact that males made a significantly smaller initial
offer to the accomplice in the provoked condition (M = $461,000) than in the
unprovoked condition (A/ = $534,000; p < .05). Females, in contrast, actually
offered slightly (but not significantly) more to the accomplice in the provoked
condition (M = $497,000) than in the unprovoked condition (M = $477,000).
Significant findings were also obtained for subjects' final offers to the
accomplice. With respect to the number of position cuts, subjects suggested that
the accomplice accept, the main effect of affect-induction condition, F(4,58) =
3.31, p < .02 was significant. As shown in Table 1, this finding stemmed from
the fact that subjects in the gift and self-deprecation conditions suggested that
the accomplice accept more cuts than those in the control condition. In other
words, they adopted a "tougher" stance in this respect than subjects in the other
groups.
Table 1
Mean Final Offers (Positive Cuts) to the Accomplice as a
Function of Affect-Induction Condition
Control

Gift

Flattery

SelfDeprecation

Excessive
Flattery

7.31
9.00.
8.75 .
8.63
10.27
a
bc
acd
bd
ac
Note: Means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p < .05).

Finally, the main effect for affect-induction condition was also significant
for the total number of concessions made by subjects with respect to position
cuts, F(4,58) = 2.74, p < .05. This effect stemmed from the fact that subjects in
the self-deprecation condition made a larger number of concessions than those
in the other groups (p < .05). None of the other differences between the groups
were significant. Since subjects in the self-deprecation group also expected the

140

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

accomplice to accept more cuts, this finding suggests that they anticipated
reciprocity on the part of this individual.
Preferences for Modes of Resolving Future Conflict
Analyses of variance were performed on the data for the items that
assessed subjects' preferences for resolving future conflicts in each of five different ways: through avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, or
compromise. These analyses yielded a significant main effect of provocation for
avoidance, F(4,58) = 9.82, p < .005. As noted previously, this finding stemmed
from the fact that subjects in the provoked condition reported a stronger preference for avoidance than subjects in the unprovoked condition.
The analysis for collaboration yielded a significant interaction between
affect-induction condition and sex, F(4,58) = 3.03, p < .025. As shown in Table
2, this interaction reflected the fact that among males (but not females), subjects in the gift, flattery, and self-deprecation conditions reported a stronger
preference for collaboration than those in the control group (p < .05). However, subjects in the excessive flattery condition did not express a stronger preference for collaboration than those in the control group.
Table 2
Mean Preference for Collaboration as a Function of Sex of
Subjects and Affect-Induction Condition
Affect-Induction Condition
Sex

Control

Gift

Flattery

Deprecation

Flattery

Males

4.88a
6.43.
5.64
6.25
6.14
bc
bc
ac
bc
Females
6.50
5.75
5.88
6.38
5.75
a
a
a
a
a
Note: For each sex, means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p <
.05).

The interaction between sex and provocation was significant for the item
dealing with compromise, F(l,58) = 3.85, p < .05. This reflected the fact that
males reported a significantly stronger tendency to compromise with the
accomplice in the provoked than in the unprovoked condition. Among females,
however, the opposite pattern prevailed.
Finally, the main effect for affect-induction condition closely approached
significance for competition, F(4,58) = 2.28, p < .07. As shown in Table 3, this
effect stemmed from the fact that subjects in the flattery condition reported a
significantly weaker preference for competition than those in the control, excessive flattery, and self-deprecation groups (p < .05). No other differences
between the means were significant.

R. A. BARON ET AL.

141

Table 3
Mean Preference for Competition as a Function of
Affect-Induction Condition
Control

Gift

Flattery

SelfDeprecation

Excessive
Flattery

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

4.40
4.19a
4.31a
3.40
3.00
a
ac
bc
Note: Means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly (p < .05).

Ratings of the Accomplice on Personal Characteristics

Subjects rated the accomplice on a number of personal characteristics
(e.g., fair-unfair, friendly-unfriendly, generous-not generous). Several of these
dimensions were relevant to effectiveness of the experimental manipulations
and were discussed above. Analyses of variance on the data for these items
yielded a significant interaction between provocation, sex, and affect-induction
condition for the item pertaining to the not generous-generous dimension,
F(4,58) = 3.26, p < .02. Examination of the appropriate..means indicated that
this interaction stemmed from the fact that male subjects assigned lowest ratings to the accomplice when he provoked them and then engaged in excessive
flattery (M = 2.75). This pattern did not emerge among females. Additional
findings revealed a significant interaction between sex and affect-induction condition for the item dealing with the conceited-modest dimension, F(4,58) =
3.95, p < .01. This interaction stemmed from the fact that females rated the
accomplice as most modest in the excessive flattery condition (M = 6.13). In
contrast, males rated the accomplice as most modest in the flattery condition
(M =5.38).
DISCUSSION
The results of this experiment offer some support for the view that the
intensity or persistence of conflict may sometimes be reduced through the
induction of positive affect among the persons involved. Male subjects in the
gift, flattery, and self-deprecation conditions reported stronger preferences for
resolving future conflicts with the accomplice through collaboration than did
male subjects in the control condition or in the excessive flattery condition.
Similarly, subjects of both sexes reported weaker preferences for handling
future conflicts through competition in the flattery condition than in the control
or excessive flattery groups. Together, these findings suggest that positive affect
may predispose individuals toward more constructive or conciliatory modes of
conflict resolution (Thomas, in press). Further, they indicate that among the
techniques which may prove useful in this regard are mild flattery and self-deprecating remarks. Both of these procedures induced positive affect among participants, and both have been found, in previous research, to be relatively effec-

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

142

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

tive tactics of ingratiation (cf., Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Liden & Mitchell,
1988).
Findings with respect to behavior during negotiations provide additional
support for the potentially beneficial effects of positive affect on conflict. Subjects in the self-deprecation condition offered a larger number of concessions to
the accomplice than those in the control condition. Further, as expected, male
subjects who had previously been provoked, and thus induced to experience
negative affect, made smaller initial offers to the accomplice than those who
had not been provoked.
However, it was also found that subjects in the gift and self-deprecation
conditions made final offers to the accomplice suggesting that this person
accept a greater number of position cuts than subjects in the control condition.
At first glance, this finding might be interpreted as indicating that subjects in
these conditions, who experienced positive affect, actually adopted a more rigid
and unyielding stance during negotiations than subjects not exposed to procedures designed to induce positive affect. Another interpretation, however, is
that subjects in these groups were merely expressing their belief that the
accomplice would reciprocate their own concessions. Having made concessions
with respect to position cuts themselves (see above), they expected the accomplice to do likewise. Thus, the fact that subjects in these groups made final
offers requesting more position cuts by the accomplice may actually be more
indicative of a reciprocity-based approach to negotiations than of a relatively
confrontational stance. Additional evidence concerning this possibility can be
readily obtained in future studies through the inclusion of items designed to
assess subjects' motives for making concessions and their views concerning the
likelihood of reciprocity on the part of the accomplice (cf., Lewicki & Litterer,
1985).
Additional findings point to the tentative conclusion that the impact of
efforts to induce positive affect among opponents in conflict situations depends,
to an important extent, on the context of such endeavors. In the present
research, subjects reported the most negative reactions to the accomplice on
several dimensions when this person had previously provoked them and then
engaged in fairly obvious attempts at ingratiation (i.e., excessive flattery). Under
these conditions, subjects may well have viewed the accomplice's flattery as
insincere, and so reacted negatively to it. The results of previous studies indicate
that when individuals participating in negotiations view statements by their
opponent as insincere or inaccurate, they may respond quite negatively (cf.,
Baron, 1988a; Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988). Given such results, it seems
clear that efforts to induce positive affect among one's opponents will not
always succeed in reducing the intensity or persistence of ongoing conflict.
Rather, this will only be the case when the techniques employed for this purpose are perceived as sincere and reasonable in nature. When, instead, they are
viewed by recipients as attempts to manipulate or mislead them, these tactics
may backfire and actually intensify conflict. In sum, as noted recently by

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R. A. BARON ET AL.

143

Thomas (in press), conflict can only be fully understood within an historical
context that takes account of existing and previous relationships between
participants.
One aspect of the present results deserving of comment is the fact that in
several instances, findings were stronger and more consistent for males than for
females. With respect to negotiations, males, but not females, made smaller initial offers to the accomplice in the provoked than in the unprovoked condition.
Turning to preferences for various conflict resolution modes, males, but not
females, expressed stronger preferences for collaboration in the gift, flattery,
and self-deprecation conditions than in the control group. Together, these
findings suggest that females and males may respond somewhat differently to
procedures designed to induce either positive or negative affect (cf., Isen, 1987).
For example, because of their prior social experience, females may be somewhat more suspicious of various tactics of ingratiation than males (Wortman &
Linsenmeier, 1977). To the extent this is indeed the case, such techniques would
be expected to induce weaker levels of positive affect among them, and so to
influence their subsequent negotiation and conflict-resolving behavior to a
smaller degree. Further research can obtain evidence on this possibility by
specifically comparing the reactions of females and males to a wide range of
affect-inducing procedures.
Similarly, past research suggests that females often approach situations
involving conflict (and several types of negotiations) in a more conciliatory
manner than males. Such tendencies, in turn, may restrict the range of beneficial effects that can potentially stem from the induction of positive affect. The
fact that female subjects in the control (no-affect induction) condition reported
stronger preferences for collaboration than male subjects in the control condition suggests that such gender differences may well have played a role in the
present research.
Taken together, the findings of this initial study are somewhat encouraging. They suggest that under appropriate circumstances, positive affect can
indeed yield beneficial effects from the perspective of reducing the intensity of
ongoing conflicts. The magnitude of such effects was relatively small, but they
occurred for several different dependent measures. One issue not addressed in
this research, however, involves the timing of affect-induction procedures. It
seems possible that the effectiveness of these procedures may vary as a function
of when they are introduced. For example, it may be preferable to present them
during ongoing negotiations rather than after their completion (cf., Baron,
1984). Further, it may be the case that various procedures for inducing positive
affect are differentially effective when introduced at various times (i.e., relatively early or late during negotiations or conflict episodes). To mention one
possibility, a small gift may be more successful in inducing positive affect when
introduced early in the process-perhaps even before the start of negotiations.
However, self-deprecating comments may be more effective when made during

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

144

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

negotiations rather than prior to their commencement. In order to investigate

these and related possibilities, a second experiment was conducted.
In this study, male and female participants were exposed either to one of
two treatment conditions designed to induce positive affect, or to a no-treatment control condition. The two treatment conditions were introduced either
before, during, or after negotiations between subjects and another person (an
accomplice) who behaved in a uniformly confrontational manner. One of these
treatment conditions involved mild flattery of the type employed in the Study 1.
The second treatment involved the use of humor. Previous research indicates
that nonhostile humor is often highly effective in eliciting positive affect (Baron,
1978).
On the basis of previousfindings(Baron, 1984), and the results of Study 1,
it was predicted that relative to the no-treatment control condition, the introduction of both humor and flattery would enhance participants' reported
moods, lead them to rate the accomplice more favorably, and enhance their
preferences for relatively constructive modes of conflict resolution (e.g., collaboration, compromise). It was also tentatively predicted that these treatment
conditions would be more effective in producing such beneficial effects when
introduced during or after the conflict episode (i.e., negotiation) than before its
initiation. It was reasoned that this would be the case because under the latter
conditions, positive affect would be induced in closer temporal proximity to
anger and other conflict-related emotions, and so would be more successful in
countering their occurrence (cf., Baron, 1983).
STUDY 2
Method
Subjects. Fifty-six undergraduates (36 males, 20 females) participated in
the experiment. Subjects took part in the research to satisfy a course
requirement.
Design. A 2 X 3 factorial design based on two treatment conditions (humor,
flattery) and three times of presentation of these treatments (before, during,
and after negotiations) was employed. A no-treatment control condition was
also included. Subjects were randomly assigned to each of the seven cells of this
design.
Procedure
Conflict Situation. Subjects reported to a waiting room where they found a
male accomplice already present. Both individuals were then escorted to the
Because males constitute more than eighty percent of the student population from which participants were drawn, it was impossible, for practical reasons, to obtain equal numbers of males and
females. Preliminary analyses, however, yielded no significant effects for sex of subjects.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R.A. BARON ET AL.

145

laboratory by the experimenter who explained that the study was concerned
with negotiation as a problem solving tool in organizations. She further
explained that before taking part in the study, they would complete a warm-up
exercise. Participants were told that this exercise would help them to organize
their thoughts and express their views more clearly during the actual negotiation. To complete the warm-up exercise, subjects were instructed to write down
all the reasons they could think of for putting three new computer terminals in
each of the dormitories on campus. The accomplice was instructed to write
down all of the reasons he could think of for improving the appearance of the
campus. A folder with pictures of the artwork and sculptures on the campus was
given to the accomplice and a folder with pictures of the current computer
facilities and proposed dormitory computer labs was given to the subject. The
subject and the accomplice were told that the folders could be used to help
them generate their ideas. The experimenter further indicated that they would
have four minutes to write their ideas. At the end of that time, the experimenter
returned and exchanged the ideas written by the accomplice and subject. (In the
before condition, one of the two treatments-humor or flattery-was introduced at
this point; see below.)
The experimenter then described the negotiation task. Both individuals
were told that they should imagine that they were committee chairpersons at
the university. The subject would represent the computer science committee
and the accomplice the campus improvement committee. The participant and
the accomplice were then told to negotiate over the division of $1,000,000 in
funds. During these negotiations, the accomplice followed a prepared script
with respect to offers and the rationale behind these. On three occasions, he
made two small concessions. (In the during condition, one of the treatment conditions was introduced after the second of these concessions.)
After the negotiations were complete, subjects were asked to respond to a
brief questionnaire. (In the after condition, one of the two treatment conditions
was introduced at this time.)
Accomplice's Behavior
In order to generate conflict, the accomplice began the negotiation by
requesting fully $800,000 of the available funds. He then made only three small
concessions of $50,000 each during the session. The accomplice was specially
trained for this role. This training required that he memorize a number of
points which could, potentially, be used to defend his position. Thus, whatever
the subjects' view, the accomplice was well prepared to argue with it in a convincing manner. Because previous research indicates that the manner in which
disagreement is expressed can strongly influence affective reactions to such
opposition (Levinson, 1978), the accomplice was trained to behave in the same
manner in every session.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

146

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

Treatment Conditions
For the humor condition the accomplice made two humorous comments
about two of the pictures of art and sculpture in the folder. The first of these
remarks was: "Look at this picture. You can't tell the bike rack from the artwork." The second comment was: "This picture is really bad; it looks like the
Jetsons' Christmas tree." Precisely the same humorous comments were made in
the before, during, and after conditions.
For the flattery condition, the accomplice first made a positive comment
concerning the subject's presentation skills during negotiation in the during and
after conditions. (A sample comment: "You really represent your committee
well. I especially agree with your point that..."). In the before condition, in contrast, this flattering remark was made about subjects' written proposal. (This
was necessary since no negotiations had as yet occurred.) In the control condition, the accomplice made no humorous or flattering comments before, during,
or after the negotiation.
Final Questionnaire
The final questionnaire (completed by subjects after the conclusion of
negotiations) was used to obtain the major dependent measures. The first four
items on this questionnaire asked subjects to rate their current mood along four
dimensions (angry-not angry, tense-not tense; not happy-happy, good-bad).
Several additional items allowed participants to indicate their impressions of the
accomplice. Specifically, they rated this person along the following dimensions:
fair-unfair; friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative; and effectiveineffective.
The remaining six items were designed to assess subjects' preferences for
various modes of resolving future conflicts. On these items, they indicated how
likely they would be to avoid the accomplice, to collaborate, compromise, or
compete with him, or accommodate to his wishes (Rahim, 1983; Thomas, in
press). On the remaining item, subjects rated the extent to which they would
like to work with accomplice in the future. An overview of the procedures
employed in this study is presented in Figure 2.
RESULTS
Preferences for Modes of Resolving Future Conflicts
A multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the five items that
assessed subjects' preferences for resolving future conflicts (i.e., through avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration, or compromise). This analysis (which included all seven groups) yielded an effect for treatment condition
that closely approached significance, F(30,182) = 1.49, p = .05 by Wilks'
lambda. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that this effect stemmed primarily from the item dealing with avoidance. Subjects in the no-treatment con-

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R. A. BARON ET AL.

147

trol condition reported a significantly stronger preference for handling future

conflicts through avoidance (M= 2.75) than did subjects in the flattery-during
(M = 1.38), the flattery-after (M = 1.50) and the humor-during (M = 1.50, p <
.05 in all cases). A similar pattern of findings was observed for the item dealing
with collaboration. Here, subjects in the control group reported a weaker tendency to resolve future conflicts in this manner (M = 5.12) than those in the
humor-during (M = 6.25) and flattery-during (M = 6.63) conditions. Only the
latter difference was significant (p < .05), however. Together, these findings
suggest that the two treatment conditions did shift subjects' preferred modes of
handling future conflicts toward more constructive approaches, but only when
they were introduced during or possibly after the negotiations.

Ratings of the Accomplice

A multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the four items on
which subjects rated the accomplice's personal characteristics. This analysis
yielded an effect for treatment condition which approached but did not quite
attain significance, F(24,162) = 1.50, p < .07, by Wilks' lambda. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed that this effect stemmed primarily from the item
dealing with the accomplice's fairness. Subjects in the humor-before (M = 4.62)
and flattery-before (M = 4.25) conditions rated the accomplice as less fair than
those in the humor-during (M = 5.63) and flattery-during (M = 5.88) conditions (p < .05). In addition, they rated the accomplice as less fair (although not
significantly so) than those in the control condition (M = 5.37, p < .10).
Together, these findings suggest that when introduced prior to the start of
negotiations, the two treatment conditions failed to enhance perceptions of the

148

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

accomplice. Indeed, there is some indication that they produced the opposite
effect.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

Subjects' Reported Affective States

A multivariate analysis of variance performed on the data for the items
designed to assess subjects' current affective states failed to yield any significant
findings. However, consistent with otherfindings,subjects in the flattery-before
condition rated themselves as less happy (M = 3.63) than those in the flatteryafter (M =4.88) and control conditions (M = 4.62; p <.05).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study offer partial support for the view that interventions designed to induce positive affect among target persons are more effective
in reducing subsequent conflict when introduced during or after a current conflict episode than when introduced before its initiation. More specifically, mild
flattery and humorous commentsboth of which have been found in previous
research to induce positive affectreduced subjects' expressed preferences for
dealing with conflict through avoidance, and increased their preferences for
collaboration. However, this was true only when these procedures were introduced during or after negotiations. When introduced prior to this conflict
episode, neither intervention produced beneficial effects relative to a no-treatment control condition. Further, subjects actually rated the accomplice more
negatively (as less fair) when humor or flattery was introduced into the situation prior to the start of negotiations. Together, these findings are consistent
with the initial suggestion that the timing of interventions designed to induce
positive affect is crucial to their success. Apparently, such techniques are most
likely to be effective in reducing subsequent conflict when presented in close
temporal proximity to provocative actions by othersones that induce anger,
annoyance, or similar emotions. There are several reasons why such temporal
proximity might enhance the benefits of affect-based interventions.
First, the positive affect induced by procedures such as a mild compliment
or a humorous remark is likely to be quite short-lived in nature. Indeed, previousfindingssuggest that in the absence of more elaborate cognitive processing,
such reactions may dissipate within a matter of minutes (cf., Isen, 1987;
Zillmann, 1988). Thus, the closer the proximity of such interventions to the tension and annoyance generated during negotiations, the more likely they are to
be effective.
Second, the positive affect generated by humor and mild flattery may alter
perceptions of subsequent provocative behavior by an opponent. In the context
of positive affect, such actions may be interpreted more favorably than they
would in the absence of such reactions (Bodenhausen, 1988). For example,
confrontational positions or actions may be viewed as more justified in nature

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

R. A. BARON ET AL.

149

following the induction of positive affect than at other times. Similarly, an

opponent's reluctance to offer concessions may be construed as representing
admirable consistency rather than censurable intransigence under conditions
where positive affect have been induced. Considerable evidence suggests that
mood states can strongly shape subsequent information processing (Isen, 1987;
Isen & Baron, in press). Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that they may
exert such effects in the context of organizational conflict. This possibility can
be readily examined in future research through the collection of measures of
subjects' perceptions of their opponent, including the perceived causes of her or
his actions. If the reasoning presented here is valid, then evidence for cognitive
"tilts" favoring the opponent should be more apparent among subjects exposed
to positive-affect inducing interventions than among those in control conditions.
Third, it may be the case that efforts to induce positive affect through
flattery or humor during or shortly after conflict episodes are seen as relatively
genuine in naturespontaneous efforts by one's opponent to "defuse" an emotionally tense and potentially costly situation. In contrast, similar actions performed prior to the start of negotiations or conflict may be construed, in retrospect, as part of an opponent's overall negotiating strategycold-blooded efforts
to tip the balance in their own favor through the introduction into the situation
of largely irrelevant factors (cf., Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988). For all
these reasons, the timing of positive-affect generating procedures may indeed
often be an important determinant of their success.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Together, the two studies reported here offer support for the view that the
intensity or persistence of conflict can sometimes be reduced through relatively
simple interventions based on the induction of positive affect. The fact that
various beneficial effects were produced by several procedures of this type
(flattery, humor, self-deprecation, provision of a small gift) suggests that it is
indeed the positive feelings induced by these interventions that is crucial: the
various interventions themselves do not appear to share any other salient
characteristic.
In addition, it appears that the timing of such procedures is important.
Findings from Study 2 suggest that two positive-affect inducing procedureshumor and mild flatteryare most effective when presented during or
immediately after a current conflict episode. Would a similar pattern hold for
the other interventions employed in Study 1 (a small gift, self-deprecation)?
Data on this issue were not gathered in the present research, so this remains an
open question. It seems reasonable to suggest, however, that self-deprecation,
which in one sense constitutes a form of inverse flattery (enhancing another's
ego by denigrating one's own abilities or accomplishments) would demonstrate
a similar pattern (cf., Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987).

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

150

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

In contrast, provision of a small gift may prove most effective when presented early in an interaction, or even before it begins. Informal observation
suggests such token gifts are frequently provided to opponents prior to the start
of negotiations rather than at their conclusion (cf., Lewicki & Litterer, 1985).
One reason for this may lie in the fact that gifts delivered later in the process
may be perceived as bribes rather than simple tokens of good will. To the extent
they are, negative rather than positive affective reactions, may well be produced.
Further research is clearly needed to establish the conditions under which gifts
are and are not effective in reducing subsequent conflict.
At this point, it should be noted that almost any technique employed to
induce positive affect among others (humor, mild flattery, gifts) can potentially
fail in this respect and induce opposite reactions instead. Humor, for example,
often contains a hostile, biting edge. When it does, the likelihood that it will
induce positive affect among recipients is minimal (Baron, 1978). And humor
that fails to amuse may induce irritation and annoyance rather than positive
feelings of amusement. Similarly, as noted in Study 1, flattery, when too
extreme, can be recognized as a sign of manipulative intent or as ingratiation,
and so generate negative rather than positive effects (cf., Liden & Mitchell,
1988). Clearly, then, efforts to reduce organizational conflict through the use of
affect-generating procedures include an element of risk, and potential users of
such techniques must weigh the likelihood of their success against the possible
costs that may result if they fail in their intended goals.
Before concluding, it should be noted that the present research was conducted under carefully controlled, but somewhat artificial, conditions. As a
result, the extent to which the obtained findings can be generalized to actual
conflict situations or negotiations with important implications for the participants, remains uncertain. A large body of previous research, much of it conducted under natural conditions (cf., Isen, 1987; Isen & Baron, in press) suggests that positive affect exerts robust effects on a wide range of behaviors
(helping, aggression) and several cognitive processes (e.g., memory, decision
making, relative preferences for risk or caution). In view of such findings, it
seems quite possible that the present results may well be generalizable to at
least some realistic conflict situations. However, it remains for further research
to determine the extent to which this is actually the case. For the present, then,
it is best to view the findings reported here as primarily suggestive in nature.
With these important restrictions in mind, it seems reasonable to offer the
following, tentative conclusion. Inducing positive affect among the parties to a
conflict may sometimes be a useful strategy. This may be so for the following
basic reason: previous research on cognitive processes and on the relationship
between affect and cognition suggests quite strongly that in the context of strong
emotions, individuals' abilities to process information effectively decreases (Isen
& Baron, in press). In short, as one old saying suggests, "When emotions run
high, reason often flies out the window." When it does, unfortunately, so, too,
may the chances of attaining integrative resolutions in many conflict situations

R. A. BARON ET AL.

151

(cf., Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). For this reason, efforts to induce positive affect
among participants in tense, potentially explosive conflict situations may well
prove worthwhile.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

REFERENCES
Baron, R. A. (1977). Human aggression. New York: Plenum.
Baron, R. A. (1978). Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 189-197.
Baron, R. A. (1983). The control of human aggression: An optimistic overview. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 1, 97-199.
Baron, R. A. (1984). Reducing organizational conflict: An incompatible response approach.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69, 272-279.
Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviewer's moods and reactions to job applicants: The influence of affective states on applied social judgements.JournalofApplied Social Psychology, 17, 911-926.
Baron, R. A. (1988a). Attributions and organizational conflict: The mediating role of apparent
sincerity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 111-127.
Baron, R. A. (1988b). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy,
and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault? Communication Research, 15, 381-399.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bodenhausen, G. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726-737.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1986). Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral
dimension in evaluating performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 71, 672-678.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the
discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-11.
Dobbins, G. H., & Russell, J. M. (1986). The biasing effects of subordinate likableness on leaders'
responses to poor performance: A laboratory and a field study. Personnel Psychology, 39,
759-777.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106-115.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 203-253). New York: Academic
Press.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (in press). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling
behavior The "MODE" instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309325.
Levinson, H. (1978). The abrasive personality. Harvard Business Review, 56, 86-94.
Lewicki, R. J., & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Liden, R. C, & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy
of Management Review, 13, 572-587.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Park, O. S., Sims, H. L., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Affect in organizations. In H. Sims & D. Gioia
(Eds.), The thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict. New York: Random House.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 615-621.

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

152

POSITIVE AFFECT AND CONFLICT

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 368-376.
Sinclair, R. C. (1988). Mood, categorization breadth, and performance appraisal: The effects of
order of information acquisition and affective state on halo, accuracy, information retrieval,
and evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 22-46.
Thomas, W. K. (in press). Conflict and negotiation processes. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress:
Mobility into middle management. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 73, 217-227.
Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse
giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 316-324.
Williams, K. J., & Keating, C. W. (1987, April). Affect and the processing ofperformance appraisal
information. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Wortman, C. B., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in
organizational behavior (pp. 133-178). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Zillmann, D. (1988). Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive behavior. Aggressive
Behavior, 14, 51-64.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Robert A. Baron
Department of Psychology
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
Phone: 518-276-6472
Dr. Baron is Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department and Professor of Management at
RPI. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in 1968. He has been a visiting Fellow at
the University of Oxford, and has held faculty positions at Purdue University, Princeton .University, the University of Texas, and the University of Minnesota. From 1979-1981, he served as a
Program Director at the National Science Foundation. His current research interests include
organizational conflict and the impact of the physical environment on organizational processes. He
is the author of over 80 journal articles and author or co-author of eighteen books including
Human Aggression, Behavior in Organizations (3rd ed.), and Social Psychology (6th ed.) He is an
Associate Editor of the International Journal of Conflict Management.
Richard Frei received a BA. in Psychology from the State University of New York at Geneseo
(1987). He is currently doing research on Hall's theory of monochrome and polychrome time
organization patterns.
Laurie Hauver received a BA. in psychology from Framingham State, Massachusetts. Her interests lie in conflict resolution, specifically in managerial settings.
Suzanne Fortin received a B.A. in psychology from the State University of New York, Geneseo.
She is currently conducting research on goal setting and goal commitment for her master's thesis.
Melisa Shack received a B.A. in psychology from Syracuse University in 1988. She is currently
conducting research on predicting tolerance to shiftwork for her master's thesis in
industrial/organizational psychology.
Received: October 9, 1989
Accepted: March 15, 1990

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. N. Ensari, S. Camden-Anders, A. SchlaerthConstructive Management and Resolution of Conflict
340-349. [CrossRef]
2. William Pavot, Ed DienerFindings on Subjective Well-Being: Applications to Public Policy, Clinical
Interventions, and Education 679-692. [CrossRef]
3. Richard PosthumaCarlos MontesDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Santiago de
Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Dmaso RodrguezDepartment of Social Psychology,
University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Gonzalo SerranoDepartment
of Social Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2012.
Affective choice of conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management 23:1,
6-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. SEAN WALKER. 2011. AFFECT: HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE ONE'S
ENTREPRENEURIAL COGNITIONS?. Journal of Enterprising Culture 19:02, 125-146.
[CrossRef]
5. Alison Wood Brooks, Maurice E. Schweitzer. 2011. Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety
causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes 115:1, 43-54. [CrossRef]
6. Meagan K. Peters, Naomi B. Rothman, Gregory B. Northcraft Chapter 7 Beyond Valence: Effects of
Group Emotional Tone on Group Negotiation Behaviors and Outcomes 163-185. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
7. Cynthia D. Fisher. 2010. Happiness at Work. International Journal of Management Reviews 12:4,
384-412. [CrossRef]
8. Eduardo B. Andrade, Teck-Hua Ho. 2009. Gaming Emotions in Social Interactions. Journal of
Consumer Research 36:4, 539-552. [CrossRef]
9. Eduardo B. Andrade, Dan Ariely. 2009. The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision
making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109:1, 1-8. [CrossRef]
10. Anca M. Miron, Beverly Brummett, Brent Ruggles, Jack W. Brehm. 2008. Deterring Anger and
Anger-Motivated Behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30:4, 326-338. [CrossRef]
11. GLIMEN YURTSEVER. 2008. NEGOTIATORS' PROFIT PREDICTED BY
COGNITIVE REAPPRAISAL, SUPPRESSION OF EMOTIONS, MISREPRESENTATION
OF INFORMATION, AND TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY 1. Perceptual and Motor Skills
106:2, 590-608. [CrossRef]
12. Gerben A. Van Kleef, Eric van Dijk, Wolfgang Steinel, Fieke Harinck, Ilja van Beest. 2008. Anger
in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision and
Negotiation 17:1, 13-30. [CrossRef]
13. Davide Pietroni, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu. 2008. Response modes in negotiation.
Group Decision and Negotiation 17:1, 31-49. [CrossRef]
14. Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Antony S. R. Manstead. 2006. Supplication and
appeasement in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt,
and regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:1, 124-142. [CrossRef]
15. Helena Syna DesivilyaEmek Yezreel College, Israel Emek Yezreel College, Emek Yezreel 19300,
Israel, Phone/Fax: 97246423041/6423422. (desiv@yvc.ac.il) Dana YagilUniversity of Haifa, Israel.
2005. THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF WORK
TEAMS. International Journal of Conflict Management 16:1, 55-69. [Abstract] [PDF]

Downloaded by University of New South Wales At 20:12 19 June 2016 (PT)

16. Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, Ed Diener. 2005. The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does
Happiness Lead to Success?. Psychological Bulletin 131:6, 803-855. [CrossRef]
17. Carsten K.W De Dreu, Gerben A Van Kleef. 2004. The influence of power on the information
search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
40:3, 303-319. [CrossRef]
18. Evert Van de Vliert, Xu Huang, Philip M. Parker. 2004. Do colder and hotter climates make richer
societies more, but poorer societies less, happy and altruistic?. Journal of Environmental Psychology
24:1, 17-30. [CrossRef]
19. Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Antony S. R. Manstead. 2004. The Interpersonal
Effects of Emotions in Negotiations: A Motivated Information Processing Approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 87:4, 510-528. [CrossRef]
20. Gerben A. van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Antony S. R. Manstead. 2004. The Interpersonal
Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:1,
57-76. [CrossRef]
21. Bianca BeersmaUniversity of Amsterdam Fieke HarinckLeiden University Maria J.J. GertsUniversity
of Amsterdam. 2003. BOUND IN HONOR: HOW HONOR VALUES AND INSULTS AFFECT
THE EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICTS. International Journal of Conflict
Management 14:2, 75-94. [Abstract] [PDF]
22. Carsten K.W De Dreu, Peter J CarnevaleMotivational Bases Of Information Processing and Strategy
in Conflict and Negotiation 235-291. [CrossRef]
23. Donald E. ConlonMichigan State University Courtney Shelton HuntNorthern Illinois
University. 2002. DEALING WITH FEELING: THE INFLUENCE OF OUTCOME
REPRESENTATIONS ON NEGOTIATION. International Journal of Conflict Management 13:1,
38-58. [Abstract] [PDF]
24. Tricia S. Jones, Andrea Bodtker. 2001. Mediating with Heart in Mind: Addressing Emotion in
Mediation Practice. Negotiation Journal 17:3, 207-244. [CrossRef]
25. Andrea M. BodtkerTemple University Jessica Katz JamesonNorth Carolina State University. 2001.
EMOTION IN CONFLICT FORMATION AND ITS TRANSFORMATION: APPLICATION
TO ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. International Journal of Conflict
Management 12:3, 259-275. [Abstract] [PDF]
26. J.-A. Johannessen, J. Olaisen, B. Olsen. 1997. Information management in negotiations: The
conditions under which it could be expected that the negotiation partners substitute a competitive
definition of the situation for a cooperative one. International Journal of Information Management
17:3, 153-168. [CrossRef]
27. Steven M. SommerUniversity of Nebraska. 1995. SOCIAL COMPETITION: IDENTIFYING
NEW PERSPECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR TASK MOTIVATION. International Journal
of Conflict Management 6:3, 239-256. [Abstract] [PDF]