| Abstract: |
Attempted to identify the effects of legitimization of role assignment, size of bargaining party, and attractiveness of independent, alternative outcomes on the formation of restrictive agreements in mixed-motive bargaining. Ss were 240 male undergraduates. Although the incidence of agreement formation did not differ as a function of the experimental manipulations, it was possible to identify differences and similarities between these finds and previous ones. Groups with an attractive alternative to interdependent negotiation formed agreements regulating their bargaining because of their awareness that agreements restricted the power of each to disrupt their joint attainment of maximum outcomes. Groups with an unattractive alternative were able to form restrictive agreements only when the low-power party discovered a tactic for compensating its high-power opponent for relinquishing its power. |