Completed the first year ‘propedeuse’ curriculum and the B2-course Groepsdynamica.
Humans are social animals, and groups and organisations are an important part of our lives. Being in a group is advantageous because it enables you to do things you could not do alone. The problem of a group however, is that cooperation and conflict often go hand in hand; while pursuing your own goals, you may hinder someone else’s goals. People can negotiate to resolve there conflict. Negotiation is a constructive way to solve conflicts, and in this course we will focus on negotiation processes. We pay attention to the differences between two-party and multi-party negotiation, but also to cultural differences, emotions and cognitions. We also aim to have a guest lecture; in recent years we invited experts in the field of mediation, hostage negotiation or honour culture.
Students will learn about different kinds of conflict management during the lectures. The focus is on negotiation, but also other kind of mixed-motive situations such as social dilemma’s will be discussed.
In the workgroups, students will focus on one particular aspect of conflict management by writing a research proposal and critically reading research articles about this specific topic. They will learn how to write a research proposal, to present research and to make a questionnaire.
This combination of lectures and workgroups balances the acquirement of theoretical knowledge in the lectures with actively using and integrating this knowledge during the workgroups.
Cooperation and Conflict (2013-2014):
Mode of instruction
There are seven lectures on “Conflict and Cooperation” in which the basic literature is discussed. The knowledge acquired during the lectures will be tested by a multiple-choice exam.
Besides the lectures, students take part in a small work group (max. 15 people) that will gather for 7 meetings in which they will learn more about a specific conflict theme. The themes vary from year to year, but examples are: conflict and diversity, conflict and team performance, negotiation, or decision making. The work group programme consists of intensive reading and discussing of literature about the theme, and applying this knowledge to solve a societal or scientific problem. Students will write a proposal for this societal or scientific problem, based on a thorough analysis of the problem, and based on scientific research. In the workgroup, they will also learn how to develop multiple-item scales in order to provide a reliable measure of the core concept(s) under study, and the proposal needs to contain a self-constructed multiple-item scale.
The knowledge acquired in the workgroups will be assessed by grading the research proposal, the presentation and the questionnaire.
NB: The work group themes vary from year to year, and will be announced on Blackboard approximately one month before the lectures start. Students need to subscribe for a specific work group on a first-come first-served base. When a work group is full, you cannot subscribe for that group any more, and you will need to choose a different group. When a specific work group has too few participants, the work group can be cancelled and the participants will be replaced in another work group.
Mind: Only part-time students are allowed to subscribe to the evening work groups.
The grade will consist of the mean of the multiple-choice exam (literature covered in the lectures, lecture notes and articles on Blackboard) and the work group proposal. Both the exam and the work group proposal need to graded with at least a 5. If the exam or the proposal is graded below a 5, you will not receive an end grade. The work group grade will depend upon the content of the research proposal, the presentation, the questionnaire and active participation during the work group meetings. The end grade can only be calculated when both the exam and the work group proposal are finished.
Lectures and work groups are strongly linked, so students should follow the lectures and the work group within one semester.
From January 1, 2006 the Faculty of Social Sciences has instituted the Ephorus system to be used by instructors for the systematic detection of plagiarism in students’ written work. Please see the information concerning fraud .
Information on blackboard.leidenuniv.nl
Literature Conflict and Cooperation 2013. This is an exemplary literature list. This literature list may vary from year to year. The final list will be presented on Blackboard, a few weeks before the course starts.
The course literature consists of a general book and several articles (see list per lecture).
- Chapter 1, 2 and 3 of Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation (Fifth Edition, International Edition 2011). McGraw-Hill.ISBN: 978-007-126773-1
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation; Chapter 5.
Steinel, W., Abele, A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Effects of experience and advice on process and performance in negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 533-550.
Van Kleef, G. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184-188.
Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G., & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me? Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 362-369.
Recommended further readings:
De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 975-987.
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 329-358.
Galinsky, A., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669.
Morris, M., Larrick, R., & Su, S. (1999). Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: When situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 52-67.
- Harinck, F. & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements; The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 595 – 611.
Harinck, F. & C.K.W. De Dreu (2008). Take a break! Or not? The influence of mindsets on negotiation processes and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 397-404.
Harinck, F., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Vianen, A.E.M (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.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation; Chapters 6 and 8.
Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2003). Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research, 16, 263-283.
Koning, L., Steinel, W., Van Beest, I., & Van Dijk, E. (in press). Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Recommended further readings:
Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 235-259.
Koning, L., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., & Steinel, W. (2010). An instrumental account of deception and reactions to deceit in bargaining. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 817.
O’Connor, K. M., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A nasty but effective negotiation strategy: Misrepresentation of a common-value issue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 504-515.
Schweitzer, M. E., & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 225-248.
Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 419-434.
Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 697-707.
No compulsory articles
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R.E., Bowdle, B.F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An ‘experimental ethnography’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945-960. doi: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.525
Kray, L.J., Thompson, L.L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 942-958. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2064.
Lecture 6: Negotiations in larger social units
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation; Chapters 9 and 10.
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698-722.
Recommended further readings:
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183-214.
Van Beest, I., Steinel, W., & Murnighan, J. K. (in press). Honesty pays: On the benefits of having and disclosing information in coalition bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (to appear in 2011).
Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G. A., Van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M. A., Homan, A. C., & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 779-794.
Steinel, W., De Dreu, C. K. W., Ouwehand, E., & Ramirez-Marin, J. Y. (2009). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 67-78.
Lecture 7: Conflict in Teams
De Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L., & Jehn, K.A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390. dopi:10.1037/a0024844.
Work group themes: will be announced in the work group.
NB! Registration for the (re)exam is not automatic. Students, who haven’t registered, cannot participate in the (re)exam
You have to enroll for each course separately.
Read more on electives (in Dutch)
Or contact Dieuwerke de Groot, study counsellor for international students
Dr. Fieke Harinck
Tel: +31 (0)71 527 5344