Search results

This is a true‐to‐life case. Two elected local officials, one elected on a community involvement plank (herein referred to as the Community Volunteer Representative) and the other elected because of a commitment to support the Parks Department (hereafter referred to as the Parks Department Representative) comprise the Ithaca Special Projects Task Force. They have been charged with deciding whether to fund a playground for the community, and if so, how much of the city's limited special project funds they should spend. Other projects requesting funding will be presented to them later in the year. Both representatives share the common goal of bettering the community. However, the issue is complicated by a variety of potential inter group conflicts that can threaten their position as elected officials, and that could jeopardize the harmony of the community that they are trying to help. Moreover, both representatives are aware that they, as well as their constituents, may have interests in both community volunteerism as well as in the well‐being of the Parks Department: Parks employees, for example, may also be community volunteers after work.

This paper considers whether negotiation outcomes and processes of groups of males and females differ. Previous research examining such differences has had mixed results, in part because of “cueing” effects contained in typical, high‐conflict negotiation cases. Low‐conflict negotiation cases, such as the one used in this study, provide an opportunity to observe a wider range of negotiation behaviors than are commonly revealed in negotiation research. Fifty advanced undergraduate students negotiated funding in a low‐conflict, public policy negotiation case. Analysis of the negotiated outcomes revealed that females allocated less than males. Content coding of audio transcripts revealed very different negotiation processes and styles underlying these different outcomes. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.