Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The structure of communication behavior in simu...

Research

Associated organisational units

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations. / Taylor, P J ; Donald, I .
In: Human Communication Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, 10.2004, p. 443-478.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Taylor, PJ & Donald, I 2004, 'The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations', Human Communication Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x

APA

Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. (2004). The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations. Human Communication Research, 30(4), 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x

Vancouver

Taylor PJ, Donald I. The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations. Human Communication Research. 2004 Oct;30(4):443-478. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x

Author

Taylor, P J ; Donald, I . / The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations. In: Human Communication Research. 2004 ; Vol. 30, No. 4. pp. 443-478.

Bibtex

@article{f647c4a16b8345a88f11064de1adab61,
title = "The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations",
abstract = "This research extends recent efforts to differentiate communication in crisis negotiations (Taylor, 2002) by examining how negotiators' behavior differs across context. Data were 108 interaction episodes transcribed from 12 simulated crisis negotiations and coded at the level of thought units across 41 behavioral variables. Results of a smallest space analysis supported the hypothesized differentiation of communication behavior over 3 facets: overall orientation (Avoidance, Distributive, Integrative), motivational concern (Identity, Instrumental, Relational), and intensity (High to Low). This solution was used as a framework for identifying differences in behavior across simulated and actual negotiations. Analyses showed a systematic pattern of variations in behavior use, with simulated negotiations involving relatively more avoidance-relational and distributive-instrumental behavior than actual negotiations. Predictable differences were also observed in the purpose or function of behavior, with highlyintense behaviors showing greater uniformity in function across contexts compared to lowintensity behaviors.",
keywords = "TIME PRESSURE, CONFLICT, PERSONALITY, STRATEGIES, TACTICS, STYLES, MODEL, SELF",
author = "Taylor, {P J} and I Donald",
year = "2004",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "443--478",
journal = "Human Communication Research",
issn = "1468-2958",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The structure of communication behavior in simulated and actual crisis negotiations

AU - Taylor, P J

AU - Donald, I

PY - 2004/10

Y1 - 2004/10

N2 - This research extends recent efforts to differentiate communication in crisis negotiations (Taylor, 2002) by examining how negotiators' behavior differs across context. Data were 108 interaction episodes transcribed from 12 simulated crisis negotiations and coded at the level of thought units across 41 behavioral variables. Results of a smallest space analysis supported the hypothesized differentiation of communication behavior over 3 facets: overall orientation (Avoidance, Distributive, Integrative), motivational concern (Identity, Instrumental, Relational), and intensity (High to Low). This solution was used as a framework for identifying differences in behavior across simulated and actual negotiations. Analyses showed a systematic pattern of variations in behavior use, with simulated negotiations involving relatively more avoidance-relational and distributive-instrumental behavior than actual negotiations. Predictable differences were also observed in the purpose or function of behavior, with highlyintense behaviors showing greater uniformity in function across contexts compared to lowintensity behaviors.

AB - This research extends recent efforts to differentiate communication in crisis negotiations (Taylor, 2002) by examining how negotiators' behavior differs across context. Data were 108 interaction episodes transcribed from 12 simulated crisis negotiations and coded at the level of thought units across 41 behavioral variables. Results of a smallest space analysis supported the hypothesized differentiation of communication behavior over 3 facets: overall orientation (Avoidance, Distributive, Integrative), motivational concern (Identity, Instrumental, Relational), and intensity (High to Low). This solution was used as a framework for identifying differences in behavior across simulated and actual negotiations. Analyses showed a systematic pattern of variations in behavior use, with simulated negotiations involving relatively more avoidance-relational and distributive-instrumental behavior than actual negotiations. Predictable differences were also observed in the purpose or function of behavior, with highlyintense behaviors showing greater uniformity in function across contexts compared to lowintensity behaviors.

KW - TIME PRESSURE

KW - CONFLICT

KW - PERSONALITY

KW - STRATEGIES

KW - TACTICS

KW - STYLES

KW - MODEL

KW - SELF

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00741.x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 443

EP - 478

JO - Human Communication Research

JF - Human Communication Research

SN - 1468-2958

IS - 4

ER -