The Effect of Internal vs. External Attributions and Level of Information on Perceptions and Concessions in a Conflict Situation

This study investigated predicted concessions and subject impressions of internally vs. externally motivated opponents in a conflict situation. One hundred and twenty undergraduate subjects read brief scenarios that presented opening statements made by opponents in a negotiation involving the division of excess funds in an organization. The opponent asked for 80% of the excess money and either blamed external or internal reasons for not conciliating. Half the subjects were also presented with additional information regarding the opponent's prior behavior along the dimensions of consistency, consensus and distinctiveness. It was hypothesized that attribution would interact with additional information so that external additional information opponents would receive higher concessions and more favorable impressions. The results do not support this hypothesis. Results indicate that external opponents received higher concessions (p<.0001); and more favorable impressions (likeableness, p<.0001; reasonableness, p<.0001; trustworthiness, p<.0001). The results are discussed in relation to the possible redundancy of the variable information with attributions. Discussion also centers on previous published studies (Baron, 1985; Rubin et al.; 1980) that hypothesized a similar pattern of results as found in this study. Each previous study obtained opposite results of those found in this study.