| I present five experiments as an investigation of how to improve negotiators' preparation for a negotiation via analogies. Specifically, I am interested in understanding how to improve negotiators' ability to retrieve meaningful knowledge before a negotiation, so it can aid their problem solving during the negotiation. The application of relational knowledge across different contexts is known as knowledge transfer (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Novick, 1988; Rattermann & Gentner, 1998; Ross & Kennedy, 1990).;People often fail to access previous knowledge that would be useful in improving their problem solving (i.e., the inert knowledge problem), but prior research suggests analogies may be used to ameliorate that problem (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980). I extend previous work on analogical encoding, which is the process of comparing and deriving a key principle from two analogous examples to facilitate problem solving in a subsequent context (e.g., Loewenstein, Thompson, & Gentner, 1999, 2003). Through this investigation, I specifically examine the effect of three processes on knowledge transfer in negotiation: (1) dyadic analogical encoding, (2) reminding-based generalization, and (3) context-consistent encoding.;First, I suggest that when two competitors prepare together for a negotiation by comparing examples and deriving key principles (i.e., dyadic analogical encoding), they will more effectively transfer those principles to reach more integrative agreement in a subsequent negotiation. I test that question in Experiments 1 and 2. To do so, I use a similar method as previous research, which tested the effect of comparing and deriving principles from two cases prior to negotiation (v. analyzing the cases separately) on subsequent knowledge transfer (Gentner, Loewenstein, & Thompson, 2003; Gentner, Loewenstein, Thompson, & Forbus, 2009; Loewenstein et al., 1999, 2003; Thompson, Gentner, & Loewenstein, 2000). I find that dyadic analogical encoding improves dyads' knowledge transfer when participants derive principles from case exemplars (Experiment 1) and their own experiences (Experiment 2).;Second, I test the question of whether negotiators can derive relevant principles from comparing their own experiences (as opposed to experimenter-generated cases) to facilitate their later knowledge transfer. I extend prior research on reminding-based generalization (Ross, Perkins, & Tenpenny, 1990) and late analogical abstraction (Gentner et al., 2009). The former suggests people are able to make generalizations or abstractions from comparing new experiences with prior experiences (Ross et al., 1990). The latter suggests deriving principles from comparing two case scenarios improves people's ability to both retrieve analogous examples from memory (backward retrieval) and later transfer the principle they derived to achieve more integrative agreement in a negotiation (forward transfer; Gentner et al., 2009).;I extend the work on reminding-based generalization to a negotiation context by essentially testing the reverse of the backward retrieval phenomenon. Specifically, I examine whether first retrieving examples from memory and comparing those experiences may facilitate subsequent principle derivation and knowledge transfer in negotiation. The results of four experiments (Experiments 2-4b) suggest negotiators may successfully derive principles from comparing their own experiences and demonstrate that individuals, teams, and dyads are all able to do so effectively.;Third, I test whether there is an added benefit for people to complete the comparison and derivation exercises with another person, or whether it is equally as effective for them to complete the exercises by themselves. The results of three experiments (Experiments 3-4b) find that completing both exercises in the same manner (either completing both exercises individually or with another person) is important and more effective at facilitating subsequent knowledge transfer than completing one exercise with another person and the other exercise individually. I refer to the process of completing both exercises in the same manner as context-consistent encoding. Experiment 4b further suggests that the similarity between negotiators (e.g., whether negotiators have a similar level of understanding of a key principle) is important for knowledge transfer.;I conclude by reviewing the theoretical and practical implications of these three processes and the opportunities they present for future research. |
