{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82238"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82238","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Affect and Cognition in Social Conflict","abstract":"Researchers have begun to recognize that dispute resolution processes and outcomes may be influenced as much by how disputants feel as what they think. These feelings, or affect, are important sources of perceptions and behavior in a variety of settings, but their abundance in conflict settings suggests that they may play a special role in the resolution of disputes. Yet, given the substantial cognitive components of various affective states, disputants' affect may be evaluated in the context of their other cognitions about the setting. In particular, disputants' use of the conflict or cooperation schemata was predicted to influence the degree to which various affective states produced their prescribed behavior. In this study, disputants were induced to feel angry, happy, or guilty, and given instructions for an upcoming interaction that elicited strong associations with either the conflict or cooperation schema (although the underlying properties of the task were identical in all conditions). Disputants then participated as either a union or management representative in a laboratory simulation of negotiation. Results indicated that the cognitive content of disputants' feelings indicate what goals, and therefore what behavior, is appropriate for the interaction. The effects of anger, happiness, and guilt were only observed when the goals induced by these types of affect were consistent with disputants' cognitions about the setting (i.e., their use of the conflict schema). Specifically, anger increased and happiness decreased contentious behavior, but only when disputants used the conflict schema. The opposite was found when disputants used the cooperation schema. These results suggest a refinement of previous research on the role of affect in negotiation contexts. Results are discussed both in terms of their implications for conflict research and for the study of affect.","abstract_html":"Researchers have begun to recognize that dispute resolution processes and outcomes may be influenced as much by how disputants feel as what they think. These feelings, or affect, are important sources of perceptions and behavior in a variety of settings, but their abundance in conflict settings suggests that they may play a special role in the resolution of disputes. Yet, given the substantial cognitive components of various affective states, disputants' affect may be evaluated in the context of their other cognitions about the setting. In particular, disputants' use of the conflict or cooperation schemata was predicted to influence the degree to which various affective states produced their prescribed behavior. In this study, disputants were induced to feel angry, happy, or guilty, and given instructions for an upcoming interaction that elicited strong associations with either the conflict or cooperation schema (although the underlying properties of the task were identical in all conditions). Disputants then participated as either a union or management representative in a laboratory simulation of negotiation. Results indicated that the cognitive content of disputants' feelings indicate what goals, and therefore what behavior, is appropriate for the interaction. The effects of anger, happiness, and guilt were only observed when the goals induced by these types of affect were consistent with disputants' cognitions about the setting (i.e., their use of the conflict schema). Specifically, anger increased and happiness decreased contentious behavior, but only when disputants used the conflict schema. The opposite was found when disputants used the cooperation schema. These results suggest a refinement of previous research on the role of affect in negotiation contexts. Results are discussed both in terms of their implications for conflict research and for the study of affect.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Rhoades, Jonathan Allen"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Carnevale, Peter J."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-25T20:39:45Z","date_published":"2015-09-25T20:39:45Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:17Z","subjects":["Psychology, Cognitive"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI9834736"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI9834736","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82238","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Carnevale, Peter J."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Rhoades, Jonathan Allen"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-25T20:39:45Z","10000-01-01","1998"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology, Cognitive"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82238","(MiAaPQ)AAI9834736"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Researchers have begun to recognize that dispute resolution processes and outcomes may be influenced as much by how disputants feel as what they think. These feelings, or affect, are important sources of perceptions and behavior in a variety of settings, but their abundance in conflict settings suggests that they may play a special role in the resolution of disputes. Yet, given the substantial cognitive components of various affective states, disputants' affect may be evaluated in the context of their other cognitions about the setting. In particular, disputants' use of the conflict or cooperation schemata was predicted to influence the degree to which various affective states produced their prescribed behavior. In this study, disputants were induced to feel angry, happy, or guilty, and given instructions for an upcoming interaction that elicited strong associations with either the conflict or cooperation schema (although the underlying properties of the task were identical in all conditions). Disputants then participated as either a union or management representative in a laboratory simulation of negotiation. Results indicated that the cognitive content of disputants' feelings indicate what goals, and therefore what behavior, is appropriate for the interaction. The effects of anger, happiness, and guilt were only observed when the goals induced by these types of affect were consistent with disputants' cognitions about the setting (i.e., their use of the conflict schema). Specifically, anger increased and happiness decreased contentious behavior, but only when disputants used the conflict schema. The opposite was found when disputants used the cooperation schema. These results suggest a refinement of previous research on the role of affect in negotiation contexts. Results are discussed both in terms of their implications for conflict research and for the study of affect.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:39:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 9834736.pdf: 5530026 bytes, checksum: 3313a66444b351a40c3e1f100d5821e7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1998","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83519 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","125 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Affect and Cognition in Social Conflict"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Carnevale, Peter J."],"dc:creator":["Rhoades, Jonathan Allen"],"dc:date":["2015-09-25T20:39:45Z","10000-01-01","1998"],"dc:description":["Researchers have begun to recognize that dispute resolution processes and outcomes may be influenced as much by how disputants feel as what they think. These feelings, or affect, are important sources of perceptions and behavior in a variety of settings, but their abundance in conflict settings suggests that they may play a special role in the resolution of disputes. Yet, given the substantial cognitive components of various affective states, disputants' affect may be evaluated in the context of their other cognitions about the setting. In particular, disputants' use of the conflict or cooperation schemata was predicted to influence the degree to which various affective states produced their prescribed behavior. In this study, disputants were induced to feel angry, happy, or guilty, and given instructions for an upcoming interaction that elicited strong associations with either the conflict or cooperation schema (although the underlying properties of the task were identical in all conditions). Disputants then participated as either a union or management representative in a laboratory simulation of negotiation. Results indicated that the cognitive content of disputants' feelings indicate what goals, and therefore what behavior, is appropriate for the interaction. The effects of anger, happiness, and guilt were only observed when the goals induced by these types of affect were consistent with disputants' cognitions about the setting (i.e., their use of the conflict schema). Specifically, anger increased and happiness decreased contentious behavior, but only when disputants used the conflict schema. The opposite was found when disputants used the cooperation schema. These results suggest a refinement of previous research on the role of affect in negotiation contexts. Results are discussed both in terms of their implications for conflict research and for the study of affect.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:39:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 9834736.pdf: 5530026 bytes, checksum: 3313a66444b351a40c3e1f100d5821e7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1998","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83519 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","125 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82238","(MiAaPQ)AAI9834736"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Psychology, Cognitive"],"dc:title":["Affect and Cognition in Social Conflict"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:17Z"}