Culture and Negotiation Strategy

In this article the authors investigate the relationship between culture and joint gains by examining the role of information sharing and power strategies in intracultural negotiations. Previously, the authors found that the relationship between cultural values or norms and joint gains was uncertain in six cultures: France, Russia, Japan, Hong Kong, Brazil, and the United States. Of the five values and norms measured, only norms for information sharing in negotiation were directly related to joint gains. This article explores and extends prior findings by investigating the strategies used by negotiators in the same six cultures. Cultures that maximized joint gains used direct information-sharing strategies or a combination of indirect and direct strategies. Power strategies may help or hurt joint gains, depending on a culture's values and norms for power and whether or not power-based influence is used in conjunction with sufficient information exchange. The findings suggest that understanding the other party's cultural characteristics and strategies can help negotiators plan how to focus on information exchange and deal with unusual power strategies that they may encounter.     

Results of anger control training for battering couples

This paper describes progress made by violence-prone spouses and parents in keeping their anger under control and stopping themselves from battering other family members. A total of 134 subjects took part in a 10-week structured group therapy program. All had experienced violence in their family, either as a perpetrator or as a victim. After anger control training 85 % of the families were free of further violence and remained so, according to an independent survey completed 6–8 months later.     

The Hysterical Attorney: The Legal Advocate Within Lacanian Discourse Theory

In this essay, I apply Jacques Lacan'sfour discourses to the legal profession. A lawyer –i.e. a legal expert – engages in the Master'sdiscourse when he writes the law; he engages in theUniversity discourse when he interprets or attempts tojustify the law. In contrast, an attorney – i.e. a legal advisor – engages in the Analyst'sdiscourse when she counsel's her client; she engagesin the Hysteric's discourse when she represents herclient. From a Lacanian perspective, the two lawyer'sdiscourses are masculine, while the two attorney'sdiscourses are feminine. I divergefrom Lacan's view that the Analyst's is the mostradical discourse. The insight gained throughanalysis can only challenge and change the law iftranslated through the Hysteric's discourse. Consequently, despite dominant sexual stereotypes tothe contrary, to be an effective advocate should takeon a radically hysteric femininity.