Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
L. Pondy (1967)
Organizational conflict: Concepts and models.Administrative Science Quarterly, 12
J. Gibbs (1981)
Norms, Deviance, and Social Control: Conceptual Matters
H. Beale, T. Dugdale (1975)
Contracts between Businessmen: Planning and the Use of Contractual Remedies, 2
C. Lockhart (1978)
Conflict Actions and Outcomes: Long-Term ImpactsJournal of Conflict Resolution, 22
D. Campbell, D. Fiske (1959)
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological bulletin, 56 2
J. Himes (1980)
Conflict and Conflict Management
吉田 邦彦 (1989)
Ian R.Macneil:Economic Analysis of Contractual Relations--Its Shortfalls and the Need for a"Rich Classificatory Apparatus"(75 Nw.U.L.Rev.,1981), 1989
J. Gaski (1984)
The Theory of Power and Conflict in Channels of DistributionJournal of Marketing, 48
K. Boulding (1962)
Conflict and Defense: A General Theory
Stewart Macaulay (1963)
Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary studyAmerican Sociological Review, 28
P. Kaufmann (1987)
Commercial exchange relationships and the “negotiator's dilemma”Negotiation Journal, 3
O. Williamson (1979)
Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual RelationsThe Journal of Law and Economics, 22
R. Gordon (1985)
Macneil, Macaulay, and the Discovery of Power and Solidarity in Contract Law
Stanley Hollander, L. Stern (1970)
Distribution channels : behavioral dimensionsJournal of Marketing, 34
Baruch Fischhoff (1975)
Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1
Robert May (1981)
The evolution of cooperationNature, 292
B. Williams (1967)
The new social contract
Relational Exchange Theory suggests that the norms that govern commercial exchange behavior in discrete transactions are markedly different from those in relational exchange. When parties to commercial exchange become involved in a manifest conflict episode, it might be expected that the types of norms that govern their relationship will affect their characterization of each other's conflict behavior. This article proposes a model of conflict in commercial exchange relationships. The model focuses on how the prevailing exchange norms of solidarity, role integrity, and mutuality impact a party's perception of unfair treatment, and how causal attributions mediate those effects. The perception of unfairness is then linked to the level of hostility that is retained after the conflict episode ostensibly has been terminated. Several hypotheses are tested using a sample of firms engaged in contract litigation. The norm of solidarity and its interaction with the causal attribution measure are found to be significantly related to the level of perceived unfairness. Perceived unfairness is also significantly related to retained hostility.
Journal of Conflict Resolution – SAGE
Published: Sep 1, 1988
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.