Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SPSP Annual Meeting 2010

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garcia, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Garcia, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Morally Questionable Tactics: Negotiations between District Attorneys and Public Defenders

Stephen M. Garcia

Princeton University, smgarcia{at}princeton.edu

John M. Darley

Princeton University

Robert J. Robinson

Harvard Business School

A questionnaire study about bargaining tactics was conducted among 163 public defenders (PDs) and district attorneys (DAs) in the criminal justice system. The authors hypothesized that PDs (defensive roles) would perceive questionable tactics to be more appropriate than would DAs (offensive roles), that PDs and DAs would elevate their approval of questionable tactics for counteraggression purposes, and that PDs would elevate their approval for counteraggression to a greater extent than would DAs. Results supported these hypotheses. The authors also examined the basis of the status quo bias, because previous status quo bias studies always confounded power with defensive role. After testing four status quo bias hypotheses, results suggested that, contrary to previous explanations, a defender-challenger framework sometimes provides a better account of the status quo bias than does a power framework.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 6, 731-743 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167201276008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
C. K. W. De Dreu, E. S. Kluwer, and A. Nauta
The Structure and Management of Conflict: Fighting or Defending the Status Quo
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 331 - 353.
[Abstract] [PDF]