Final answer:
In mixed-motive negotiations, both distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation are involved. Distributive bargaining is about a competitive win-lose scenario, while integrative negotiation focuses on a collaborative win-win outcome. Compromise is common when parties have shared goals but differ on specifics.
Step-by-step explanation:
Most situations in mixed-motive negotiations incorporate both distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation processes. Distributive bargaining is like dividing a pie, where any gain by one party is offset by a loss by another, reflecting a competitive or win-lose dynamic. On the other hand, integrative negotiation seeks outcomes where all parties can benefit. It is more collaborative or win-win in nature, looking at how to expand the pie rather than merely divide it.
When it comes to political negotiations or resolving collective dilemmas, we often see a blend of these approaches. At times negotiators might compromise, making concessions and reaching an outcome that, while not perfect for any one party, moves everyone toward a shared goal. Other situations might require force or persuasion to achieve a resolution where power dynamics heavily influence the outcomes. Compromise is especially likely when the parties agree on the general goals, but not the specifics, leading them to split the difference on various interests or demands.
In the context provided, the two types of negotiation processes involved in mixed-motive negotiations are 1) Distributive and Integrative.