Editing Negotiation (section)

=== Bad faith ===

When a party pretends to negotiate but secretly has no intention of compromising, the party is negotiating in [[bad faith]]; for example, when a political party sees political benefit in ''appearing'' to negotiate without having any intention of making the compromises necessary to settle.<ref>"negotiating in bad faith", an example of use of [https://web.archive.org/web/20120821234341/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bad+faith "bad faith"] definition in Oxford Online Dictionary</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=IBHS Union Voice |url=http://unitas.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/bad-faith-negotiation/ |title="Bad Faith Negotiation", Union Voice |publisher=Unitas.wordpress.com |date=2008-12-03 |access-date=2014-08-24}}</ref>

Bad faith negotiations are often used in [[political science]] and [[political psychology]] to refer to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach compromise or a model of [[Information processing (psychology)|information processing]].<ref>example of use – "the Republicans accused the Democrats of [https://web.archive.org/web/20120821234341/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bad+faith "negotiating in bad faith"], ''Oxford Online Dictionary''</ref> The "[[inherent bad faith model]]" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by [[Ole Holsti]] to explain the relationship between [[John Foster Dulles]]' beliefs and his model of information processing.<ref>Douglas Stuart and Harvey Starr, [https://www.jstor.org/pss/3791139 "The 'Inherent Bad Faith Model' Reconsidered: Dulles, Kennedy, and Kissinger"], ''Political Psychology''{{subscription required}}</ref> It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent:<ref name="Gilbert & Fiske inherent">"...&nbsp;the most widely studied is the inherent bad faith model of one's opponent&nbsp;...", ''The handbook of social psychology'', Volumes 1–2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, Gardner Lindzey</ref> A state is presumed implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are [[John Foster Dulles]]' position regarding the Soviet Union.<ref name="Gilbert & Fiske inherent" />{{POV statement|date=June 2011}}