{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02004008016032064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026720106880427524, 'mean_word_length': 5.778280542986425, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Integration Versus Distribution in Contract Negotiations: An Interaction Analysis of Strategy Use

This study employed interaction analysis to examine the communicative behav ior displayed by management versus labor negotiators at various phases of the collective bargaining process. Nine hundred and nineteen messages uttered during contract negotiations between two bargaining teams (teachers and administrators) were coded using Putnam and Jones's (1982) revision of Walcott and Hopmann's Bargaining Process Analysis (BPA II). Results indicate that, contrary to the first hypothesis, administration and teacher negotiators were surprisingly similar in the communicative bargaining behaviors exhibited. As predicted, however, communication strategies were found to be different at the various phases of negotiations, with earlier stages being more distributive and later phases being more integrative. Finally, the results suggest that in interac tion with phase, strategy use varies by side. Specifically, labor uses more inte grative and defensive strategies early in the negotiations; while management is more apt to employ offensive strategies. In the middle of the negotiations, labor uses more integrative messages and more offensive tactics; while management tends to rely more heavily on defensive strategies. In the final phase, the differences between management and labor in terms of strategy use even out, with both sides being equally likely to use any of the three message tactics.