Negotiating the contested: A framework for studying social issue negotiations

Negotiation research has yielded useful insights on how to manage economic and business interactions by highlighting the importance of information sharing, trade-offs, and integrative solutions in achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. However, these approaches inadequately explain why negotiations over social issues such as immigration reform and climate change can remain deadlocked despite sustained efforts to reach agreement. Drawing upon recent research, we introduce an organizing framework that identifies three common features of such negotiations: moralization, identity threat, and public contestation. Moralization frames issues as matters of right and wrong, reducing willingness to compromise; identity concerns transform policy disagreements into threats to group membership and self-concept; and public scrutiny increases reputational risks and constrains flexibility. Together, these dynamics hinder engagement, value creation, and the quality of agreements. We review emerging interventions-including moral reframing, perspective sharing, high-quality listening, informal dialogue, and third-party mediation-that may mitigate these barriers. We conclude by highlighting the need for research examining how moral, identity, and public pressures interact across levels of analysis to shape social issue negotiation processes and outcomes.