Classification of Agreement: Methodological Concerns

Classification is fundamentally important yet difficult in many domains where it can aid inquiry (e.g., understanding animal species; forms of government; galaxies). This extends to understanding the “win-win agreement” (aka “integrative”; “Pareto Optimal”) and the outcomes of problem solving in negotiation. This paper is a theory paper that identifies methodological issues and problems with agreement classification and offers some solutions. The paper builds on Pruitt's (1981) classification of agreement in five basic types, and Carnevale's (2014) extension to eight. Classification of agreement is more valid for some forms of agreement, more than for others, and more valid at higher levels of abstraction (as indexed by observer agreement). The paper offers suggestions for advancing classification of agreement, not only for the science of negotiation but for teaching and practice. Valid classification systems provide the basis for checklists that may be useful for search and discovery in the field.