*2.3. Top-Down Influences*

Top-down influences are created by the quality of the intergroup interactions that spiral down to influence the dynamics within the stakeholder parties. Based on open systems theory (Katz and Kahn 1978) and on a complex adaptive systems framework (Eidelson 1997) one can expect that forces at higher system levels limit the degrees of freedom at lower system levels.

Collaborativeness or promotive interactions reflect positive interdependence (Deutsch 1949; Johnson 2003). In the case of multiparty collaboration, promotive interactions are likely to exist when parties in the system realize that they need one another to realize their individual goals (Johnson 2003; Johnson and Johnson 2005). Through their individual actions, parties in the multiparty system promote the development and realization of collective and individual goals. As the collaborativeness of all stakeholder parties is perceived to increase, one may expect the tensions that are inherent to multiparty collaboration to decrease, which in turn may generate a positive relational climate within stakeholder parties. System collaborativeness creates more space for each stakeholder party to focus on the task and more courage may be shown to confront one another in the service of task accomplishment. As the tensions of multiparty interactions decrease and consume less time, more attention can be paid to the ideas and concerns of the individual members within parties (cf. Sherif and Sherif 1967); an increasing constructive climate at the system level may foster space to engage in constructive task conflict dealing with individual concerns at the party level. On the contrary, if the collaborativeness in the whole system decreases, the constructive engagemen<sup>t</sup> with the task at hand within stakeholder parties is likely to be jeopardized as anxieties regarding the other parties may distract the party members from the task at hand.

Conflictuality goes together with contrient or negative interdependence in multiparty systems. Negatively interdependent stakeholder parties realize their goals at the expense of goal realization of the other parties (Johnson 2003; Johnson and Johnson 2005). Parties engaging in conflictual interactions obstruct rather than support each other. Conflict is an emotionally laden experience (Pluut and Cur¸seu 2013) and tends to spiral down from the multiparty system level to the individual stakeholder parties. As stated in the social interdependence theory (Johnson and Johnson 2005) negative cathexis tends to spread among the participants in a system. Aligned with the emotional contagion model (Barsade and Gibson 1998), we expect that relational tensions experienced at the system level tend to induce relational frictions within stakeholder parties. One can imagine that when intergroup relational conflict is high, there is less attention to members' needs and concerns within a group (cf. Sherif and Sherif 1967), which in due time may cause frustration and friction internally.

We expect that the entwinement of positive and negative interdependence transfers from the multiparty system level to the stakeholder parties (top-down influence). We therefore hypothesize the following:

**Hypothesis 3.** *Changes from expected to experienced conflictuality perceived among the stakeholder parties in the multiparty system lead to changes in the same direction from expected to experienced relationship conflict within stakeholder parties*.

**Hypothesis 4.** *Changes from expected to experienced collaborativeness perceived among the stakeholder parties in the multiparty system lead to changes in the same direction from expected to experienced task conflict within the stakeholder parties*.
