Negotiators' bargaining histories and their effects on future negotiation performance

In 2 studies the authors show that the quality of deals negotiators reach are significantly influenced by their previous bargaining experiences. As predicted, negotiators who reached an impasse on a prior negotiation were more likely either to impasse in their next negotiation or to reach deals of low joint value compared to those who had reached an initial agreement. Notably, the impact of past performance on subsequent deals was just as strong for negotiators who changed partners on the 2nd occasion. Results highlight the role of bargaining histories as significant predictors of negotiation behavior. Moreover, they suggest that, at least in some cases, negotiations should be conceptualized as interrelated exchanges rather than separable incidents.     

Implicit negotiation beliefs and performance: experimental and longitudinal evidence

The authors argue that implicit negotiation beliefs, which speak to the expected malleability of negotiating ability, affect performance in dyadic negotiations. They expected negotiators who believe negotiating attributes are malleable (incremental theorists) to outperform negotiators who believe negotiating attributes are fixed (entity theorists). In Study 1, they gathered evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the implicit negotiation belief construct. In Study 2, they examined the impact of implicit beliefs on the achievement goals that negotiators pursue. In Study 3, they explored the causal role of implicit beliefs on negotiation performance by manipulating negotiators' implicit beliefs within dyads. They also identified perceived ability as a moderator of the link between implicit negotiation beliefs and performance. In Study 4, they measured negotiators' beliefs in a classroom setting and examined how these beliefs affected negotiation performance and overall performance in the course 15 weeks later. Across all performance measures, incremental theorists outperformed entity theorists. Consistent with the authors' hypotheses, incremental theorists captured more of the bargaining surplus and were more integrative than their entity theorist counterparts, suggesting implicit theories are important determinants of how negotiators perform. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

Counterfactual structure and learning from experience in negotiations

Reflecting on the past is often a critical ingredient for successful learning. The current research investigated how counterfactual thinking, reflecting on how prior experiences might have been different, motivates effective learning from these previous experiences. Specifically, we explored how the structure of counterfactual reflection - their additive (“If only I had”) versus subtractive (“If only I had not”) nature - influences performance in dyadic-level strategic interactions. Building on the functionalist account of counterfactuals, we found across two experiments that generating additive counterfactuals about a previous negotiation produced an advantage for negotiators over their previous performance compared to subtractive counterfactuals, both in terms of obtaining value for oneself and conceiving creative agreements. Additive counterfactuals enabled negotiators to more effectively extract lessons from past experiences to improve their current negotiation performance.     

Expectancy Disconfirmation and Negotiator Reactions Across Negotiation Episodes

In the negotiation literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the impact of negotiator goals and expectancy disconfirmations on negotiator behaviors and affective outcomes. We found that negotiators with larger negative expectancy disconfirmations were less satisfied; set lower targets for a subsequent negotiation; and were more likely to settle with the other party in the second negotiation, rather than requiring third-party imposition of a settlement. Those negotiators who settled had more positive feelings and perceptions about the negotiation and set higher targets for a third negotiation. Further, negotiators who experienced repeated high levels of negative expectancy disconfirmation also experienced the greatest decrements in their feelings and perceptions across negotiation episodes. Implications of study findings for future research are discussed.     

Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations

Three studies examined whether the self-regulation strategy of forming implementation intentions (i.e., if-then plans) facilitates the attainment of prosocial goals when a limited resource is to be distributed between two parties who hold adverse cognitive orientations. In three experiments, pairs of negotiators were assigned prosocial goals that either had to be supplemented with plans (if-then plans, Gollwitzer, 1999) on how to act on these goals or not. Experiment 1 used a mixed-frames negotiation paradigm in which one negotiation partner operated on a gain-frame, the other on a loss-frame. When participants had the prosocial goal to find fair agreements and furnished it with a respective if-then plan, unfair agreements in favor of the loss-frame negotiator no longer occurred. Experiment 2 used a same-frame negotiation paradigm, where both negotiation partners had either a loss or a gain-frame. When loss-frame pairs had furnished their prosocial goals to cooperate with the negotiation partner with a respective if-then plan, reduced profits as compared to gain-frame pairs of negotiators were no longer observed. In addition, negotiators who had formed implementation intentions were more likely to use the integrative negotiation strategy of logrolling (i.e., making greater concessions on low rather than high priority issues). Experiment 3 used a computer-mediated negotiation task in order to analyze the effects of prosocial goals and respective implementation intentions on the course of the negotiation. Again, implementation intentions facilitated the pursuit of prosocial goals in the face of adversity (i.e., loss frames) by use of the integrative negotiation strategy of logrolling. The present research adds a self-regulation perspective to the research on negotiation by pointing out that the effects of negotiation goals can be enhanced by furnishing them with respective plans (i.e., implementation intentions).     

Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration

We examine how gender stereotypes affect performance in mixed-gender negotiations. We extend recent work demonstrating that stereotype activation leads to a male advantage and a complementary female disadvantage at the bargaining table (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). In the present investigation, we regenerate the stereotype of effective negotiators by associating stereotypically feminine skills with negotiation success. In Experiment 1, women performed better in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to successful negotiating, but not when gender-neutral traits were linked to negotiation success. Gender differences were mediated by the performance expectations and goals set by negotiators. In Experiment 2, we regenerated the stereotype of effective negotiators by linking stereotypically masculine or feminine traits with negotiation ineffectiveness. Women outperformed men in mixed-gender negotiations when stereotypically masculine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance, but men outperformed women when stereotypically feminine traits were linked to poor negotiation performance. Implications for stereotype threat theory and negotiations are discussed.     

Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes

We hypothesized that in online, virtual formats, negotiators receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language; furthermore, we predicted that this strategy would be more effective when occurring early in the negotiation rather than at the end, and should also be effective across both independent and interdependent cultures. Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was conducted in Thailand and demonstrated that negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's language in the first 10 min of the negotiation obtained higher individual gain compared to those mimicking during the last 10 min, as well as compared to control participants. Experiment 2 replicated this effect in the United States (with Dutch and American negotiators) and also showed that trust mediated the effect of virtual linguistic mimicry on individual negotiation outcomes. Implications for virtual communication, strategic mimicry, and negotiations are discussed.     

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.     

The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effects of Anger on Negotiation Strategies: A Cross‐Cultural Investigation

This study assessed the effects of negotiators’ anger on their own and their counterparts’ use of negotiation strategies and whether such effects were moderated by national culture. Participants (N= 130) were 66 sojourning Chinese and 64 Americans who performed an intracultural negotiation simulation. Findings indicated that (a) anger caused negotiators to use more positional statements and propose fewer integrative offers, (b) anger caused the counterparts to use fewer positional statements but also exchange less information about priorities, (c) Chinese negotiators used more persuasive arguments as their counterparts’ anger increased, whereas Americans did not, and (d) Chinese negotiators used more distributive and fewer integrative tactics than American negotiators. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in this article.     

Too much information: the perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations

Two studies showed that possessing information about a negotiation counterpart that is irrelevant to the negotiation task can impair negotiators' effectiveness because such knowledge impedes effective information exchange. In Study 1, negotiators who possessed diagnostic and nondiagnostic forms of information were each less likely to exchange information about their preferences within the negotiation. However, only those negotiators who possessed nondiagnostic information achieved inferior negotiation outcomes as a result. In Study 2, negotiators possessing nondiagnostic information about their counterparts in electronically mediated negotiations were more likely to terminate the search for mutually beneficial outcomes prematurely and declare impasses. They were also less able to use diagnostic forms of information to make mutually beneficial trade-offs. As a result, negotiators in these dyads achieved inferior outcomes.     

Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions

Five experiments investigated how the possession and experience of power affects the initiation of competitive interaction. In Experiments 1a and 1b, high-power individuals displayed a greater propensity to initiate a negotiation than did low-power individuals. Three additional experiments showed that power increased the likelihood of making the first move in a variety of competitive interactions. In Experiment 2, participants who were semantically primed with power were nearly 4 times as likely as participants in a control condition to choose to make the opening arguments in a debate competition scenario. In Experiment 3, negotiators with strong alternatives to a negotiation were more than 3 times as likely to spontaneously express an intention to make the first offer compared to participants who lacked any alternatives. Experiment 4 showed that high-power negotiators were more likely than low-power negotiators to actually make the first offer and that making the first offer produced a bargaining advantage.     

Assertiveness predicts threat and challenge reactions to potential stress among women.

In this study assertiveness as a moderator of stress reactions among women was examined. Specifically, the experimenters examined how high and low assertive women cognitively appraised, affectively and physiologically responded to, and behaviorally coped with the stress of giving an impromptu speech. High assertive women appraised the speech stressor as challenging, whereas low assertive women appraised the stressor as threatening. High assertive women also had a challenge pattern of autonomic response during the task, compared with the threat response of low assertive women. Afterward, the high assertive women reported experiencing less stress and negative emotion and greater positive emotion than did the low assertive women. Overall, the high assertive women's stress-related reactions indicated challenge, whereas the low assertive women's reactions indicated threat (see J. Tomaka, J. Blascovich, R. M. Kelsey, & C. L. Leitten, 1993).     

Threats,Bluffs, and Disclaimers in Negotiations

In a buyer-seller simulation within two negotiation periods, we examined the attitudinal and behavioral consequences of variations in the communication of threats. Specifically, we examined the consequences of receiving no threat or a threat stated with, versus without, a disclaimer. In addition, we examined changes in subjects′ evaluations of their partner and negotiation outcomes after some were led to believe their partner had stated a false threat (a "bluff"). As expected, we found that while negotiators who used threats were perceived as more powerful, they were also perceived as less cooperative and achieved less integrative agreements than those who did not use threats. In addition, when information (allegedly from a constituent) identified the threat as a bluff, we found that the disclaimer lessened the negativity of re-evaluations of the negotiation partner. Taken together, our findings suggest that current theory regarding the effect of threats and bluffs in negotiation needs to be qualified by how these tactics are stated. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.     

Power and the Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations

This study examines how the illusion of transparency in negotiation differs depending on whether one is the powerful or less powerful negotiator. The illusion of transparency is the tendency for individuals to overestimate the extent to which their internal states and intentions are apparent to an outside observer. Thus, this illusion equals the difference between perceived and actual transparency. We predict that less powerful negotiators experience more perceived transparency than do powerful negotiators and that powerful negotiators exhibit greater actual transparency than do less powerful negotiators. The main hypothesis that the illusion of transparency is greater for less powerful negotiators than for powerful negotiators was supported.     

Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance relationship

This study tested the situational effects of goals and stress on the performance of complex tasks and on adaptation to change in the task. Difficult goals often exceed the individual's resources and thus create stress. However, stress may be appraised as either challenge or threat. Challenge is experienced when there is an opportunity for self-growth with available coping strategies, whereas threat is experienced when the situation is perceived as leading to failure with no available strategies to cope with it. We hypothesized that participants who appraised the situation as a challenge would perform better and adapt better to changes under difficult goal conditions, as compared with general goals or strategy goals. By contrast, threat appraisals would be better addressed by strategy goals rather than difficult goals. One hundred and fifty five students performed a task, which required their making predictions concerning the value of 120 companies' stocks based on three manipulated cues. We used a three by three by two factorial design in which goals, stress, and change (as a repeated factor) were varied to test the hypotheses. Results supported the main hypotheses and demonstrated that the same level of goal difficulty may lead to high or low performance and adaptation to change depending on the appraisal of the situation as challenging or threatening. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are further discussed.     

Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus

Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.     

Cognitive appraisals of stereotype threat

Using the cognitive appraisal conceptualisation of the transactional model of stress, the goal was to assess how victims of stereotype threat respond to this situation in terms of primary appraisals (threat/challenge) and to investigate whether those appraisals may mediate the relation between stereotype threat and performance. Results show that, while participants from North Africa living in France did appraise the situation more as a threat and less as a challenge, only challenge appraisal mediated between stereotype threat and performance.     

Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation

This study examines whether and how accountability to constituents affects the cognitions, performance, and outcomes of team and solo negotiators. Previous findings for solos were replicated here: solo negotiators respond competitively when they are accountable to constituents. For teams, however, accountability pressures were distributed across the members resulting in each team member experiencing little responsibility for outcomes. As a consequence, teams did not respond to accountability pressures by behaving contentiously as solos did. Analysis of negotiators' perceptions of advantage reveals that solos who negotiate under conditions of high accountability consider themselves to be at a disadvantage in the negotiation even before the negotiation begins. These perceptions may underlie the accountability/competitive relation that characterizes solo negotiation. Implications for negotiation research as well as the study of groups in organizations are discussed.     

The agony of opportunity in negotiation: Number of negotiable issues,counterfactual thinking,and feelings of satisfaction

It has long been believed in the negotiation literature that increasing the number of issues in a negotiation is a positive feature because it increases integrative opportunities. But does this also increase negotiator satisfaction? Two studies are presented that examine this relationship between the number of issues in a negotiation and feelings of satisfaction immediately following the negotiation. Results indicate that those who negotiated the most issues felt the worse about their outcome. The proposed mechanism for this effect, that negotiators who deal with more issues generate more counterfactual thoughts imagining better possible outcomes, was tested and confirmed.