Goal orientations in negotiations: the influence of goal orientations on fixed-pie perceptions and bargaining outcomes

As is the case for other achievement situations, people may approach negotiations emphasizing outcome and/or process goals. This paper examines the effects of process goal orientation (PGO) and outcome goal orientation (OGO) on individuals' fixed-pie perceptions and the negotiation of joint outcomes. Process and outcome goal orientations are associated with different personal beliefs about the world. We hypothesized that persons who are primarily oriented toward outcome goals, based on their fixed-entity perception of the world, would mainly concentrate on the final results or on the outcomes of the negotiation. They would tend to perceive negotiations as fixed, zero-sum, competitive situations, which have to be "won" by one of the parties at the expense of the other. On the other hand, we predicted that people who are strongly process-oriented, based on their malleable-entity perception of the world, would focus mainly on formulating and mastering the best strategies that lead to successful resolution of the negotiation. They would perceive positions to be "malleable" and, hence, would tend to perceive the negotiation as a non zero-sum situation. Additionally, the interaction between the two types of goal orientations and its effect on the parties' joint negotiation outcomes was examined. Results of two empirical studies indicated that OGO was significantly positively associated with fixed-pie bias (Study 1). The significant interaction between PGO and OGO (Study 2) demonstrated that a strong OGO combined with a strong PGO led to the best joint negotiation outcomes. Implications for goal orientation and negotiation theories are discussed.     

Emotions as strategic information: Effects of other’s emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands, and integrative behavior in negotiation

Negotiators often fail to reach integrative (”win-win”) agreements because they think that their own and other’s preferences are diametrically opposed—the so-called fixed-pie perception. We examined how verbal (Experiment 1) and nonverbal (Experiment 2) emotional expressions may reduce fixed-pie perception and promote integrative behavior. In a two-issue computer-simulated negotiation, participants negotiated with a counterpart emitting one of the following emotional response patterns: (1) anger on both issues, (2) anger on participant’s high priority issue and happiness on participant’s low-priority issue, (3) happiness on high priority issue and anger on low-priority issue, or (4) happiness on both issues. In both studies, the third pattern reduced fixed-pie perception and increased integrative behavior, whereas the second pattern amplified bias and reduced integrative behavior. Implications for how emotions shape social exchange are discussed.     

Mind games: the mental representation of conflict

Perception and misperception play a pivotal role in conflict and negotiation. We introduce a framework that explains how people think about their outcome interdependence in conflict and negotiation and how their views shape their behavior. Seven studies show that people's mental representations of conflict are predictably constrained to a small set of possibilities with important behavioral and social consequences. Studies 1 and 2 found that, when prompted to represent a conflict in matrix form, more than 70% of the people created 1 of 4 archetypal mixed-motive games (out of 576 possibilities): Maximizing Difference, Assurance, Chicken, and Prisoner's Dilemma. Study 3 demonstrated that these mental representations relate in predictable ways to negotiators' fixed-pie perceptions. Studies 4-6 showed that these mental representations shape individuals' behavior and interactions with others, including cooperation, perspective taking, and use of deception in negotiation, and through them, conflict's outcomes. Study 7 found that the games that people think they are playing influence how their counterparts see them, as well as their counterparts' negotiation expectations. Overall, the findings document noteworthy regularities in people's mental representations of outcome interdependence in conflict and illustrate that 4 archetypal games can encapsulate fundamental psychological processes that emerge repeatedly in conflict and negotiation.     

Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation

Research on time pressure (TP) in negotiation has considered strategic choice (demands and concession making) but largely ignored information processing. Based on Lay Epistemic Theory ([Kruglanski, 1989]) it is hypothesized that TP reduces motivation to process information systematically, and the time needed to negotiate an agreement, and that it produces greater reliance on cognitive heuristics when placing demands, and less integrative agreements. Two studies revealed that effects of time constraint on information processing in negotiation were due to higher need for cognitive closure under high TP. Study 1 also showed that negotiators use stereotypes about the opponent as a heuristic cue more under high rather than low TP. Study 2 revealed that negotiators under high TP were less likely to revise their unfounded fixed-pie perceptions during negotiation and, therefore, reached less integrative agreements. Implications for motivated information processing in negotiation are discussed.     

Team negotiation: social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict

Large collectives (e.g., organizations, political parties, nations) are seldom unitary players. Rather, they consist of different subgroups that often have conflicting interests. Nonetheless, negotiation research consistently regards negotiating teams, who represent these collectives, as monolithic parties with uniform interests. This article integrates concepts from social psychology, management, political science, and behavioral game theory to explore the effects of subgroup conflict on team negotiation. Specifically, the present research introduced a conflict of interests within negotiating teams and investigated how this internal conflict affects the outcome of the negotiation between teams. An experiment with 80 four-person teams found that conflict between subgroups had a detrimental effect on the performance of negotiating teams. This research also employed a recent model of motivated information processing in groups to investigate possible processes underlying the effect of subgroup conflict on team negotiation.     

Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation

Negotiators tend to believe that own and other's outcomes are diametrically opposed. When such fixed-pie perceptions (FPPs) are not revised during negotiation, integrative agreements are unlikely. It was predicted that accuracy motivation helps negotiators to release their FPPs. In 2 experiments, accuracy motivation was manipulated by (not) holding negotiators accountable for the manner in which they negotiated. Experiment 1 showed that accountability reduced FPPs during face-to-face negotiation and produced more integrative agreements. Experiment 2 corroborated these results: Accountable negotiators revised their FPPs even when information exchange was experimentally held constant. Experiment 2 also showed that accountability is effective during the encoding of outcome information. Negotiators appear flexible in their reliance on FPPs. which is consistent with a motivated information-processing model of negotiation.     

The implications of value conflict: how disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground

This article presents two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. interests) in a situation where people take opposite positions. Study 1 examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement and to perceive less common ground. This result can be seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to escalate more easily than conflicts of interests and also offers scope for interventions directed at value conflict resolution.     

Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: the importance of time pressure and temporary impasses

Negotiation research and theory tends to focus on interests and ignores values. This experiment compared the influence of negotiations about interests with negotiations about values under low or high time pressure. Results showed that (1) individuals got locked into early impasses more often under low than high time pressure, (2) getting locked into early impasse produced a switch from low levels of integrative behaviour early in the negotiation to high levels late in the negotiation, but only when interests rather than values were negotiated, (3) individuals reached higher joint outcomes when interests rather than values were negotiated, especially when time pressure was low rather than high, because of (4) the relatively greater switch to high levels of integrative behaviour in the case of low time pressure and conflict of interest. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interdependence,social motives,and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation

What makes negotiators satisfied with their outcomes? In this study, we examined whether interpersonal interdependence, in the context of multi‐party multi‐issue negotiation, affected negotiators' satisfaction with their individual and group outcomes. We integrated principles from interdependence, social comparison, and social value theories to generate hypotheses about the social‐evaluative nature of satisfaction with negotiation outcomes. Controlling for differences in quality of individual outcomes, we found a positive association between satisfaction and individual outcome and a negative association between satisfaction and group outcome. Relative to those with prosocial social value orientation, negotiators with an individualistic social value orientation were less satisfied with the group outcome, regardless of induced motivational orientation. Neither motivational orientation nor an interaction between motivational orientation and social value orientation were related to satisfaction. We discuss the implications of our results for research on interdependence processes in negotiations and the role of social motives. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Myopic perception of having a deadline in negotiations: An anchoring effect due to question order

In negotiations, people tend to perceive a deadline as more detrimental to themselves than to their opponents. This phenomenon is termed myopic perception. The present research proposes that myopic perception can be understood as a result of an anchoring effect due to the question order used in probing the perception of a deadline. When people estimate deal prices before rating the influence of a deadline, their judgements are anchored on their negotiation outcomes, making their perception egocentric, which leads to myopic perception. As a result, myopic perception was hypothesized to be reduced by reversing the above question order to change the respondents' judgement anchor from negotiation outcomes to negotiation procedures. In Study 1, myopic perception disappeared when participants rated the general influence of a deadline before estimating deal price in a negotiation scenario. In Study 2, pairs of participants negotiated under a tight deadline. Myopic perception of a deadline was manipulated before the negotiation. Dyads without myopic perception had a smaller discrepancy in reservation price. However, myopic perception had no effect on impasse rates or final deal prices. The results are discussed with respect to behavioural forecasting and practical implications of myopic perception.     

Hide and seek: the effects of revealing one's personal interests in intra‐ and intergroup negotiations

The present research examined the effects of information sharing about self‐interest and group membership of the negotiation partner on negotiation cognitions, behaviors and outcomes. Study 1 (n = 77) showed that in anticipation of the negotiation, participants placed more trust in an in‐group member, and were more willing to exchange information with a negotiation partner who revealed his/her self‐interest. Study 2 (n = 80) examined how these effects influenced the development of attitudes and behavior during and after the negotiation. Results showed that negotiations with in‐group members were more cooperative when they shared, rather than not shared, information about underlying self‐interest. By contrast, negotiations with out‐group members were more cooperative when they did not share, rather than shared, information about their underlying self‐interest. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Negotiation, Persuasion and Argument

Argument is often taken to deal with conflicting opinion or belief, while negotiation deals with conflicting goals or interests. It is widely accepted that argument ought to comply with some principles or norms. On the other hand, negotiation and bargaining involve concession exchange and tactical use of power, which may be contrasted with attempts to convince others through argument. However, there are cases where it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between bargaining and argument: notably cases where negotiators persuade others through `framing' and cases where the aims of negotiation have to do with public assertion and acceptance. Those cases suggest that the distinction between negotiation and argument is not absolute, and this raises the question whether rules about what is acceptable in argument and rules about what is acceptable in negotiation can all be viewed as instances of more general common norms about human interaction.     

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.     

Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes

Two experiments investigated the hypothesis that strategic behavioral mimicry can facilitate negotiation outcomes. Study 1 used an employment negotiation with multiple issues, and demonstrated that strategic behavioral mimicry facilitated outcomes at both the individual and dyadic levels: Negotiators who mimicked the mannerisms of their opponents both secured better individual outcomes, and their dyads as a whole also performed better when mimicking occurred compared to when it did not. Thus, mimickers created more value and then claimed most of that additional value for themselves, though not at the expense of their opponents. In Study 2, mimicry facilitated negotiators’ ability to uncover underlying compatible interests and increased the likelihood of obtaining a deal in a negotiation where a prima facie solution was not possible. Results from Study 2 also demonstrated that interpersonal trust mediated the relationship between mimicry and deal-making. Implications for our understanding of negotiation dynamics and interpersonal coordination are discussed.     

Goal conflict, goal striving, and psychological well-being

Although goal conflict is an important part of classic and contemporary theories of motivation, the correlates of goal conflict are not well understood. We identify and distinguish conflicting and facilitating goals, and assess relations with goal attainment and psychological well-being in a short-term, prospective study design. Results from multilevel models demonstrated that individuals with greater conflict were less successful in attaining their goals, but the goals they failed attain were not necessarily the ones in conflict. People who experienced goal conflict tended to be ruminative and hesitant, and reported greater levels of negative affect and increases in depression, anxiety, and psychosomatization. People who experienced goal facilitation reported greater levels of positive affect, life satisfaction, and successful goal attainment. This study identifies several implications of holding conflicting and facilitating goals, but also points to a theoretical inconsistency pertaining to goal conflict. Namely, conflicting goals may not be inherently less attainable than nonconflicting goals. We argue that distinguishing between goal- and person-level factors is essential for understanding goal striving.     

Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence

It has long been assumed that people experience evaluative conflict or ambivalence as unpleasant. In three studies we provide direct evidence for the assumption that ambivalence is unpleasant, but only when one has to commit to one side of the issue. In those situations ambivalence will be related to outcome uncertainty and feelings of discomfort. We examined this prediction using both self-reports and physiological measures. In a first study we manipulated ambivalence and whether or not participants had to take a clear stand vis-a vis the attitudinal issue and choose a position for or against it. Results indicate ambivalence was only related to physiological arousal when a choice had to be made. Feeling ambivalent about an issue without the necessity to choose did not result in higher levels of arousal. A second study replicated and extended these findings by including a measure of subjective uncertainty about the decision. Results showed the same pattern as in Study 1, and indicate that the relation between ambivalence and arousal is mediated by uncertainty about decisional outcomes. In the third and final study these findings are corroborated using self-report measures; these indicated that ambivalence-induced discomfort is related to specific (negative) emotions.     

Emotional arousal and negative affect in marital conflict: the influence of gender,conflict structure,and demand‐withdrawal

This report covers two studies that examined how spouses' emotional arousal and negative affect in response to marital conflict are shaped by gender, conflict structure, and demand‐withdraw communication. In Study 1, 86 couples participated in a video analogue presentation procedure, and in Study 2, 32 couples participated in an observational methodology. In both studies, spouses' evaluative reports of their emotional arousal and negative affect were collected within two experimental conditions in which either the husband's or the wife's issue was discussed. In both studies, husbands—but not wives—reported lower levels of post‐interaction arousal and negative affect in the wife's issue condition than in the husband's issue condition. In both studies, husbands' as well as wives' level of emotional arousal was positively associated with their level of negative affect. In Study 2, husbands who were less demanding and more withdrawing during marital conflict were less aroused after the discussion. In contrast, wives reported more emotional arousal and negative affect as they were more withdrawing and less demanding, respectively. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain

Negotiation scholars and practitioners have long noted the impact of face, or social image, concerns on negotiation outcomes. When face is threatened, negotiators are less likely to reach agreement and to create joint gain. In this paper, we explore individual differences in face threat sensitivity (FTS), and how a negotiator's role moderates the relationship of his or her FTS to negotiation outcomes. Study 1 describes a measure of FTS. Study 2 finds that buyers and sellers are less likely to reach an agreement that is in both parties' interests when the seller has high FTS. Study 3 finds that job candidates and recruiters negotiate an employment contract with less joint gain when the candidate has high FTS, and that this relationship is mediated by increased competitiveness on the part of the high FTS candidates. The results support Deutsch's (1961) application of face theory ( Goffman, 1967) to negotiation.     

认知、动机、情感因素对谈判行为的影响

谈判,指两方或多方就利益不同而进行的协商,是解决选择冲突最常见的方式之一。认知、动机及情感因素,影响谈判者的信息处理与判断推理过程。谈判中它们既可能导致决策偏差,也可能促进决策质量。长期以来着眼于认知过程的谈判研究在社会心理学中占主流地位。近年,动机与情感因素对谈判行为的影响受到越来越多的关注。从社会认知的冷（cold：认知）、热（hot：动机、情感）两个角度,系统解析相关研究近年来的进展与成果,可以为揭示认知、动机、情感间的互动如何影响谈判行为打下基础     

What children say when the teacher is not around: conflicting goals in social comparison and performance assessment in the classroom

Naturalistic observations and interviews with children in kindergarten, first, second, and fourth grades were used to examine developmental shifts in the focus of social comparison and the expression of comparative and evaluative interests in relation to possibly conflicting goals. First, observers coded the content of peer exchanges and direction of visual gaze during class work times. Children were then interviewed about help seeking and reading performance in the classroom. Classroom observations revealed that comparisons related to personal aspects of peers declined with age, whereas evaluative comments and comparisons related to performance assessment increased sharply in first grade. In the higher grades, blatantly evaluative and comparative statements decreased, whereas more subtle and functional performance-related exchanges continued to increase. Interviews showed that differences in classroom behaviors were associated with knowledge of classroom performance hierarchies, the salience of general ability, and self-evaluation. The data patterns are interpreted in terms of two converging processes: self-socialization and goal conflict. Implications for social comparison theory are also discussed.