Achieving difficult agreements: Effects of Positive Expectations on negotiation processes and outcomes

Two studies demonstrate that negotiation processes and outcomes can be altered by the creation of Positive Expectations. Study 1 participants were American undergraduates seeking agreement with a confederate about allocation of funds to programs differentially favoring undergraduates vs. graduates. Study 2 participants were Israeli Business School students seeking agreement with an Arab confederate about allocation of funds to projects differentially favoring Israelis vs. Palestinians. In both studies prior information suggesting the consistent success of previous dyads prompted acceptance of the confederate’s “final proposal” whereas merely urging participants to try to reach agreement resulted in consistent rejection of the same proposal. Moreover, participants reaching agreement in these Positive Expectations conditions subsequently offered more positive assessments of the negotiation process and of their counterpart than those doing so in control conditions. The theoretical and applied relevance of these findings, including the role played by post-agreement dissonance reduction, are discussed.     

Preferred changes in power differences: Effects of social comparison in equal and unequal power relations

Efforts to change power differences with others who are equal and unequal in power were examined. According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Rijsman, 1983), people prefer slight superiority in power over comparison others. In Experiment 1, 93 participants imagined working with two others in a group. Group members varied in hierarchical rank and on exact power scores. Participants indicated their preferred changes in power differences. Social comparison theory was supported regarding rank differences, but not regarding power scores. In Experiment 2, 145 participants imagined a similar group setting. Group members were equal, unequal, or very unequal in power. Social comparison theory was supported regarding ranks: power differences with an equally powerful person were increased more often than with a less powerful person. Power scores again yielded no effects. This suggests that social comparisons of power are based on rank and not interval information.     

Joint attention in term and preterm infants at 12 months corrected age: the significance of gender and intervention based on a randomized controlled trial

This study tested the effects of optimized neonatal mother–infant transactions on joint attention performance at 12 months. Surviving infants <2000 g from a geographically defined area were randomly assigned to a preterm intervention (n = 71) or preterm control group (n = 69). Comparisons were made between preterm groups, secondary with a term group (n = 75). Joint attention was measured using the Early Social Communication Scales. Preterm intervention infants scored significantly higher than preterm control infants on elements Initiating Joint Attention (p < 0.05), Initiating Object Requests (p < 0.05), and Responding to Social Interaction (p < 0.0005). Intervention was not associated with performance on elements Responding to Joint Attention, or on Responding to Requests. ELBW infants scored significantly lower than VLBW and LBW infants on imperative functions. Girls outperformed boys on all communication elements. An intervention implemented during the neonatal period can be of advantage for certain aspects of joint attention performance in preterm infants.     

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.