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.     

Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital

Highly relational contexts can have costs as well as benefits. Researchers theorize that negotiating dyads in which both parties hold highly relational goals or views of themselves are prone to relational accommodation, a dynamic resulting in inefficient economic outcomes yet high levels of relational capital. Previous research has provided only indirect empirical support for this theory. The present study fills this gap by demonstrating the divergent effects of egalitarianism on economic efficiency and relational capital in negotiation. Dyads engaged in a simulated employment negotiation among strangers within a company that was described as either egalitarian or hierarchical. As hypothesized, dyads assigned to the egalitarian condition reached less efficient economic outcomes yet had higher relational capital than dyads assigned to the hierarchical condition. Negotiations occurring between females resulted in lower joint economic outcomes than negotiations occurring between males. Results are consistent with the theory of relational self-construal in negotiation.     

谈判者第一次出价对谈判破裂的影响：角色的调节作用

谈判者在大多数情况下都希望能顺利达成协议,但很多时候多种因素使得谈判进入僵局或者破裂。本研究利用模拟谈判的手段,综合考察了第一次出价对谈判破裂的影响。很多谈判者出于害怕吃亏或者希望获得更多收益,向对手提出较高的第一次开价。研究一证明第一次出价越高,谈判越容易失败。有趣的是,第一次开价的高低与谈判破裂之间的关系会受到谈判角色的影响,谈判者的权力不同会使得他们的第一次开价具有不同的作用。研究二证实,当谈判双方权力不对等时,第一次出价对谈判破裂的负面作用受到了权力的影响。弱者的第一次出价越高,谈判越容易破裂。中介分析表明,当弱者出价较高时,容易让对方感到竞争性过强,因此不愿意达成协议。本研究不仅丰富了谈判破裂和第一次出价的理论研究,而且对于谈判者具有实践意义     

Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and cooperative losses in negotiation

Corporate corruption has recently called attention to the relevance of psychopathic personality traits—the absence of conscience, remorse, or scruples—in business settings; yet, little is known about how these personality traits affect business practices. We present two studies testing whether psychopathic personality traits are related to social perspective and cognitive decision-making biases relevant to negotiation, and whether those traits affect outcomes in a negotiation simulation. Psychopathic personality features were associated with a competitive world-view, including selfish social motivations and illusions of conflict with others. In mixed-motive negotiations, psychopathic traits predicted greater personal monetary gains when success favored competitive actions, but predicted monetary loss when success depended on cooperation. Results suggest that psychopathic personality traits can both bolster and hinder success in business.     

Future Thinking in Disadvantaged Situations: The Role of Outcome Delays and Competitive Issues in Negotiation

Extant literature suggests that delaying the outcomes of negotiations can have salutary effects on the joint outcomes of participants. However, this literature has not examined the impact that outcome delays have on the success of individual negotiators. We argue that in situations where a player's preference on an issue involves a lack of legitimacy, an outcome delay may advantage the presentation of that issue. In addition, we suggest that this effect is more likely to be present in situations where competition is high, specifically, where the parties have few opportunities for cooperation. An experimental dyadic negotiation exercise involving 306 undergraduate participants was conducted to test these hypotheses. Results suggest that the introduction of an outcome delay helps to reduce the negative effects of a legitimacy disadvantage in the absence of alternate opportunities for collaboration.     

After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements

The success of a negotiated agreement depends on implementation and implications for future exchange between the parties. This paper examines structural, affective and contractual factors that influence implementation behavior. Predictions derived from contract theory and recent negotiation theories were tested in two laboratory studies involving the negotiation of an employment contract. In Experiment 1 trust formation facilitated by so-called “cheap” talk and the provision of a sufficient contingent contract promoted vigorous contract implementation. Positive affect induced in the employer prior to negotiation had no discernable effect on subsequent implementation. In Experiment 2 induced employee positive affect did motivate implementation behavior but the effect hinged on the form of the contract. Small talk before contracting increased employee’s willingness to be financially vulnerable in subsequent exchange with the employer. Implications for general negotiation theory are considered.     

Language Use and Coalition Formation in Multiparty Negotiations

The alignment of bargaining positions is crucial to a successful negotiation. Prior research has shown that similarity in language use is indicative of the conceptual alignment of interlocutors. We use latent semantic analysis to explore how the similarity of language use between negotiating parties develops over the course of a three‐party negotiation. Results show that parties that reach an agreement show a gradual increase in language similarity over the course of the negotiation. Furthermore, reaching the most financially efficient outcome is dependent on similarity in language use between the parties that have the most to gain from such an outcome.     

The Objective Value of Subjective Value: A Multi‐Round Negotiation Study

A 2‐round negotiation study provided evidence that positive feelings resulting from one negotiation can be economically rewarding in a second negotiation. Negotiators experiencing greater subjective value (SV)—that is, social, perceptual, and emotional outcomes from a negotiation—in Round 1 achieved greater individual and joint objective negotiation performance in Round 2, even with Round 1 economic outcomes controlled. Moreover, Round 1 SV predicted the desire to negotiate again with the same counterpart, whereas objective negotiation performance had no such association. Taken together, the results suggest that positive feelings, not just positive outcomes, can evoke future economic success.     

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.     

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.     

The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation

The authors developed and tested a model proposing that negotiator personality interacts with the negotiation situation to influence negotiation processes and outcomes. In 2 studies, the authors found that negotiators high in agreeableness were best suited to integrative negotiations and that negotiators low in agreeableness were best suited to distributive negotiations. Consistent with this person-situation fit argument, in Study 1 the authors found that negotiators whose dispositions were a good fit to their negotiation context had higher levels of physiological (cardiac) arousal at the end of the negotiation compared with negotiators who were "misplaced" in situations inconsistent with their level of agreeableness, and this arousal was in turn related to increased economic outcomes. Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1, finding that person-situation fit was related to physiological (heart rate), psychological (positive affect), and behavioral activation (persistence) demonstrated during the negotiation, and these measures in turn were related to the economic outcomes achieved by participants.     

Creative People Create Values: Creativity and Positive Arousal in Negotiations

Most negotiations are ill-structured situations, and the ability to identify novel options is likely to be crucial for success. This study, therefore, examined how creativity impacts negotiation processes and outcomes, and how this effect is moderated by positive arousal. The negotiators’ creative personality and their state of positive arousal were measured before they participated in a simulated negotiation, with the results demonstrating that the level of creativity in negotiation dyads was positively related to the negotiators’ joint outcome. Negotiators in high creativity dyads searched for more information by asking questions about priorities and were less narrowly focused by providing fewer single-issue offers than negotiators in low creativity dyads. Positive arousal did not affect outcome directly, but moderated the effect of creativity on joint outcomes; the effect of creativity was strongest under high levels of positive arousal. The discussion section emphasizes that future research may find creativity to have even more of a positive effect when negotiations become more complex.     

The Effect of Negotiator Creativity on Negotiation Outcomes in a Bilateral Negotiation

This study examined creative negotiators to determine if they are able to achieve more successful outcomes in a negotiation context with integrative potential. Creativity scores were obtained from 70 participants, who performed a 2-party, multi-issue negotiation in 35 dyads. This negotiation led to economic and relational negotiation outcomes. The use of creative skills by negotiators was hypothesized to positively affect both classes of negotiation outcomes. Results indicated no significant effect of negotiators' creativity on economic negotiation outcomes. A negative effect of negotiators' creativity on relational negotiation outcome for the buyer was observed. For the relational negotiation outcome of the seller, the same negative tendency was observed, though no significant effect of negotiators' creativity. These findings extend the understanding of the relationship between negotiators' creativity and negotiation outcomes, which is highly underemphasized in current research. Further research should identify which aspects of creativity are crucial to negotiators and determine how they can be adequately measured. The issue of interaction between negotiators' creativity and situational variables should also be addressed, as it likely determines the effect of creativity on negotiation outcomes.     

Tactical anger in negotiation: The expresser's perspective

Presenting programmed angry messages to a negotiator has increased concession rates in a series of recent experiments. But observing responses to a computer or confederate counterpart cannot yield insight into the perceptions, reactions, and negotiation outcomes experienced by those who actually deploy anger as a tactic. We report five studies examining the anger expression decision using a range of different methods. In the fully interactive two-person integrative negotiation in Study 1, expressed anger generally degraded trust while damaging implementation of deals. That ultimately diminished value actually claimed by anger expressers. In the discrete choice experiment of Study 2, sending angry messages proved costly for expressers, who registered very high levels of measured disutility from using this tactic. In Study 3, survey respondents reported widespread unwillingness to misrepresent anger during negotiation. Recalling a past negotiation, anger correlated negatively with experienced success, indicating that disutility from expressing anger generalizes widely across different contexts. Study 4 revealed that negotiators generally consider the tactic to be unethical. More than just specific beliefs about the lack of efficacy, Study 5 revealed that the source of tactical disutility lies in generalized discomfort with the misrepresentation of anger. Implications for research, practice, and training are considered.     

Negotiation for Starting Salary: Antecedents and Outcomes Among Recent College Graduates

Recent college graduates were surveyed to explore factors associated with both negotiation propensity as well as success in raising initial salary offers through negotiation. The average payoff associated with negotiation was over $1,500, while the offers of those who did not negotiate increased negligibly. Applicants given the option to present their salary needs negotiated at higher rates than those who were not, and individuals who had prior work experience were more likely to receive this option. Women were no less likely to engage in negotiation than men, and experienced similar success as a result of their efforts.     

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).     

The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation

It is argued that a negotiator's fixed-pie perception, cooperative motivation, problem-solving behavior, and integrative outcomes are influenced by the content of the negotiation—the conflict issue. Negotiation involves conflicting interests, conflicting ideas about intellective problems, or conflicting ideas about evaluative problems. Study 1 showed that individuals in a negotiation about interests have a stronger fixed-pie perception and have a lower cooperative motivation than individuals in an evaluative negotiation, with intellective negotiations taking an intermediate position. Study 2 showed that individuals in a negotiation about interests made more trade-offs and reached higher joint outcomes than individuals in an intellective or evaluative negotiation. Study 3 replicated this finding in a field study. The studies bridge insights from negotiation research and decision-making research and show that the conflict issue has important effects on the negotiation process.     

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     

买卖交易中谈判者角色影响谈判结果的机制

现实生活中的谈判通常发生在特定的社会情境中, 谈判者也总在扮演着某种角色。本研究探索了买卖交易谈判中谈判者角色影响谈判结果的作用机制。研究提出了一个关于谈判者角色诱发框架效应的理论模型, 然后通过两个模拟谈判实验对这一模型进行验证。实验1表明, 买家知觉到的馅饼大于卖家知觉到的馅饼, 且谈判者知觉到的馅饼在谈判者角色与谈判者绩效间起部分中介作用。实验2发现, 即使保留买家与卖家的角色标签, 如果剥离了金钱作为交易介质这一重要特征, 两个谈判角色知觉到的馅饼也没有差异。研究揭示了谈判者角色影响谈判结果的作用机制, 对谈判者如何利用情境因素取得更好的谈判结果具有实践意义。     

"Inside Information" and Negotiator Decision Behavior

In negotiation, information about the other party may be a source of strength or weakness, depending on the context, the type of information, its availability and quality, and how a negotiator uses it. An empirical study examines the way negotiators use "inside" information specifically designed to increase bargaining strength. The scoop-privileged information about the other party′s deadline-does not inform negotiators about possible deals; rather, it suggests a process of negotiating agreement. Misuse of the scoop, therefore, poses potential costs that may diminish its possible advantages. In a two-party negotiation exercise, access to inside information affected negotiators′ thoughts and behaviors. It enhanced their feelings of success and shifted the criterion for success away from final price toward a relative, interpersonal standard. Furthermore, informed negotiators used the scoop appropriately to manage the negotiation process and enhance both joint and individual profits.