Joint Effects of Assigned Goals and Training on Negotiator Performance

This study examined the joint effects of assigned goals and training on negotiator performance. Undergraduate business students participated in two sessions of a competitive market simulation and were assigned to one of three levels of goals: do-your-best, specific/emy, or specific/difficult. In the training condition, an introductory lecture on bargaining strategies was presented between the two market sessions; subjects in the control conditions did not attend the lecture. In the first market session, specificldifficult goals improved mean profit per agreement but at the expense of number of agreements negotiated and total profit. In the market session after training, negotiators who were assigned specific goals (whether difficult or easy) negotiated agreements of higher joint value, thereby enhancing both mean personal profit per agreement and total profit. There were no differences between the two market sessions in the control group. The implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed.     

Effects of Task Complexity and Goal Specificity on Change in Strategy and Performance Over Time

In this study we examined whether task complexity interacts with goal specific- ity over multiple performance periods. A 2 x 2 x 3 design manipulated goal condition (specific difficult vs. do-your-best) and task complexity (simple vs. complex) over performance on 3 separate days. Results across performance periods indicated that do-your-best goals led to higher quantity of performance than specific difficult goals on a complex task, whereas specific difficult goals led to higher quantity of performance than do-your-best goals on a simpler version of the task. Additionally, goal specificity and task complexity led to greater change in strategy over repeated performance periods, with those in the complex, specific difficult condition exhibiting the highest amount of change in strategy. Finally, there were no differences in quality of performance for indi- viduals working on simple versus complex tasks. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.     

Comparing the effects of goal types in a walking session with healthy adults: Preliminary evidence for open goals in physical activity

ObjectivesGoal-setting is one of the most common strategies used to increase physical activity. Current practice is often based on specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) goals. However, theory and research suggests that this approach may be problematic. Open goals (e.g., “see how well you can do”) have emerged as a possible alternative, but are yet to be tested experimentally in physically active tasks. In a walking-based session, this study aimed to experimentally compare the effects of open, SMART and do-your-best goals with a control condition on distance walked and psychological variables related to engagement.DesignRepeated measures design (mixed model).MethodParticipants (N = 78; M_age = 55.88) were randomly assigned to one of four goal conditions: an open, SMART, or do-your-best goal, or a control condition (“walk at your normal pace”), before completing a baseline and two manipulated attempts of a 6-min walking test.ResultsOpen, SMART, and do-your-best goals achieved greater distance walked, and higher ratings of perceived exertion, than the control across both experimental attempts. Open and SMART goals led to greater enjoyment of the session. However, SMART goals led to higher pressure/tension, while open goals led to higher perceptions of performance and higher interest in repeating the session.ConclusionsThese findings provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of setting open goals in physical activity, and suggest that they may be more psychologically adaptive to pursue than SMART or do-your-best goals. Implications are discussed, and recommendations are made for future goal-setting research in physical activity.     

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.     

The effects of open vs. specific goals on flow and clutch states in a cognitive task

ObjectivesRecent qualitative evidence suggests that two optimal psychological states (flow and clutch) underlie excellent performance in sport. That research further suggests that the type of goal pursued influences which state is experienced. This study aimed to examine the effects of goal types (i.e., open, specific, and do-your-best goals) on flow and clutch states during performance in a cognitive task, which was developed and has been used in sport. Secondary aims were to investigate the effects of goal types on objective and subjective performance, confidence, and perceived challenge.DesignThis study employed a repeated measure design (mixed model).MethodParticipants (N = 95; M_age = 24.89, SD = 9.27) were randomised to one of three goal conditions and asked to perform a Letter and Number Identification Task, which was repeated for six attempts.ResultsParticipants prescribed open or do-your-best goals experienced significantly higher levels of flow than those prescribed specific goals, who conversely experienced significantly higher levels of clutch states. Participants assigned specific goals performed significantly better than those prescribed open or do-your-best goals. Those assigned open or do-your-best-goals reported greater perceived performance, higher confidence, and feeling more optimally challenged.ConclusionsThese findings provide experimental support for the role of goal types in determining flow and clutch states, and further understanding of the psychological effects of these goal types. Implications are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research into the role of goals in experiencing flow and clutch states in sport and exercise.     

The Effects of Self-Set Goals on Task Performance

Locke & Latham (1990a) report that specific, difficult goals lead to better performance than "do-your-best" instructions, whether the goals are self-set or are set by an external source. However, in Experiment I, as well as in previous research (White, Kjelgaard, & Harkins, 1995), we did not find self-set goal effects. A meta-analysis showed that self-set goal effects can be produced if two conditions are met: Prior to setting their goals, participants take part in a pretest that is equal in duration to the experimental task; and the experimenter has access to the participants' goals and the performances. Experiment 2 confirmed these meta-analytic findings by showing that when these two conditions were met, goals stringent enough to produce the effects were set, and goal-setting effects were obtained.     

Paying a price: culture, trust, and negotiation consequences

Three studies contrasting Indian and American negotiators tested hypotheses derived from theory proposing why there are cultural differences in trust and how cultural differences in trust influence negotiation strategy. Study 1 (a survey) documented that Indian negotiators trust their counterparts less than American negotiators. Study 2 (a negotiation simulation) linked American and Indian negotiators' self-reported trust and strategy to their insight and joint gains. Study 3 replicated and extended Study 2 using independently coded negotiation strategy data, allowing for stronger causal inference. Overall, the strategy associated with Indian negotiators' reluctance to extend interpersonal (as opposed to institutional) trust produced relatively poor outcomes. Our data support an expanded theoretical model of negotiation, linking culture to trust, strategies, and outcomes.     

An Evaluation of Two Mediation Techniques,Negotiator Power,and Culture in Negotiation1

This study examines the effects of 4 factors in a mediated transfer‐pricing negotiation: (a) the mediator's suggestion that negotiators have concern for the other (opposing) negotiator; (b) the mediator's proposal of moderate goals; (c) negotiator power; and (d) culture. In the simulated negotiations that were mediated by a corporate official, participants were 374 subjects from Hong Kong and the United States. Negotiators obtained lower joint outcomes when urged by the mediator to show concern for the other than when not given this admonition. When the mediator proposed moderate (vs. high) goals, the negotiators received lower joint outcomes but had a higher opinion of the mediator. While we expected negotiator power (equal vs. unequal) to interact with suggested concern for the other, it did so only for the negotiators' individual outcomes. Finally, culture produced a main effect: Hong Kong negotiators obtained higher joint outcomes than did their U. S. counterparts.     

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.     

Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All?: The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics

Two experiments test the hypothesis that social value orientation influences choice and recall of heuristics in individuals preparing for negotiation. Consistent with predictions, Study 1 shows that in the preparation phase, negotiators with a prosocial value orientation choose more cooperative heuristics (e.g., “equal split is fair”) than competitive heuristics (e.g., “your gain is my loss”) while negotiators with a competitive social value orientation do the reverse. Negotiators with an individualistic social value orientation do not discriminate in their choice between cooperative and competitive heuristics. Study 2 shows that following preparation, prosocial negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive heuristics while individualists and competitors do the reverse. Additional measures suggest that prosocial negotiators prefer cooperative heuristics because these are seen as morally appropriate, whereas individualists and competitors prefer competitive heuristics because these are seen as effective.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

Goals and plans for Big Five personality trait change in young adults

Four studies were conducted on young adults’ goals and plans to change personality traits. In Study 1, a new trait change goal assessment tool, the BF-TGI, found Neuroticism to be the most frequently cited trait for a change goal. In Study 2, data was gathered from the UK, Iran and China. Iran showed a higher prevalence of normative change goals than the UK and China. Study 3 investigated plans to change traits. Extraversion and Conscientiousness plans were more specific than for the other traits. Study 4 investigated whether goals and plans to change predict change over 12 months, and found that goals and plans to change Conscientiousness and Neuroticism predicted change in the opposite direction to the goal.     

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     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: when putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements

Previous negotiation research predominantly focused on psychological factors that lead to suboptimal compromises as opposed to integrative agreements. Few studies systematically analyzed factors that impact the emergence of hurtful partial impasses (i.e., nonagreements on part of the issues). The present research investigates negotiators' egoistic motivation as a determinant for the emergence of partial impasses. In addition, the authors seek to demonstrate that perspective taking serves as a powerful tool to avoid impasses and to overcome egoistic impediments. Specifically, it was predicted that within an integrative context perspective-takers succeed to exchange concessions on low- versus high-preference issues (i.e., logroll), thereby increasing their individual profits without inflicting hurtful losses upon their counterparts. Three studies were conducted to test these predictions. Study 1 reveals that whereas negotiators' egoistic motivation increases the risk of partial impasses, perspective taking alleviates this risk. Study 2 demonstrates that this beneficial effect of a perspective-taking mindset is limited to integrative negotiations and does not emerge in a distributive context, in which negotiators are constrained to achieve selfish goals by inflicting hurtful losses on their counterparts. Study 3 confirms the assumption that in an integrative context egoistic perspective-takers overcome the risk of impasses by means of logrolling. The findings of the present studies are discussed with respect to their contribution to research on negotiations, social motivation, and perspective taking.