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.     

Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest‐based versus value‐based issues on negotiator satisfaction

Negotiation research usually distinguishes between integrative and distributive outcomes. Integrative outcomes satisfy the negotiation parties' most important interests (by trading off less important for more important issues). In contrast, distributive outcomes require negotiators to give up their most important interests (as they make concessions on both less and more important issues). Integrative outcomes are more beneficial, but do they offer greater satisfaction? In this research, we hypothesized that satisfaction with integrative versus distributive outcomes depends on whether people negotiate interest‐based or value‐based issues. Three experiments consistently revealed that people in interest‐based negotiations were more satisfied with integrative outcomes, whereas those in value‐based negotiations tended to be more satisfied with distributive outcomes. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hostile Behavior and Profit in Virtual Negotiation: a Meta-Analysis

Virtual negotiations are expected to differ from face-to-face negotiations in terms of both negotiator behavior and outcomes. Nonetheless, competing theories and mixed results characterize this literature. This paper meta-analytically reviews studies that compared face-to-face negotiation with virtual negotiation (e.g., audio, email/text, video-conferencing). Competing predictions from psychological distance theory and the barrier effect perspective were tested. Overall, results supported the psychological distance theory in that face-to-face negotiations were less hostile and resulted in higher profit than virtual negotiations. Three moderators (negotiation mode, anonymity in virtual negotiation, and further interaction within the experiment) were hypothesized to impact virtual negotiation. While some moderators were significant, they did not completely account for findings across all studies. Results and discussion provide a note of caution for individuals embracing e-business and conducting Internet negotiations as well as suggestions for future research.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 18th annual meeting of The Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychologists in Orlando, Fl 2003. We thank Kara Waugh for her coding assistance.     

The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation

Two experiments explored actual and predicted outcomes in competitive dyadic negotiations under time pressure. Participants predicted that final deadlines would hurt their negotiation outcomes. Actually, moderate deadlines improved outcomes for negotiators who were eager to get a deal quickly because the passage of time was costly to them. Participants’ erroneous predictions may be due to oversimplified and egocentric prediction processes that focus on the effects of situational constraints (deadlines) on the self and oversimplify or ignore their effects on others. The results clarify the psychological processes by which people predict the outcomes of negotiation and select negotiation strategies.     

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.     

Understanding optimal outcomes.

Using a simulated employment contract negotiation, this study examined the relationship between negotiation strategies and the quality of negotiated outcomes. A log‐linear analysis showed that the frequency and sequencing of strategies was systematically related to negotiation outcomes. Impasse negotiations were characterized by the frequent use of contention and sequences that paired similar (either cooperative or competitive) strategies. Settlement was associated with decreased contention and the use of sequences that paired dissimilar strategies. Increasing joint gain was linked to the introduction of priority information and conciliation as well as to changes in the pattern of information exchange: Reciprocal and indirect (positional) information exchange led to low joint gain, whereas reciprocal and direct (priority) information exchange led to high joint gain.     

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.     

The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare

Previous studies attempting to assess the impact of concern for an opponent bargainer's welfare (orientation) upon the integrativeness of the agreements reached have produced differing conclusions. The design of an earlier experiment by Kelley and Schenitzki was replicated using a different negotiation method and task. Participants took the role of either the buyer or the seller in a two-party negotiation. Bargainers received instructions emphasizing either a Team Orientation (i.e., concern for mutual profit) or an Individualistic Orientation (i.e., concern for only one's own profit) and bargained under either a Free Communication or a Restricted Communication condition. The Team Orientation produced more integrative agreements (i.e., higher joint outcomes) than the Individualistic Orientation, regardless of the communication condition. Process data suggested that distinct processes may promote the development of integrative solutions in the two communication conditions.     

Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers

In negotiations, where several issues are under consideration and parties have different priorities among these issues, integrative agreements can be reached through ‘logrolling’: concessions on low priority issues in exchange for gains on higher priority issues. The present research focuses on the potential role of initial offers in the development of integrative agreements. We show first, that in a simulated competitive market the specific composition of initial offers influences the final agreements, beyond the effect predicted by their overall value. In order to obtain some insight into the judgmental processes that might play a role, we explore the way in which inexperienced negotiators presented with a hypothetical negotiation context evaluate and respond to logrolling versus distributive initial offers. Three hypotheses were tested: logrolling offers convey an implicit message of cooperation, logrolling offers promote understanding of the mutual interest structure of the task, and, finally, logrolling offers establish within‐issue anchors. Results do not support the first two hypotheses: logrolling offers were not necessarily judged more attractive than distributive ones, and they did not seem to affect the deeply rooted fixed‐pie assumption. However, initial offers did establish within‐issue anchors: counter‐offers were affected by the specific composition of the initial offers beyond the effect of their overall value. This anchoring process resulted in logrolling offers yielding a higher profit for their initiator, as well as higher combined profits for both parties. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interdependence in negotiation: effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation

This study extends past research on the impact of alternatives in dyadic negotiation by (a) providing negotiators with the mere possibility to negotiate with an outside party and (b) examining the moderating role of the negotiators' social motive. Business students engaged in face‐to‐face negotiations, which were audio‐taped and transcribed. None, one, or both dyad members were provided with an exit option—the possibility to leave the current negotiation and start new negotiations with someone else. Dyads were also given instructions to maximize own outcomes (egoistic motive) or to consider both own and the other's outcomes (prosocial motive). Results showed that, as expected, dyads with a one‐sided exit option engaged in more distributive and less integrative behavior, and obtained lower joint outcomes than dyads having either two‐sided or no exit options. However, this effect occurred only under an egoistic rather than a prosocial motive. No differences were found for negotiations with two‐sided exit options compared to negotiations without exit options, suggesting one's own exit option is counterbalanced by the other's escape possibility. Our results indicate that negotiators who wish to maximize personal as well as joint outcomes should try to combine a power advantage in terms of exit options with a shared prosocial orientation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Conflict-Resolution Training and Middle School Students' Integrative Negotiation Behavior

This study examined the impact of conflict-resolution training on students' use of distributive and integrative negotiating procedures. In a midwestern, suburban middle school, 176 students (grades 6 through 9) participated in the study. Students were placed in a negotiation situation involving the buying and selling of commodities in which they could adopt a distributive (maximize own outcomes) or an integrative (maximize joint outcomes) negotiation approach. There were no significant differences between males and females or among students in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grades. The results of this study indicated that conflict-resolution and peer-mediation training resulted in the middle school students increasing their use of integrative negotiations and the positiveness of students' attitudes toward conflict.     

Equity,Equality, or Need? The Effects of Organizational Culture on the Allocation of Benefits and Burdens

Individuals′ concerns with entitlements and fairness are important in determining outcomes of negotiations. This paper examines the effects of organizational culture and resource valence on the decision rules individuals enact in creating fair resource allocations. It was hypothesized that organizational culture (economically oriented, relationship-oriented, or personal development-oriented) would determine which distribution principle (equity, equality, or need) group members would use to allocate resources. Valence of the resources also was predicted to influence allocation decision and processes. Participants role-played the negotiation of resource allocations across three divisions of a company. Results generally supported the hypothesized links between culture and the resource distribution used by the principles. Significant differences also were found between the allocation of positively valenced and negatively valenced resources.     

An Experimental Study of Black-White Negotiations1

One hundred and forty variables tapping aspects of the subjective culture (characteristic way or perceiving the social environment) of 300 white male students were subjected to two-mode factor analysis. Five subject types emerged from the similarities in the responses of the students to these variables. In the next phase of the study, 88 representatives of these subject types participated in experimental negotiations. Before the negotiations, caucus groups, consisting of six students homogeneous in their pretest scores, decided what positions should be upheld during the negotiations. Following the caucuses, three two-member teams were formed, from each caucus group. The teams negotiated with two-member black teams of confederates of the experimenters. Negotiations focused on three issues, each of which was represented by 10 Thurstone successive-interval method scaled positions. Negotiation outcomes were predicted from the subjective culture measures (r= .42; p < .005). The negotiation outcomes tended to be more predictable from the reference group (caucuses) preferred positions (r= .65) than from individual preferences (r= .36). Negotiators tended to overconform to caucus positions. Behavioral differential scale ratings of black negotiators predicted the outcomes better than semantic differential ratings of these stimuli. The more specific the attitude measured the more predictive it was of negotiation outcomes. Discussion focused on implications for understanding the relationship between attitudes and behavior and the process of black/white negotiations.     

Gender Differences in Virtual Negotiation: Theory and Research

Social roles create conflicting behavioral expectations for female negotiators; however, virtual negotiations reduce social pressures. This paper reviews theoretical explanations on why men and women might differ in negotiations that occur through email, telephone, or video. Forty-three negotiation studies comparing face-to-face and virtual negotiations were examined for gender differences. All studies were reported in English but not limited to US participants. While many reports omitted gender information, meta-analytic findings supported the prediction that women would be more hostile in virtual compared to face-to-face negotiations, as well as finding no hostility difference for men between virtual and face-to-face negotiations. While negotiators overall were more successful face-to-face than virtually, results separated by gender did not find this effect.