When competition breeds equality: Effects of appetitive versus aversive competition in negotiation

Competitive motivation is prevalent in negotiation but systematic insight into its effects is missing. We introduce the distinction between appetitive competition, in which negotiators seek relative gain, and aversive competition, in which negotiators seek to prevent relative loss. Two experiments tested the predictions that (i) appetitive competitors are less vigilant and more confident than aversive competitors, and are (ii) therefore more likely to reach an agreement. However, we further hypothesized that (iii) information about one's opponent undermines appetitive competitors' confidence, yet enables trust in aversive competitors. Results supported these predictions. Appetitive competitors more often reached an impasse than aversive competitors when information was provided about the opponent, whereas aversive competitors more often reached an impasse without this information.     

A gift that takes its toll: Emotion recognition and conflict appraisal

Individuals' attributions about conflict influence their behaviour: Appraising conflict as relationship-oriented rather than task-oriented increases individuals' likelihood to engage in conflict-escalating behaviour. This study analysed to what extent emotion recognition influences people's conflict appraisal in teams. Seventy individuals assigned to teams reported on their team conflicts once a week over the course of 2.5 months. The results show that team members high in emotion recognition tend to make more relationship-oriented conflict attributions. At the same time, they make less task-oriented conflict attributions. This tendency towards relationship-oriented attributions was moderated by team-level agreeableness and extraversion: Individuals high in emotion recognition perceived more relationship conflict the lower the average level of agreeableness and extraversion in their teams.     

Conflict's consequences: effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance

Two studies tested the effects of social motives during negotiation on postnegotiation group performance. In both experiments, a prosocial or a proself motivation was induced, and participants negotiated in 3-person groups about a joint market. In Experiment 1, groups subsequently performed an advertisement task. Consistent with the authors' predictions, results showed that proself groups performed worse on the convergent aspects of this task but better on the divergent aspects than prosocial groups. In Experiment 2, the authors manipulated social motive and negotiation (negotiation vs. no negotiation), and groups performed a creativity task (requiring divergent performance) or a planning task (requiring convergent performance). Proself groups showed greater dedication, functioned more effectively, and performed better than prosocial groups on the creativity task, whereas prosocial groups showed greater dedication, functioned more effectively, and performed better than proself groups on the planning task, and these effects only occurred when the task was preceded by group negotiation.     

Cutthroat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures

Structural Adaptation Theory proposes that it is more difficult for teams to change from competitive to cooperative reward conditions than it is for them to change in the opposite direction, and this has been labeled the cutthroat cooperation effect [Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Jundt, D. K. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation of team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103–120]. The current study investigated whether team role discussion can neutralize this effect and promote successful adaptation from competitive to cooperative reward structures. Consistent with our predictions, in a study that involved 75 four-person teams performing a complex task under cooperative reward conditions, we found that teams with a history of competitive rewards performed worse than teams with a history of cooperative rewards in a control condition. However, this effect was neutralized when teams allocated their roles in a team role discussion. This neutralization effect was driven by behavioral coordination and unmet expectations regarding conflict.     

Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: the moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules

In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. Although such situations may give rise to majority coalitions that exclude the minority or to minorities blocking unfavorable agreements, structural and motivational factors may stimulate groups to engage in integrative negotiation, leading to collectively beneficial agreements. An experiment with 97 3-person groups was designed to test hypotheses about the interactions among decision rule, the majority's social motivation, and the minority's social motivation. Results showed that under unanimity rule, minority members block decisions, thus harming the group, but only when the minority has proself motivation. Under majority rule, majority members coalesce at the minority's expense, but only when the majority has a proself motivation. Implications for negotiation research and group decision making are discussed.     

The more (complex), the better? The influence of epistemic motivation on integrative bargaining in complex negotiation

Negotiating about a larger number of issues is often argued to enhance the potential for integrative bargaining. However, the enhanced complexity may also make negotiators more susceptible to bias, making it less likely for them to reach win–win agreements. We argue that epistemic motivation, the motivation to hold accurate perceptions of the world, provides a key to solve this paradox. In a negotiation experiment we manipulated complexity by having participants negotiate about 6 or 18 issues and we manipulated epistemic motivation by making participants process‐accountable or not. Under low complexity, there was no effect of epistemic motivation on created value. Under high complexity, however, negotiators with high epistemic motivation created more value than negotiators with low epistemic motivation. Thus, negotiating about larger numbers of issues was only beneficial for negotiators if they were motivated to think deeply and thoroughly. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When (not) to empathize: The differential effects of combined emotion recognition and empathic concern on client satisfaction across professions

Motivation and Emotion - Previous research found inconsistent associations between individuals’ emotion recognition ability and their work-related outcomes. This research project focuses on...