Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes

In a series of four studies, we examined whether and how negotiators’ task-related self-efficacy affects their performance. In the first two studies, we identified two theoretically meaningful self-efficacy constructs—distributive self-efficacy (DSE) and integrative self-efficacy (ISE)—and provided evidence of construct validity. In the third study, task-congruent self-efficacy was positively associated with negotiators’ self-reports of tactical decision-making. In the fourth study, we measured negotiators’ tactics and found that ISE and DSE affected negotiators’ initial choice of tactics. We conclude that ISE and DSE predisposes negotiators to select certain tactics, which then guide the course of the negotiation, and, ultimately, affect the quality of deals.     

Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask

Four experiments show that gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of men and women when they attempt to negotiate. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants evaluated written accounts of candidates who did or did not initiate negotiations for higher compensation. Evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations. In Experiment 3, participants evaluated videotapes of candidates who accepted compensation offers or initiated negotiations. Male evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations; female evaluators penalized all candidates for initiating negotiations. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness explained resistance to female negotiators. In Experiment 4, participants adopted the candidate’s perspective and assessed whether to initiate negotiations in same scenario used in Experiment 3. With male evaluators, women were less inclined than men to negotiate, and nervousness explained this effect. There was no gender difference when evaluator was female.     

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.     

Condom Negotiation in Heterosexually Active Men and Women: Development and Validation of a Condom Influence Strategy Questionnaire

The ability to negotiate condom use with a partner is a skill that sexually active men and women must have in order to avoid sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. Despite this fact, there is no psychometrically valid instrument in the literature to measure condom influence strategies. This investigation reports on the development and initial validation of the condom influence strategy questionnaire (CISQ). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses revealed and confirmed six influence strategies used by heterosexually active men and women to negotiate condom use. These CISQ subscales accounted for variance in safer sexual variables including sexual assertiveness, self-efficacy, and partner communication. Further, those who endorsed CISQ subscales were more likely to have intentions to use condoms consistently and to use condoms. Gender differences in subscales favoring women as the ones most likely to use influence strategies also emerged. Implications of these results as well as future directions for research are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation

This paper introduces a distinction between suspicion and distrust. While distrust (trust) involves having negative (positive) expectations about another’s motives, suspicion is defined as the state in which perceivers experience ambiguity about another’s motives. Four experiments supported this distinction and showed that suspicion can present greater benefits than trust for generating information search and attaining integrative agreements in negotiation. In Experiment 1a, suspicious perceivers were characterized by consciously attributing more motives to a target compared to both distrusting and trusting perceivers. In Experiment 1b, suspicious perceivers were more willing to seek information. In Experiment 2a, Suspicious-Trusting dyads achieved greater joint outcomes in face-to-face negotiation than did Trusting-Trusting or Suspicious-Suspicious dyads. Experiment 2b showed that the suspicious participants’ ability to seek information in Suspicious-Trusting dyads mediated the superior performance of Suspicious-Trusting dyads over Trusting-Trusting dyads in attaining integrative agreements.     

The desire to win: The effects of competitive arousal on motivation and behavior

The paper theoretically elaborates and empirically investigates the “competitive arousal” model of decision making, which argues that elements of the strategic environment (e.g., head-to-head rivalry and time pressure) can fuel competitive motivations and behavior. Study 1 measures real-time motivations of online auction bidders and finds that the “desire to win” (even when winning is costly and will provide no strategic upside) is heightened when rivalry and time pressure coincide. Study 2 is a field experiment which alters the text of email alerts sent to bidders who have been outbid; the text makes competitive (vs. non-competitive) motivations salient. Making the desire to win salient triggers additional bidding, but only when rivalry and time pressure coincide. Study 3, a laboratory study, demonstrates that the desire to win mediates the effect of rivalry and time pressure on over-bidding.     

Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain

Negotiation scholars and practitioners have long noted the impact of face, or social image, concerns on negotiation outcomes. When face is threatened, negotiators are less likely to reach agreement and to create joint gain. In this paper, we explore individual differences in face threat sensitivity (FTS), and how a negotiator's role moderates the relationship of his or her FTS to negotiation outcomes. Study 1 describes a measure of FTS. Study 2 finds that buyers and sellers are less likely to reach an agreement that is in both parties' interests when the seller has high FTS. Study 3 finds that job candidates and recruiters negotiate an employment contract with less joint gain when the candidate has high FTS, and that this relationship is mediated by increased competitiveness on the part of the high FTS candidates. The results support Deutsch's (1961) application of face theory ( Goffman, 1967) to negotiation.     

Flattery may get you somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation

Two studies were conducted to examine the strategic implications of providing positive vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality to one’s negotiating partner. Results indicate that negotiators were least competitive and achieved the worst individual performance when they received negative-ability feedback, were most honest when they received negative-ethicality feedback, and were most cooperative when they received positive-ethicality feedback. Causal modeling revealed that the effects of feedback on recipients’ cooperativeness and individual performance were mediated by recipients’ self-perceptions.