Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories

A meta-analysis of 28 studies examined support for the Theory of Cooperation and Competition (M. Deutsch, 1973) and Dual Concern Theory (D. G. Pruitt & J. Z. Rubin, 1986). Effects of social motive (prosocial vs. egoistic) and resistance to yielding (high vs. low vs. unknown) on contenting, problem solving, and joint outcomes were examined. Consistent with Dual Concern Theory, results showed that negotiators were less contentious, engaged in more problem solving, and achieved higher joint outcomes when they had a prosocial rather than egoistic motive, but only when resistance to yielding was high (or unknown) rather than low. The authors also explored the moderating effects of study characteristics and found effects for participation inducement (class exercise, participant pool), for publication status, and for treatment of no-agreement dyads.     

Unilateral concessions from the other party: concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments

This article examines the effects of the other party's concession behavior on a negotiator's satisfaction and judgments. The timing of the concessions (immediate, gradual, delayed) and the justifications provided by the other party (negotiator skill vs. external constraints) were manipulated using a scenario method (Study 1) and a role-playing experiment (Study 2). Study 1 showed that concession timing influenced valuation of the object and satisfaction with the partner and the outcome. Justifications about why the concession was made interacted with concession timing to influence participants' attributions. Participants' attributions for why the concession was actually made, in turn, had a main effect on satisfaction and judgments of the negotiation. Study 2 replicated some, but not all, of these findings.     

Task versus relationship conflict,team performance,and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis

This study provides a meta-analysis of research on the associations between relationship conflict, task conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. Consistent with past theorizing, results revealed strong and negative correlations between relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction. In contrast to what has been suggested in both academic research and introductory textbooks, however, results also revealed strong and negative (instead of the predicted positive) correlations between task conflict team performance, and team member satisfaction. As predicted, conflict had stronger negative relations with team performance in highly complex (decision making, project, mixed) than in less complex (production) tasks. Finally, task conflict was less negatively related to team performance when task conflict and relationship conflict were weakly, rather than strongly, correlated.     

Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups

Negotiators' social motives (cooperative vs. individualistic) influence their strategic behaviors. In this study, the authors used multilevel modeling and analyses of strategy sequences to test hypotheses regarding how negotiators' social motives and the composition of the group influence group members' negotiation strategies. Four-person groups negotiating a 5-issue mixed-motive decision-making task were videotaped, and the tapes were transcribed and coded. Group composition included 2 homogeneous conditions (all cooperators and all individualists) and 3 heterogeneous conditions (3 cooperators and 1 individualist, 2 cooperators and 2 individualists, 1 cooperator and 3 individualists). Results showed that cooperative negotiators adjusted their use of integrative and distributive strategies in response to the social-motive composition of the group, but individualistic negotiators did not. Results from analyses of strategy sequences showed that cooperators responded more systematically to others' behaviors than did individualists. They also redirected the negotiation depending on group composition.     

Can I Do It? Will I Try? Personal Efficacy,Assigned Goals,and Performance Norms as Motivators of Individual Performance1

This study tested concurrent influences of personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms on individual performance, mediated by personal goals and task‐specific self‐efficacy. Seventy‐seven undergraduate students performed a verbal task in this laboratory experiment that manipulated assigned goal level (low, high) and information about the performance of others (low, high). Relations among variables, including general, domain, and task‐specific self‐efficacy, as well as performance were examined through structural equation modeling. Results demonstrated simultaneous effects of assigned goals and normative information on self‐efficacy, personal goals, and subsequent performance, as well as mediated effects of domain efficacy on performance.     

Interdependence,social motives,and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation

What makes negotiators satisfied with their outcomes? In this study, we examined whether interpersonal interdependence, in the context of multi‐party multi‐issue negotiation, affected negotiators' satisfaction with their individual and group outcomes. We integrated principles from interdependence, social comparison, and social value theories to generate hypotheses about the social‐evaluative nature of satisfaction with negotiation outcomes. Controlling for differences in quality of individual outcomes, we found a positive association between satisfaction and individual outcome and a negative association between satisfaction and group outcome. Relative to those with prosocial social value orientation, negotiators with an individualistic social value orientation were less satisfied with the group outcome, regardless of induced motivational orientation. Neither motivational orientation nor an interaction between motivational orientation and social value orientation were related to satisfaction. We discuss the implications of our results for research on interdependence processes in negotiations and the role of social motives. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Getting to Best: Efficiency versus Optimality in Negotiation

Negotiation between two individuals is a common task that typically involves two goals: maximize individual outcomes and obtain an agreement. However, research on the simplest negotiation tasks demonstrates that although naive subjects can be induced to improve their performance, they are often no more likely to achieve fully optimal solutions. The present study tested the prediction that a decrease in a particular type of argumentative behavior, substantiation, would result in an increase in optimal agreements. As substantiation behaviors depend primarily on supplied content of the negotiation task, it was also predicted that substantiation behavior would be reduced by curtailing the content. A 2 × 2 experimental design was employed, where both negotiation tactics (list of tactics present versus absent) and negotiation task content (high versus low) were varied to determine the processes leading beyond solution improvement to solution optimality. Sixty‐one dyads engaged in a two‐party, four‐issue negotiation task. All negotiations were videotaped and analyzed. Although the list of negotiation tactics resulted in improved performance, only the content manipulation resulted in a significant increase in dyads achieving optimal solutions. Analyses of the coded protocols indicated that the key difference in achieving optimality was a reduction in persistent substantiation‐related operators (substantiation, along with single‐issue preferences and procedures) and an increase in a complex macro‐operator, multi‐issue offers that reduced the problem space, facilitating the search for optimality.