Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement.

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome.

Tested, in 2 studies, the effects of motivational orientation (cooperative vs individualistic) and issue consideration (simultaneous vs sequential) on the negotiation process and outcome quality attained by 4-person groups engaged in a multi-issue negotiation. Study 1 (n?=?84) showed that both a cooperative orientation and simultaneous issue consideration improved outcome quality. Simultaneous consideration of issues also increased the likelihood of reaching agreement. Study 2, focusing on the negotiation process, showed that cooperative groups were more trusting and engaged in less argumentation. Simultaneous issue-consideration groups exchanged more information and had greater insight into the other parties' priorities. A lag sequential analysis showed that groups with a cooperative orientation overcame the limits of discussing issues sequentially by engaging norms of reciprocity and mutuality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation.

The author provides a conceptual framework for understanding differences among prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations. Whereas traditional models conceptualize prosocial orientation in terms of enhancing joint outcomes, the author proposes an integrative model of social value orientation in which prosocial orientation is understood in terms of enhancing both joint outcomes and equality in outcomes. Consistent with this integrative model, prosocial orientation (vs. individualistic and competitive orientations) was associated with greater tendencies to enhance both joint outcomes and equality in outcomes; in addition, both goals were positively associated (Study 1). Consistent with interaction-relevant implications of this model, prosocial orientation was strongly related to reciprocity. Relative to individualists and competitors, prosocials were more likely to engage in the same level of cooperation as the interdependent other did (Study 2) and the same level of cooperation as they anticipated from the interdependent other (Study 3). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Pancultural self-enhancement.

The culture movement challenged the universality of the self-enhancement motive by proposing that the motive is pervasive in individualistic cultures (the West) but absent in collectivistic cultures (the East). The present research posited that Westerners and Easterners use different tactics to achieve the same goal: positive self-regard. Study 1 tested participants from differing cultural backgrounds (the United States vs. Japan), and Study 2 tested participants of differing self-construals (independent vs. interdependent). Americans and independents self-enhanced on individualistic attributes, whereas Japanese and interdependents self-enhanced on collectivistic attributes. Independents regarded individualistic attributes, whereas interdependents regarded collectivistic attributes, as personally important. Attribute importance mediated self-enhancement. Regardless of cultural background or self-construal, people self-enhance on personally important dimensions. Self-enhancement is a universal human motive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations.

Past research has indicated that rapport helps negotiators overcome interpersonal friction and find cooperative agreements. Study 1 explored differences in the behavioral dynamics evoked by e-mail versus face-to-face negotiation. Although some behavioral content categories differed in ways pointing to strengths of e-mail, the strongest patten was that e-mail inhibited the process of exchanging personal information through which negotiators establish rapport. The authors hypothesized that the liabilities of e-mail might be minimized by a pre-negotiation intervention of social lubrication. To test this in Study 2, half of dyads had a brief personal telephone conversation ("schmoozed") before commencing e-mail negotiations, and half did not. Schmoozers felt more rapport, their plans were more trusting (although no less ambitious), and their economic and social outcomes were better. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Online bargaining and interpersonal trust.

The presented study explores the effect of interacting over the Internet on interpersonal trust when bargaining online. Relative to face-to-face negotiations, online negotiations were characterized by (a) lower levels of pre-negotiation trust and (b) lower levels of post-negotiation trust. The reduced levels of pre-negotiation trust in online negotiations (i.e., before any interaction took place) demonstrate that negotiators bring different expectations to the electronic bargaining table than to face-to-face negotiations. These negative perceptions of trust were found to mediate another aspect of the relationship, namely, desired future interaction. Those who negotiated online reported less desire for future interactions with the other party. Online negotiators also were less satisfied with their outcome and less confident in the quality of their performance. despite the absence of observable differences in economic outcome quality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics.

Used 60 male and 60 female undergraduates in same sex dyads to study the effects of trust (defined as belief that the other negotiator is cooperatively motivated), aspirations, and gender on the conditions and processes leading to outcomes that jointly benefit both parties. Under high aspirations, high trust produced self-consciously cooperative behavior in the form of direct information exchange; low trust produced self-consciously distributive (competitive) behavior and one form of indirect information exchange. A correlational analysis showed that joint benefit was a positive function of a set of trial and error tactics and 2 forms of indirect information exchange, a negative function of the use of distributive tactics, and unrelated to direct information exchange. Joint benefit was greater under higher aspirations but was not a function of trust or the interaction between trust and aspirations. Women engaged in less distributive behavior and were less interested in the task than men, especially under high aspirations. A theory of strategic choice is presented to explain the findings. (14 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An examination of children's attributions and achievement-related evaluations in competitive, cooperative, and individualistic reward structures.

Studied how the reward structure of an achievement setting would affect children's attributions and evaluations of achievement outcomes. An achievement situation describing 2 children successfully and unsuccessfully performing a task in competitive, cooperative, and individualistic reward structures was presented to 400 children across 5 grade levels (1–5). Results show that different evaluative beliefs about the concepts of ability and reward allocation were associated with each reward contingency. Competitive and individualistic structures accentuated perceptions of individual differences and the value placed on achievement outcomes. Evaluations of cooperative vs competitive outcomes were dependent on the level of individual performance within the groups and the success of the cooperative group. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining.

Attempted to reconcile conflicting findings about the impact of negotiator accountability on bargaining process and outcome. Some studies have found that high accountability produces more pressure (dominance) tactics and lower joint benefit than low accountability. Other studies have found no accountability effects. Results of the present research with 132 university students suggest that negotiators' visual accessibility is a moderator of the effects of accountability. Accountability produced lower joint benefit only when the negotiators were face to face. Cooperative behavior and reports of a cooperative atmosphere were diminished when negotiators were facing each other rather than talking across a barrier. Results are interpreted on the assumption that negotiation involves a competitive definition of the situation, especially under high accountability. In such a context, staring is likely to be employed to dominate and is likely to be interpreted as domineering behavior. When there is no visual access, staring is not possible; hence, there is less temptation to try to dominate and less reason to view the other party as making a similar effort. The result is more cooperation and greater joint benefit. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

From self-prediction to self-defeat: Behavioral forecasting, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the effect of competitive expectations.

Four studies explored behavioral forecasting and the effect of competitive expectations in the context of negotiations. Study 1 examined negotiators' forecasts of how they would behave when faced with a very competitive versus a less competitive opponent and found that negotiators believed they would become more competitive. Studies 2 and 3 examined actual behaviors during a negotiation and found that negotiators who expected a very competitive opponent actually became less competitive, as evidenced by setting lower, less aggressive reservation prices, making less demanding counteroffers, and ultimately agreeing to lower negotiated outcomes. Finally, Study 4 provided a direct test of the disconnection between negotiators' forecasts for their behavior and their actual behaviors within the same sample and found systematic errors in behavioral forecasting as well as evidence for the self-fulfilling effects of possessing a competitive expectation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating the circumplexity of interpersonal traits and the manifestation of interpersonal traits in interpersonal trust.

Two studies assessed the goodness of fit of ideal, quasi-, and noncircumplex models of interpersonal traits. Study 1 (N?=?132) represents a secondary data analysis using J.S. Wiggins's (1979) original Interpersonal Adjectives Scales (IAS) and reported by J.S. Wiggins, J.H. Steiger, and L. Gaelick (1981). Study 2 (N?=?401) represents a primary data analysis using Wiggins's revised IAS (J.S. Wiggins, P. Trapnell, & N. Phillips, 1988). Results of both studies indicated that a quasi-circumplex model provided a better fit to the correlational data than did either ideal or noncircumplex models. Also, in Study 2, results for a subsample (n?=?113) indicated that an ideal circumplex model yielded a significant positive path coefficient from Nurturance to interpersonal trust (J.K. Rempel, J.G. Holmes, & M.P. Zanna, 1985) but not from Dominance to interpersonal trust, whereas a quasi-circumplex model yielded significant positive paths from both Dominance and Nurturance to interpersonal trust. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Now you see it, now you don't: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in integrative negotiation.

Negotiators are often advised to seek win–win agreements by focusing on interests (primary features) rather than issues (secondary features), but whether such advice is valid remains to be seen. Consistent with construal level theory (Y. Trope & N. Liberman, 2003), Experiments 1 and 2 show that negotiators focus on secondary features (issues) more than on primary features (interests) when psychological distance is low rather than high, and concomitant construal level is local and specific rather than global and abstract. Experiment 3 showed that high construal level promoted problem-solving behavior and therefore facilitated the achievement of win–win agreement, but only when integrative potential resided in underlying interests; when integrative potential resided in the issues, low construal level negotiators achieved higher joint outcomes. Thus, both low- and high-construal negotiators may achieve win–win agreements when such agreements require trade-offs at the level of issues, or at the level of underlying interests, respectively. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)