Search results

This paper investigates the information dilemma in negotiations: if negotiators reveal information about their priorities and preferences, more efficient agreements may be reached but the shared information may be used strategically by the other negotiator, to the revealers' disadvantage. We present a theoretical model that focuses on the characteristics of the negotiators, the structure of the negotiation, and the available incentives; it predicts that experienced negotiators will out‐perform naive negotiators on distributive (competitive) tasks, especially when they have information about their counterpart's preferences and the incentives are high—unless the task is primarily integrative, in which case information will contribute to the negotiators maximizing joint gain. Two experiments (one small, one large) showed that the revelation of one's preferences was costly and that experienced negotialors outperformed their naive counterparts by a wide margin, particularly when the task and issues were distributive and incentives were large. Our results help to identify the underlying dynamics of the information dilemma and lead to a discussion of the connections between information and social dilemmas and the potential for avoiding inefficiencies.

Purpose – We consider the question of when teams are an asset at the negotiating table and when they are a liability.

Methodology – We center our review on three key “empirical truths” about teams. First, teams are better than individuals at solving problems. Second, teams are more self-interested than individuals. Third, teams are trusted less and are less trusting than individuals.

Findings – Teams have an advantage over solo negotiators when there is unshared information and multiple issues on the table. Teams have an advantage in these contexts because of their superior problem-solving abilities. However, teams are more likely than solos to suffer from costly and uncertain legal action due to failures in dispute resolution and earn lower profits than solos in negotiations with a prisoner's dilemma structure. Thus, because teams are more self-interested and less trusted than individuals, they can be a liability in negotiations in which the parties' interests are opposed.

Implications – To the leverage the positive effects of teams in negotiation, it is critical that negotiators determine whether the context is one that allows for coordination and integrative tradeoffs, such as multi-issue deal-making negotiations, versus one that is characterized by noncorrespondent outcomes and incompatible interests, such as disputes and prisoner's dilemma interactions.

Value of the paper – The term “negotiation” has been applied rather broadly to a complex assortment of mixed-motive tasks. Our review indicates that distinguishing among these tasks is paramount to meaningfully address questions of individual versus group performance in negotiation.

The purpose of this article is to outline ways in which the large body of empirical work on creativity can meaningfully inform negotiation. In doing so, two general streams of creativity research and their implications for negotiation theory and empirical analysis are considered. Negotiation pundits advise that negotiators should engage in creative problem-solving to craft integrative agreements, and it is widely believed by both negotiation theorists and practitioners that “out-of-the-box” thinking and creative idea generation are necessary for win–win negotiation. Although practitioners have strongly encouraged parties to engage in creative problem-solving, there are remarkably few empirical investigations of creative thinking, brainstorming and other idea-generation methods in negotiation.

First, creativity as a trait is considered and the relationship between individual differences in creativity and negotiation performance is examined. Then, creative thinking as a causal factor is examined and how it may influence the negotiation process and outcomes is suggested. Finally, three considerations for further integrating creativity and negotiation research are suggested: communication media, idea-generation strategies and morality and social motivation.

A literature review revealed four studies that have empirically tested the influence of trait creativity on negotiation performance. Even less research has manipulated creative thinking or training to analyze creativity as a causal factor of negotiation outcomes.

This research will benefit both creativity and negotiation scholars by suggesting the limited amount of work at their intersection yet the opportunities that exist for further research.

This paper examined negotiator behavior in a variable‐sum two‐party negotiation task and its impact on individual and joint negotiator out‐come. Specifically, we examined the role of negotiator opening offer, reciprocity and complementarity of the use of tactics, systematic progression of offers, and information sharing in a negotiation with integrative potential. Results indicated that initial offers affect final outcome differently across buyers and sellers. The buyer's initial offer was curvilinearly related to his or her final outcome in the form of an inverted‐U. The seller's initial offer was positive‐linearly related to seller's outcome. Second, negotiators reciprocated and complemented both distributive and integrative tactics. In addition, highly integrative dyads differed from less efficient dyads in their reciprocation of integrative behaviors and complementarity of distributive behaviors. Third, approximately forty percent of offers made represented systematic concessions, but the proportion of offers reflecting systematic concessions was not related to the efficiency of the joint outcome. Finally, while information sharing did appear to have a positive effect on the efficiency of agreements, differences in the amount of information provided did not affect the proportion of outcome claimed by each party.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the decision‐making implications of “regrets of the heart” versus “regrets of the head” in economic decision making.

The phenomenon in three empirical studies is examined. Study 1 is a protocol analysis of people's “regrets of the heart” and “regrets of the head”. Study 2 uses the same recall prompt and examined decision makers' choices in an ultimatum bargaining game. Study 3 tests regrets of heart versus the head in an interactive face to face negotiation setting.

Overall, it is found that people who were prompted to recall a time in which they regretted “not following their heart” were more likely to recall situations in which they experienced a loss or lost opportunity compared to people who recalled a time when they regretted “not following their head”. Recalling a regret of the heart prompts decision makers and negotiators to put a greater value on maintaining relationships and avoid loss in an interpersonal exchange situation.

These findings contribute to the literature on how emotions affect economic decision making and provide a more nuanced examination of regret.

Focusing on “regrets of the head” may lead to greater economic gains in economic decisions.

This article examines a different type of regret and demonstrates how this type of regret impacts economic decision‐making behavior.

The academic literature within social psychology focuses on describing what leaders and groups do wrong rather than what they do right. We refer to this as the “negative psychology” of leaders and groups. This chapter reviews the negative and positive research perspectives on leadership and groups. We propose that scholarly research makes more references to the shortcomings of leaders and groups rather than their successes. We conjecture that the pressure by the academic community to produce compelling counterintuitive research findings fuels the tendency to concentrate on failures. In contrast, we suggest that popular articles and books more often focus on the positive achievement of leaders and groups because their audience, namely managers, are more interested in learning how to achieve positive results than to avoid negative outcomes. Finally, we suggest that scholarly research on the psychology of leaders and groups could benefit from understanding how to achieve and maintain positive outcomes, whereas popular press may better prevent organizational failure and ruin by understanding managers’ blunders and faults.

In many organizational settings, status hierarchies result in the conferral of privileges that are based on achievement. However, in the same settings, status may result in the bestowal of privileges that are unearned. We argue that these unearned privileges are often awarded based on ascribed characteristics, but are perceived to be achieved. We further argue that these misattributions occur because acknowledging that one has benefited from unearned advantages that are awarded in a meritocracy can be threatening to a person's self-identity. We propose that by studying unearned privileges in organizational settings, a more accurate assessment of status hierarchies may result.