Search results

To avoid (costly) conflict, it is imperative to uncover when negotiators cooperate. The previous study has shown that negotiators’ cooperative or competitive behavior is oftentimes guided by cues about their counterpart; information about his/her traits or behavior. Using regulatory focus theory, this paper aims to investigate when this is likely to happen. The authors hypothesize and test that because prevention focus (rather than promotion focus) is associated with concerns for safety and concrete surroundings, it strengthens the impact of counterpart cues.

The authors used two scenario studies and one behavioral negotiation study to test the general hypothesis. The authors measured or manipulated participants’ regulatory focus, manipulated counterpart cues by varying the information negotiators received about their counterpart’s traits and behavior, and measured participants’ cooperative or competitive concession making behavior.

Results from the studies confirmed that under prevention focus, negotiators’ cooperative behavior depended on whether they received cooperative versus competitive counterpart cues more than under promotion focus. Furthermore, results also showed that under prevention focus, negotiators’ behavior was relatively unaffected by their own social motivation – i.e. their personal goal to obtain favorable outcomes for oneself or for both negotiation parties.

By showing that regulatory focus determines when counterpart cues affect negotiation behavior, this paper furthers the understanding of when contextual factors affect negotiators' behavior. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of the complex effects of prevention focus in interpersonal behavior.

The present paper aims to identify an important moderator of the effect of leader's fairness on the conflict handling style adopted by followers. Based on the uncertainty management model the authors hypothesize that the motivation to reduce uncertainty, reflected by individual differences in need for cognitive closure, moderates the use of constructive conflict handling style as a response to variation in leader's perceived procedural fairness.

A correlational study was conducted on a sample of 175 Italian public employees. Each participant filled out a questionnaire. Data analysis was carried out performing a series of multiple regression analyses.

Consistent with previous research, regression analysis showed that perceived leader's fairness promoted a more constructive approach to manage conflict with leaders. More importantly this relationship was stronger under high rather than low need for cognitive closure.

Present results suggest that in order to favor a solution‐oriented conflict handling style, leaders should promote perceptions of procedural fairness, especially among those with high need for closure.

This is one of the first studies that looks at a moderator of the relationship between leader's fairness and constructive conflict management. It integrates literature on procedural fairness and cooperation. Furthermore, as the current research focuses on need for closure, it has important implications with regard to the uncertainty management model.

Grounded in regulatory mode theory (RMT), this study aims to investigate the impact of managers’ orientation for action (locomotion and assessment) in business-to-business positioning decision-making.

Data are collected using a scenario-based experimental design. Study 1 examines whether interest and involvement in recommending a positioning strategy depends on a manager’s regulatory mode orientation. The impact of such orientations on the likelihood of changing a recommended positioning strategy is the focus of Study 2. The moderating effects of task motivation (expected rewards resulting from a recommendation), market feedback and the line manager’s leadership style are examined.

Both assessment and locomotion are significant determinants of involvement in recommending a positioning strategy. The introduction of motivation as a moderator helps explain differences in level of interest in positioning decision-making. Locomotion, but not assessment, affects the likelihood of changing a recommended positioning strategy. Assessment amplifies the impact of locomotion, while none of the interaction effects between regulatory mode orientation and contextual factors is a significant determinant of changing a positioning strategy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first application of RMT on positioning decision-making. Results from two experiments provide novel insights into the predictive relevance of managers’ preference in terms of involvement with the decision-making process and the likelihood of altering positioning.

Emerging direct-to-consumer brands offer a single option to consumers before expanding their assortment as the business grows. This provides a counterexample to commonly held beliefs concerning consumers’ aversion to single options. The purpose of this paper is to study when, for whom and why offering two product options (vs a single option) is valued by consumers.

Across six experiments, this research investigates consumers’ locomotion orientation (a motivation for controlling progress), which affects the valuation of choice (vs single options).

Consumers’ locomotion orientation determines perceived product value for products chosen from a two-option set (vs when considering a single option) because choice offers active control, which is engaging for high-locomotion consumers. Expanding the set to six options has no such effect.

Studies 1, 4a and 4b are set in the context of expert-selected single options, while Studies 2, 3 and 5 do not involve expert selection. However, the authors does not contrast expert vs non-expert conditions directly.

Managers can increase consumers’ willingness to pay by using advertisements to induce locomotion or segmenting consumers based on locomotion orientations.

Research suggests that consumers value choice between options, yet many emerging brands succeed with a single option. The authors reconcile this by providing insights into motivations that determine when, for whom and why choice (vs a single option) is valued.