Untitled

Beersma, Bianca; Dreu, Carsten K. W. De

doi:10.1023/a:1026032628634

Cited by 16 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fewer potential agreements there are that fulfill this condition, the higher the Pareto efficiency and, consequently, the quality of negotiation outcomes. While the Pareto efficiency is a standardized measure that allows for comparisons of outcomes across studies (Tripp & Sondak, 1992), the measure of joint profits is not comparable across studies due to payoff variations between different negotiation paradigms (e.g., 0–600 points; Beersma & De Dreu, 2003; 0–10,400$; Bazerman et al, 1985). Nevertheless, the vast majority of studies analyzed in the present work reported joint profits, whereas only few studies used Pareto efficiency.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, we employ an innovative methodological approach that allows us to investigate our research questions using data from approximately 50 years of negotiation research (353 studies from 289 articles for joint gains and 195 studies from 171 articles for impasse rates; see the Literature Search and Eligibility Coding section). Because we included studies using negotiation tasks with different settings (e.g., joint-venture negotiations, e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2003; job negotiations, e.g., Schaerer et al, 2018; buyer–seller negotiations; e.g., Bazerman et al, 1985), various numbers of issues (i.e., 2–11 issues, e.g., Kray et al, 2004; Milter et al, 1996), and diverse samples (e.g., undergraduates, MBA students, practitioners) from different cultural contexts (e.g., America, Europe, Asia; e.g., Brett & Okumura, 1998; Gelfand et al, 2013; Graham, 1993), our findings are more generalizable compared to findings derived from a single study using one type of task and sample. Finally, we seek to offer negotiation practitioners empirically validated advice regarding whether they should bring more issues to the bargaining table to expand the pie or reduce the number of issues to avoid spoiling the cake .…”

Section: Present Research: Overview and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.

Warsitzka,

Zhang,

Beersma

et al. 2024

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigates how the number of issues affects the quality of outcomes in terms of joint gains and impasse rates in integrative negotiations. In the literature, two opposing positions exist reflecting a complexity dilemma regarding the number of negotiation issues: One position suggests that complex negotiations involving higher numbers of issues offer more trade-off opportunities, thereby providing negotiators with greater structural flexibility in reaching mutually beneficial agreements, which improves outcome quality. The opposite position emphasizes that the greater information load inherent in negotiating more issues impedes outcome quality. We propose a third, intermediate position: Negotiating more issues may only improve outcome quality up to a threshold, above which adding further issues results in deteriorated outcomes. We tested these propositions using a quasi-meta-analytic technique by examining the associations between the number of issues, joint gains, and impasse rates across multiple empirical studies on integrative negotiations using various negotiation tasks with different numbers of issues (N = 38,063/21,271 negotiations for joint gains/impasse rates). Moreover, we investigated whether factors related to how negotiators subjectively deal with the increased complexity associated with higher numbers of issues moderate the number-of-issues effect on joint gains. Multilevel analyses revealed no significant number-of-issues effect on joint gains up to a threshold of 3 issues but a negative effect for negotiations involving more than 3 issues. By contrast, we did not find a number-of-issues effect on impasse rates. Moreover, we did not obtain evidence for moderation effects. Findings are discussed with respect to their theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Research: Overview and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.

Warsitzka,

Zhang,

Beersma

et al. 2024

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Effect of a Consciously Set and a Primed Goal on Fair Behavior

Ganegoda

Latham²,

Folger

2015

Hum Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were conducted to test whether an enhanced degree of fair behavior could be obtained by making justice a goal, whether consciously set, primed, or both. Each experiment assessed fairness in a competitive negotiation context. All participants, across the three experiments, were asked to attain a base‐level performance goal. The first experiment examined how a negotiation is affected by a consciously set goal for fairness as well as a primed fairness goal. The results revealed that both the conscious and the primed goal enhanced a participant's fairness. The second and third experiments examined the underlying mediating mechanisms of the effects found in the first experiment. Overall, the results of three experiments indicate that both conscious and primed goals, individually or in combination, can increase fair behavior by enhancing justice saliency. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Connectivity and Cooperation

Buchan

Fatás

Grimalda

2012

The Oxford Handbook of Economic Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article determines the influence of social connectivity on cooperation at the local and global levels. Connectivity greatly increases prospects of cooperation. Cooperation is an important part of negotiation. It is noted that understanding cooperation and its causes is vital for explaining and predicting a variety of negotiation issues and behavior such as the number of people involved, the level of information exchange, fairness, and partner selection. Connectivity in social networks appears to play a critical role in explaining cooperation. Cooperation was shown to be high and varied significantly across countries. The analysis reveals a positive effect of trust on cooperation. Connectivity is a key aspect for agents to reap the full benefits of negotiation. The effect of global identity strongly decreases that of the individual globalization index (IGI), thus supporting the idea that global identity mediates the effect of global connectivity on cooperation.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 16 publications

References 66 publications

Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.

Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.

The Effect of a Consciously Set and a Primed Goal on Fair Behavior

Connectivity and Cooperation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About