Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes

Abstract

Negotiation processes involve a substantive, a communication, and an emotional dimension. These dimensions have been analyzed mainly in isolation of each other. We introduce an approach to consider all three dimensions and present an empirical study on the relations between these dimensions. Results indicate a strong linkage between communication behavior and emotions, while connections to the substantive dimension of the negotiation process are weaker.

Negotiation Processes: Empirical Insights

“…In contrast, activation and negative emotions are expected to be related to a distributive orientation in communication, as well as lower joint utility and higher imbalance of offers. Summarizing the results with respect to this threefold hypothesis, Filzmoser et al (2016) conclude that substantive behavior on the one hand and communication and emotions on the other hand seem to form quite distinct parts of the negotiation process. Only weak or no correlation between the substantive and the emotion dimension as well as between the substantive and the communication dimension was observed.…”

“…Only weak or no correlation between the substantive and the emotion dimension as well as between the substantive and the communication dimension was observed. For the emotion and communication dimensions, on the other hand, significant correlations were observed, which indicate a relation between action-oriented communication and emotions: Value creation is strongly related to positive emotions, whereas claiming value is strongly related to negative emotions (Filzmoser et al 2016). However, these results cannot be interpreted as a "cheap talk" effect, as significant differences between successful and failed negotiations in the communication and emotional dimensions can be observed, which implies that ignoring these dimensions could risk that negotiations reach an agreement at all.…”

“…Since each outcome dimension might be influenced by all process dimensions, a simultaneous treatment of all dimensions as well as their interactions is desirable (Filzmoser et al 2016). Interactions between dimensions are on the one hand important because developments in one dimension of the process might influence the process also in other dimensions.…”

Understanding the Role of Standards in the Negotiation of a Healthy Built Environment

“…First, the prioritisation of intentions, which relates to the identification and allocation of importance (weight) to intentions by practitioners. Secondly, the integration (or consolidation) of those intentions in order to take decisions [ 48 , 66 , 67 ]. These concepts from NPT and negotiation are adopted in this study to help unpack whether and how actors respond to standard intentions in the context of a particular built environment project.…”

Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity

“…Whilst thus not directly translatable to model-driven low-tech GDS, at least at the level of underlying theories some common ground exists regarding the embodiment of emotion based on the work of the neurologist Damasio (2006). However, even though the demise of the rational negotiator (Van Kleef and Sinaceur 2013) has been promised, emotions still maintain-even in recent work-a somewhat mysterious character, being referred to as "hidden emotional content (between the lines)" (Filzmoser et al 2016) and being based on (internal(ised)) appraisal theories (Obeidi et al 2005). Similarly, whilst the linguistic and discursive effects of emotions have been studied in face-to-face group decision and negotiation situations (Martinovsky 2015a), the underpinning theories of this work are fundamentally different from the view of situated affectivity-in other words, the reviewed research proposes theories of 'being' (Martinovsky 2015a, p. 179) rather than 'becoming'.…”