Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations

Abstract

Traditional, static negotiation theories focus on descriptions of various external factors that influence the outcome of negotiations. They are useful in predicting the negotiation outcome in a limited way, because the result of the negotiation is ultimately determined not only by objective facts, but is worked out during the negotiation itself. We propose a Dynamical Negotiation Network (DNN) model that links the negotiation outcome with the process of attaining that outcome. This model represents the negotiation process in terms of a dynamically constructed network of interconnected nodes of meaning. The structure of the network and dynamics of its creation determine the outcome of a negotiation. In the presented study, we examined 58 participants who negotiated in dyads. There were many objective facts; those that were taken into consideration, the order they appeared in the negotiation, what structure of relationships they formed, helped determine a 'shared reality' that drove negotiation outcomes. We show that the DNN model explains the outcomes of their negotiations more precisely than do the static elements of the situation.

Negotiation is about entitlements, not interests

“…The study of the procedure of negotiation, the "negotiation dance" (Adair & Brett, 2005), is at the center of this approach, as well as the research that focuses on the communicative aspect of negotiation (Arvanitis & Karampatzos, 2011;Hamilton, 2000;Jochemczyk & Nowak, 2010;Keough, 2017;Peleckis & Peleckiene, 2015;Putnam, 2004Putnam, , 2010. Whatever determines how the parties perceive and communicate their entitlements, as well how they accept (or reject) the entitlements of others, is at the heart of the study of negotiation.…”

How to dissolve fixed-pie bias in negotiation? Social antecedents and the mediating effect of mental-model adjustment

“…In addition, as a joint decision-making process, negotiation requires parties to constantly persuade each other to adopt mutually agreeable solutions that resolve incompatible interests (e.g., Lewicki et al, 2009). In other words, negotiation is a process of attempting to change others' minds, while adapting one's own mind at the same time, at the negotiation table (Jochemczyk & Nowak, 2010).…”

“…First, by showing the connection between mental-model change and fixed-pie bias reduction, we have extended the literature on negotiators' cognition to demonstrate that negotiators may adjust their fixed-pie bias throughout the negotiation process and that mental-model adjustment can explain such a change. Most of the previous negotiation research implicitly assumed that negotiators' cognition is static throughout the negotiation process (Jochemczyk & Nowak, 2010;Thompson et al, 2004). As a consequence, although we know that fixed-pie bias is significantly detrimental to integrative outcomes in negotiations (e.g., De Dreu et al, 2000;Thompson & Hastie, 1990) and that mental models may contribute to such a bias (e.g., Halevy et al, 2012), we still have little understanding of the cognitive mechanism leading to the reduction of fixed-pie bias.…”

Lovely weather, isn’t it? On the social dynamics of quality judgment

“…Quality judgments serve not only as tokens of status in social comparisons, but also as a source of categorization that underlies the group formation processes. The emergence of shared quality standards manifests itself as socially constructed fashions and trends, while the behavior of individual group members is influenced by an attained shared reality (Jochemczyk and Nowak 2006).…”