Effects of warm-heartedness and reward distribution on negotiation

Chen, Nancy Yi-Feng; Tjosvold, Dean; Wu, Peiguan

doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9088-4

“…Not moving closer to their desired objective, in turn, gives rise to negative emotions (Frijda 1986;Kumar 1997;Lazarus 1991). Prior research has shown that negotiators in a negative affect state have less mutual trust (Anderson and Thompson 2004), are Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action-Reaction… less cooperative and have less concern for the counterpart (Forgas 1998;Yifeng et al 2008). We argue that the expression of negative emotions may also be beneficial as it serves as a precipitant to a turning point possibly steering the negotiation back to the right track.…”

Section: Precipitating the Turning Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not moving closer to their desired objective, in turn, gives rise to negative emotions (Frijda 1986 ; Kumar 1997 ; Lazarus 1991 ). Prior research has shown that negotiators in a negative affect state have less mutual trust (Anderson and Thompson 2004 ), are less cooperative and have less concern for the counterpart (Forgas 1998 ; Yifeng et al 2008 ).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations

Griessmair

¹

,

Gettinger

²

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiations and conflicts do not evolve smoothly but are discontinuous involving transitions, break-, and turning points that change the flow of the negotiation. Given that these departures may be decisive in determining whether the involved parties come to a successful conclusion, several scholars have pointed out the importance of investigating whether impasse and settlement dyads exhibit different turning point profiles. To address this question, we extended Druckman's (J Confl Resolut 45:519-544, 2001) turning point model by integrating interlocking action-reaction sequences that initiate and (dis)confirm the departure from zero-sum bargaining. Furthermore, we consider social signals as previously not addressed class of events triggering the turning point. We propose and show that social signals act as precipitants to substantive change at the offer level and that how negotiators enact the action-reaction sequences discriminates between successful and unsuccessful dyads.

show abstract

“…Researchers have explored the influence of a wide array of emotions including anxiety (Brooks & Schweitzer, 2011), sadness (Sinaceur, Kopelman, Vasiljevic, & Haag, 2015), disappointment (Lelieveld et al, 2011), guilt (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2006, happiness (Yifeng, Tjosvold, & Peiguan, 2007), and anger (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006). Of these, anger is the most prominent and influential emotion during negotiations (Allred, 1999;Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008).…”

Section: Anger In Negotiation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The social effects of anger in international negotiations: The role of self-regulation and bargaining power

Bertram¹

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis addresses recent calls to investigate the influence of individual differences in a negotiation context. Specifically, I investigate the impact of the personality difference, action orientation versus state orientation, on concessionary behaviour in international negotiations. This personality difference was chosen because it measures a negotiator’s capacity to self-regulate (control their behaviour) in a cognitively demanding situation like an international negotiation. I propose that action oriented negotiators will display superior self-regulation ability, compared to state oriented negotiators. Specifically, action oriented negotiators will be able to adapt their response and concede less than state oriented negotiators, when a foreign counterpart displays anger. In two online studies, I measure how action oriented and state oriented negotiators respond to a display of anger from a foreign counterpart in an international negotiation. The first study of 159 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals conceded fewer points than state oriented individuals, regardless of whether the counterpart displayed anger. The second study of 260 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals can adapt their behaviour according to their level of power in an international negotiation when facing an angry counterpart. As far as I am aware, this research is one of the first to propose and test the salience of action orientation versus state orientation on displays of anger in international negotiations. My findings highlight the value of incorporating individual differences in negotiation studies and I propose their inclusion into the dominant theoretical framework of how negotiators respond to anger. In addition to extending the model, I discuss how understanding these personality differences can be useful for multinational companies and their international negotiators.</p>

show abstract

“…Researchers have explored the influence of a wide array of emotions including anxiety (Brooks & Schweitzer, 2011), sadness (Sinaceur, Kopelman, Vasiljevic, & Haag, 2015), disappointment (Lelieveld et al, 2011), guilt (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2006, happiness (Yifeng, Tjosvold, & Peiguan, 2007), and anger (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006). Of these, anger is the most prominent and influential emotion during negotiations (Allred, 1999;Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008).…”

Section: Anger In Negotiation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The social effects of anger in international negotiations: The role of self-regulation and bargaining power

Bertram¹

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This thesis addresses recent calls to investigate the influence of individual differences in a negotiation context. Specifically, I investigate the impact of the personality difference, action orientation versus state orientation, on concessionary behaviour in international negotiations. This personality difference was chosen because it measures a negotiator’s capacity to self-regulate (control their behaviour) in a cognitively demanding situation like an international negotiation. I propose that action oriented negotiators will display superior self-regulation ability, compared to state oriented negotiators. Specifically, action oriented negotiators will be able to adapt their response and concede less than state oriented negotiators, when a foreign counterpart displays anger. In two online studies, I measure how action oriented and state oriented negotiators respond to a display of anger from a foreign counterpart in an international negotiation. The first study of 159 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals conceded fewer points than state oriented individuals, regardless of whether the counterpart displayed anger. The second study of 260 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals can adapt their behaviour according to their level of power in an international negotiation when facing an angry counterpart. As far as I am aware, this research is one of the first to propose and test the salience of action orientation versus state orientation on displays of anger in international negotiations. My findings highlight the value of incorporating individual differences in negotiation studies and I propose their inclusion into the dominant theoretical framework of how negotiators respond to anger. In addition to extending the model, I discuss how understanding these personality differences can be useful for multinational companies and their international negotiators.</p>

show abstract

Effects of warm-heartedness and reward distribution on negotiation

Cited by 13 publications

References 61 publications

Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations

Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations

The social effects of anger in international negotiations: The role of self-regulation and bargaining power

The social effects of anger in international negotiations: The role of self-regulation and bargaining power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About