My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus

Appelt, Kirstin C.; Higgins, E. Tory

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.010

Cited by 46 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of suggesting that individuals in a prevention focus are more prosocial or less concerned with self-interest than those in a promotion focus, our findings suggest that the self-interest concerns of individuals in a promotion or prevention focus manifest in different forms -i.e., in distinct concerns with absolute or relative outcomes. Further, these findings suggest some additional consequences of regulatory focus that have not been previously explored within the domain of negotiations (Appelt, Zou, Arora, & Higgins, 2009;Appelt & Higgins, 2010). For example, because of their concern with relative outcomes, negotiators with a prevention focus may be more likely to make the potentially false fixed-pie assumption, in which negotiators assume that the more value they accumulate at the bargaining table, the less other party receives (Thompson & Hastie, 1990).…”

Section: Regulatory Focus and Economic Interdependence 18mentioning

confidence: 89%

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

Bohns

Leonardelli

2013

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional theories of self-interest cannot predict when individuals pursue relative and absolute economic outcomes in interdependent decision-making, but we argue that regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) can. We propose that a concern with security (prevention focus) motivates concerns with social status, leading to the regulation of relative economic outcomes, but a concern with growth (promotion focus) motivates the maximization of opportunities, leading to a focus on absolute outcomes. Two studies supported our predictions; regardless of prosocial or proself motivations, a promotion focus yielded greater concern with absolute outcomes, but a prevention focus yielded greater concern with relative outcomes. Also, Study 3 revealed that a prevention focus led to a greater rejection of a negative relative but positive absolute outcome in an ultimatum game because of concerns with status. This research reveals that apparently opposing orientations to interdependence -equality and relative gain -serve the same self-regulatory purpose: the establishment of security. Suggested CitationGu, J., Bohns, V. K., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2013 AbstractTraditional theories of self-interest cannot predict when individuals pursue relative and absolute economic outcomes in interdependent decision-making, but we argue that regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) can. We propose that a concern with security (prevention focus) motivates concerns with social status, leading to the regulation of relative economic outcomes, but a concern with growth (promotion focus) motivates the maximization of opportunities, leading to a focus on absolute outcomes. Two studies supported our predictions; regardless of prosocial or proself motivations, a promotion focus yielded greater concern with absolute outcomes, but a prevention focus yielded greater concern with relative outcomes. Also, Study 3 revealed that a prevention focus led to a greater rejection of a negative relative but positive absolute outcome in an ultimatum game because of concerns with status. This research reveals that apparently opposing orientations to interdependence -equality and relative gain -serve the same selfregulatory purpose: the establishment of security. Words: 149Keywords: regulatory focus, economic outcomes, relative value, absolute value, interdependence, social orientations Regulatory Focus and Economic Interdependence 3 Regulatory Focus and Interdependent Economic Decision-MakingThe economics literature largely assumes that individuals seek to maximize absolute economic outcomes. As John Stuart Mill (1874/1968) asserted, individuals generally pursue "the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries" (p. 144). From this perspective, deviations from maximizing absolute outcomes are irrational and non-normative. Yet strikingly, since the first empirical demonstrations (Messick & Thorngate, 1967;Stouffer, Schuman, DeVinney, Star, & Williams, 1949), evidence has established that individuals also seek to regulate relative economic outcomes (i.e., the diff...

show abstract

Section: Regulatory Focus and Economic Interdependence 18mentioning

confidence: 89%

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

Bohns

Leonardelli

2013

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Negotiation research clearly establishes that people negotiate differently depending on the organization they serve, which determines their role in the negotiation (Appelt and Higgins, 2010;McCracken et al, 2011).…”

Section: The Circularity Between Strategy and Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building theory on the negotiation capability of the firm: evidence from Ryanair

Caputo

Borbely

Dabić

2019

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In an attempt to build upon existing theory, this paper investigates the potentially reciprocal relationship between negotiation and strategy, and strives to contribute towards a better understanding of the ways in which organizations negotiate.Design/methodology/approach: Built upon the integration of two different bodies of literature, negotiation and strategy, and on the analysis of the case of Ryanair, this paper argues for an integrated approach to negotiation and organizational capabilities. Findings:The case study allows for a clearer understanding of how negotiation capability can play a significant role in supporting the creation and sustainment of competitive advantage, even under unfavorable industry settings.Originality/value: The paper contributes to theoretical development by offering new and insightful explanations of firms' behavior, moving beyond the classic interpretation of industry dynamics, such as bargaining power. This study has implications for both practice and research, as it offers a better and more holistic understanding of the strategy making process and the foundations of its success.

show abstract

“…Past research has shown that the cognitive frames of buyers and sellers differ. Though both buyers and sellers focus on what they will forgo in a negotiation, typically money for buyers versus a certain object for sellers (Carmon & Ariely, ), recent research has shown that these roles involve different regulatory strategies, such that the buyer role maps onto a prevention regulatory focus (prevention of loss), whereas the seller role maps onto a promotion regulatory focus (promotion of gains) (Appelt & Higgins, ; Appelt, Zou, Arora, & Higgins, ). Given these considerations for negotiation roles, we predict that role should matter, in particular for the effect of attachment avoidance.…”

Section: Attachment Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance on Negotiation Propensity and Performance

Bear

Segel-Karpas

2015

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attachment theory has received scant consideration in the negotiation literature. We examined the effects of attachment anxiety and avoidance on negotiation propensity and performance in two studies. In terms of negotiation propensity (Study 1), attachment anxiety had significant, deleterious effects, though contrary to our predictions, attachment avoidance did not have significant effects. However, there was an interaction such that individuals high on attachment avoidance had a greater propensity to negotiate with an insecurely attached counterpart compared to a secure counterpart. In addition, attachment orientation influenced negotiation performance and information sharing (Study 2), but the effects depended upon role in the negotiation, with stronger effects for attachment avoidance as opposed to attachment anxiety. Theoretical and practical implications for research on negotiation and attachment theory are discussed.

show abstract

My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus

Cited by 46 publications

References 15 publications

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

Building theory on the negotiation capability of the firm: evidence from Ryanair

Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance on Negotiation Propensity and Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About