Regulatory Fit in Negotiation: Effects of “Prevention-Buyer” and “Promotion-Seller” Fit

Abstract

We propose that the psychological effects of performing the buyer versus the seller role in a negotiation depend on regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000) with the demands of the role. When the negotiation emphasizes price, buyers want to pay only what is necessary (minimize monetary loss), which fits prevention focus concerns, whereas sellers want to attain as much money as possible (maximize monetary gain), which fits promotion focus concerns. Study 1 used a hypothetical price negotiation and found that planned demand was greater in the focus-role fit conditions (prevention-buyer; promotion-seller) than in the non-fit conditions. In Study 2, a real price negotiation, buyers adopted a non-loss/loss frame whereas sellers adopted a gain/non-gain frame. Negotiators in the focus-role fit conditions subjectively experienced fit, had more demanding opening offers, and, when paired with another negotiator in focus-role fit, impassed more often. Extensions and applications of focus-role fit are discussed.

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

“…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).…”

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

“…We expected buyers and sellers to adopt different frames of the negotiation, replicating Appelt et al (2009). Because strategy was manipulated, we expected focus-strategy fit and role-strategy fit to replace focus-role fit.…”

“…The negotiation is framed in terms of nonlosses/losses by buyers and gains/nongains by sellers (Appelt, Zou, Arora, & Higgins, 2009;Carmon & Ariely, 2000;Monga & Zhu, 2005;Neale, Huber, & Northcraft, 1987). These frames suggest different strategies.…”

Clock time vs. event time: Temporal culture or self-regulation?

“…Participants whose discrepancy score was negative (positive) were considered as more prevention (promotion)-oriented (Appelt, Zou, Arora, & Higgins, 2009;Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994).…”

“…We also tracked the number of correct answers to the problems. A negative (positive) discrepancy between the prevention and the promotion RFQ scores suggested a prevention (promotion) orientation (Appelt, Zou, Arora, & Higgins, 2009;Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994).…”