Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics.

Abstract

The effects of trust (denned as belief that the other negotiator is cooperatively motivated), aspirations, and gender were investigated in a study of the conditions and processes leading to outcomes that jointly benefit bath parties. Under high aspirations, high trust produced self-consciously cooperative behavior, in the form of direct information exchange; low trust produced self-consciously distributive (competitive) behavior and one form of indirect information exchange. A correlational analysis showed that joint benefit was a positive function of a set of trial and error tactics and two forms of indirect information exchange, a negative function of the use of distributive tactics, and unrelated to direct information exchange. Joint benefit was greater under higher aspirations but was not a function of trust or the interaction between trust and aspirations. Results were similar for both genders except that women engaged in less distributive behavior and were less interested in the task, especially under high aspirations. A theory of strategic choice is presented to explain the major experimental findings.Negotiation can be denned as symbolic communication between two or more parties aimed at reaching agreement on an issue where there are initial differences in preference. The present study grew out of a research program on the processes by which two negotiators locate and adopt options that satisfy (i.e., "integrate") their collective needs and hence produce agreements of high joint benefit. This topic has been referred to as "integration" (Follett, 1940) or "integrative bargaining" (Pruitt & Lewis, 1977;Walton & McKersie, 1965).

Suspicious spirits, flexible minds: When distrust enhances creativity.

“…Additional support for this notion stems from negotiation research. Here, information sharing has been shown to decrease with lower levels of trust (Butler & Cantrell, 1994;De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliet, 1998;Kimmel, Pruitt, Magenau, Konar-Goldband, & Carnevale, 1980).…”

Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent's shoes helps to walk toward agreements.

“…Whereas the majority of research has examined how negotiators fail to detect integrative solutions (e.g., De Dreu, Koole, & Steinel, 2000;Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000), studies have yet to systematically examine psychological processes that lead to the emergence of nonagreements on part of the negotiated issues. Note that in the majority of previous studies, authors either excluded cases with impasses from further analyses (e.g., De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliert, 1998) or substituted impasses with corrected scores (e.g., compromise solution, Carnevale & Lawler, 1986; lowest negotiation outcome possible, Kimmel, Pruitt, Magenau, Konar-Goldband, & Carnevale, 1980). Although this approach may be effective to reduce the heterogeneity of variance arising from cases with impasses (e.g., Lewis & Fry, 1977;Ten Velden, Beersma, & De Dreu, 2007), valuable information on detrimental effects in negotiations is largely ignored.…”

Untitled

“…Eckel and Grossman (2001) found men exhibited more competitive and women more cooperative behaviors. Many other studies have repeatedly categorized women as cooperative and compassionate and men as competitive and aggressive (Fisher and Smith 1969;Tedeschi, Bonoma, and Lindskold 1970;Benton 1975;Kimmel et al 1980;Pruitt et al 1986;Scudder 1988;Matheson 1991;Stamato 1992;Watson 1994;Walters, Stuhlmacher, and Meyer 1998;Eckel and Grossman 2001). In a metaanalysis of 62 studies, Walters, Stuhlmacher, and Meyer (1998) found the behaviors of men were more competitive and women more cooperative.…”

“…Consequently, researchers have examined gender behaviors that could affect negotiation performance (Kimmel et al 1980;Pruitt et al 1986;Neu, Grahm, and Gilly 1988;Meyers-Levy 1988;Gerhart and Rhynes 1991;Gayle, Preiss, and Allen 1994;King and Hinson 1994;Min, LaTour, and Jones 1995;Walters, Stuhlmacher, and Meyer 1998;Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999;Eckel and Grossman 2001;Solnick 2001;Kray, Galinsky, and Thompson 2002;O'Shea and Bush 2002;Barron 2003).…”