“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations

Lee, Alice J.; Ames, Daniel R.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.05.002

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first is that communication style, above and beyond economic behavior, affects negotiation outcomes. We contribute to an emerging body of work that focuses on the importance of how offers are delivered in a negotiation separate from their economic value, such as the way in which offers are justified or framed (Bowles and Babcock 2013, Trötschel et al 2015, Lee and Ames 2017. Specifically, our research takes a novel approach in looking at the effect of warm and friendly versus tough and firm communication styles.…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior work has extensively studied the importance of these numerical aspects in affecting outcomes (e.g., Galinsky and Mussweiler 2001, Galinsky et al 2005, Mason et al 2013, Ames and Mason 2015. Noneconomic behavior includes other aspects of the interaction including body language, tone, and word choice, such as framing and use of rationales (e.g., Rubin et al 1980, Maaravi et al 2011, Bowles and Babcock 2013, Trötschel et al 2015, Lee and Ames 2017. These noneconomic aspects of negotiation behavior, in turn, can be used strategically to project an overall communication style that is mainly characterized by its warmth or toughness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive

Jeong¹,

Yeomans²,

Gino³

2019

Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When entering into a negotiation, individuals have the choice to enact a variety of communication styles. We test the differential impact of being "warm and friendly" versus "tough and firm" in a distributive negotiation when first offers are held constant and concession patterns are tracked. We train a natural language processing algorithm to precisely quantify the difference between how people enact warm and friendly versus tough and firm communication styles. We find that the two styles differ primarily in length and their expressions of politeness (Study 1). Negotiators with a tough and firm communication style achieved better economic outcomes than negotiators with a warm and friendly communication style in both a field experiment (Study 2) and a laboratory experiment (Study 3). This was driven by the fact that offers delivered in tough and firm language elicited more favorable counteroffers. We further find that the counterparts of warm and friendly versus tough and firm negotiators did not report different levels of satisfaction or enjoyment of their interactions (Study 3). Finally, we document that individuals' lay beliefs are in direct opposition to our findings: participants believe that authors of warmly worded negotiation offers will be better liked and will achieve better economic outcomes (Study 4).

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive

Jeong¹,

Yeomans²,

Gino³

2019

Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent scholarship has documented the impact of various rationales that negotiators might employ in conjunction with a proposal. For instance, Lee and Ames (in press) examined disparagement rationales (e.g., when a buyer—while making an ungenerous offer—criticizes what a counterpart is selling) and constraint rationales (e.g., when a buyer—while making an ungenerous offer—notes their own limited resources). They found that disparagement rationales often evoked negative reactions and resistance, especially when sellers had some sense of the object's typical value.…”

Section: Seeking the Right Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, we see great value in further scholarly attention to the question of how people assert themselves. Some recent work has examined rationales and account‐giving in negotiation and other contexts (e.g., Bhatia et al, ; Lee & Ames, in press; Troetschel et al, ). Additional work in this area could shed further light on what stories and frames people use, and which ones actually work, when making a proposal, declining a request, providing critical performance feedback, and so forth.…”

Section: In Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal assertiveness: Inside the balancing act

Ames

Lee

Wazlawek³

2017

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether in everyday disagreements, bargaining episodes, or highstakes disputes, people typically see a spectrum of possible responses to dealing with differences with others, ranging from avoidance and accommodation to competition and aggression. We believe people judge their own and others' behaviors along this dimension, which we call interpersonal assertiveness, reflecting the degree to which someone stands up and speaks out for their own positions when they are faced with someone else who does not want the same outcomes. In this article, we review long-standing and recent scholarship to characterize the curvilinear consequences of assertiveness (both "too little" and "too much" can be problematic). We consider the sources of accommodating and assertive behavior, such as motivations, expectancies, and failures of self-regulation. We also examine ways in which people can assert themselves effectively, ranging from making precise offers in negotiations to employing rationales as part of their proposals. We conclude by noting promising directions for future research. | INTRODUCTIONCountless times each day, most of us are reminded that the people around us do not seek the same outcomes we do.We hope to vacation at the beach, but our families or friends want to head for the mountains. We want to fall asleep, but our neighbors hope their loud party lasts deep into the night. We seek a raise, a promotion, or a budget increase, but our colleagues and bosses have other plans. Because the people around us do not always want what we do, we repeatedly face a basic question of social life: How hard, and how, should we push to get our way? We can press forcefully for our ideal outcomes and resist giving in. We can consider creative solutions or cede selected ground.We can capitulate entirely or even duck and run. Answers to the question of "How hard should I push" vary in a variety of ways, but our focus here is on the dimension we call interpersonal assertiveness, the degree to which people speak out and stand up for their own interests when they are not perfectly aligned with others'. We take a folk psychological approach to this construct, believing that both actors and observers tend to agree in placing behavioralThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

“…For example, reduced-form credit shocks resulting from local regulatory changes could affect credit terms, lending standards, expectations, local aggregate demand, and incomes.9 Hertzberg, Lieberman, and Paravisini (2018) argue the shared sentiment that the role of maturity has been understudied relative to interest rates in this literature.10 See also related work in psychology, for example,Lee and Ames (2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Capitalization of Consumer Financing into Durable Goods Prices

Argyle¹,

Nadauld²,

Palmer³

et al. 2020

The Journal of Finance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using loan-level data on millions of used-car transactions across hundreds of lenders, we study the consumer response to exogenous variation in credit terms. Borrowers offered shorter maturity decrease expenditures enough to offset 60% to 90% of the monthly payment increase. Most of this is driven by shifting toward lower-quality cars, but affected borrowers offset 20% to 30% of a monthly payment shock by negotiating lower prices for equivalent cars. Our results suggest that durable goods prices adjust to reflect credit terms even at the individual level, with one year of additional loan maturity increasing a car's price by 2.8%.

show abstract

“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations

Cited by 21 publications

References 27 publications

Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive

Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive

Interpersonal assertiveness: Inside the balancing act

The Capitalization of Consumer Financing into Durable Goods Prices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About