Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues.

Thompson, Leigh

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.515

Cited by 557 publications

(467 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

445

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Studies 1 and 2, we used monetary incentives to induce an egoistic or a prosocial motivation (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002). As Thompson (1990) pointed out, manipulations of this kind may contain unintended hints about the variable-sum structure of the task. To rule out this alternative explanation, Study 3 manipulated prosocial and egoistic motivation by means of different cover stories.…”

Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Trötschel¹,

Hüffmeier²,

Loschelder³

et al. 2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous negotiation research predominantly focused on psychological factors that lead to suboptimal compromises as opposed to integrative agreements. Few studies systematically analyzed factors that impact the emergence of hurtful partial impasses (i.e., nonagreements on part of the issues). The present research investigates negotiators' egoistic motivation as a determinant for the emergence of partial impasses. In addition, the authors seek to demonstrate that perspective taking serves as a powerful tool to avoid impasses and to overcome egoistic impediments. Specifically, it was predicted that within an integrative context perspective-takers succeed to exchange concessions on low-versus high-preference issues (i.e., logroll), thereby increasing their individual profits without inflicting hurtful losses upon their counterparts. Three studies were conducted to test these predictions. Study 1 reveals that whereas negotiators' egoistic motivation increases the risk of partial impasses, perspective taking alleviates this risk. Study 2 demonstrates that this beneficial effect of a perspective-taking mindset is limited to integrative negotiations and does not emerge in a distributive context, in which negotiators are constrained to achieve selfish goals by inflicting hurtful losses on their counterparts. Study 3 confirms the assumption that in an integrative context egoistic perspective-takers overcome the risk of impasses by means of logrolling. The findings of the present studies are discussed with respect to their contribution to research on negotiations, social motivation, and perspective taking.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Trötschel¹,

Hüffmeier²,

Loschelder³

et al. 2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, this frame has been found to characterize negotiators in a number of empirical studies (see Thompson, 1990), suggesting that the nature of blame and the question of whether compromise is possible are of central importance in construing conflicts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan.

Gelfand¹,

Nishii²,

Holcombe³

et al. 2001

Journal of Applied Psychology

176

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article integrates theory from the cognitive tradition in negotiation with theory on culture and examines cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict. The authors predicted that although there may be universal (etic) dimensions of conflict construals, there also may be culture-specific (emic) representations of conflict in the United States and Japan. Results of multidimensional scaling analyses of U.S. and Japanese conflict episodes supported this view. Japanese and Americans construed conflicts through a compromise versus win frame (R. L. Pinkley, 1990), providing evidence of a universal dimension of conflict construal. As the authors predicted, Japanese perceived conflicts to be more compromise-focused, as compared with Americans. There were also unique dimensions of construal among Americans and Japanese (infringements to self and giri violations, respectively), suggesting that identical conflict episodes are perceived differently across cultures.

show abstract

“…One of the most important advances in conflict and negotiation research in the past 2 decades has been the identification of judgment biases that can ultimately inhibit negotiation agreements (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987;Thompson, 1990). Much research, for example, has illustrated that negotiators tend to have fixed-pie perceptions of negotiations (Thompson & Hastie, 1990), fail to recognize compatible interests (Thompson & Hrebec, 1996), devalue concessions made by their counterparts (Stillenger, Epelbaum, Keltner, & Ross, 1991), experience less satisfaction when their counterparts are happy than when disappointed (Thompson, Valley, & Kramer, 1995), and become stuck in impasse because of self-serving biases and overconfidence (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997;Thompson & Loewenstein, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation.

Gelfand¹,

Higgins²,

Nishii³

et al. 2002

Journal of Applied Psychology

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors advanced a cultural view of judgment biases in conflict and negotiation. The authors predicted that disputants' self-serving biases of fairness would be more prevalent in individualistic cultures, such as the United States, in which the self is served by focusing on one's positive attributes to "stand out" and be better than others, yet would be attenuated in collectivistic cultures, such as Japan, where the self is served by focusing on one's negative characteristics to "blend in" (S. J. Heine, D. R. Lehman, H. R. Markus, & S. Kitayama, 1999). Four studies that used different methodologies (free recall, scenarios, and a laboratory experiment) supported this notion. Implications for the science and practice of negotiation are discussed. University of Maryland Fumio Murakami and Susumu Yamaguchi University of Tokyo Midori Toyama Osaka UniversityCulture and Egocentric Perceptions of Fairness in Conflict and Negotiation 2 AbstractIn this article, the authors advanced a cultural view of judgment biases in conflict and negotiation. The

show abstract

Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues.

Abstract: This article examines the ability of the individual differences, motivational, and cognitive ap-

Cited by 557 publications

References 111 publications

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

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

Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan.

Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About