Negotiation Process and out come of Stranger Dyads and Dating Couples: Do Lovers Lose?

Fry, William Rick; Firestone, Ira J.; Williams, David L.

doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0401_1

Cited by 120 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, RSC accessibility is expected to be very strong in negotiations among lovers and close friends, moderately strong in negotiations among friends, and somewhat strong in negotiations among acquaintances who have to work together in the future. This is consistent with previous research that has shown that negotiations among romantic partners and close friends are especially focused on building solidarity, minimizing conflict and tension, and prioritizing the relationship over substantive outcomes (Fry, Firestone, & Williams, 1983;Schoeninger & Wood, 1969;Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). It is also consistent with research on expected future interdependence, which shows that negotiators become more concerned about others' outcomes in such conditions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993).…”

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Close ties among negotiators have been found to produce more concession making, less competition, and more cooperative tactics (Greenhalgh & Chapman, 1998;Halpern, 1992;Schoeninger & Wood, 1969;Thompson & DeHarpport, 1998). Fry et al (1983) found that dating couples used fewer pressure tactics and were less willing to push hard for their own interests than were mixed-sex stranger couples. Polzer, Neale, and Glenn (1993) also argue that negotiations among friends often involve a "politeness ritual," wherein negotiators want to appear modest, polite, and unselfish (Valley, Neale, & Mannix, 1995).…”

Section: Rsc and Negotiators' Prenegotiation Psychological States Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations

Gelfand

Major

Raver

et al. 2006

AMR

247

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we advance a distinctly relational view of negotiation. We delineate the conditions through which relational self-construals (RSC) become accessible in negotiations and the conditions that inhibit their use, and we illustrate mechanisms through which RSC affects negotiation processes and outcomes. We introduce four relational dynamics-arelational trading, relational satisficing, relational distancing, and relational integrating-and discuss their consequences for the accumulation of economic and relational capital in negotiation.Research on negotiation is thriving. Over the last two decades, scholars have greatly advanced our understanding of basic psychological processes in negotiation, including negotia-

show abstract

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Rsc and Negotiators' Prenegotiation Psychological States Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations

Gelfand

Major

Raver

et al. 2006

AMR

247

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the same vein, many researchers have found lower joint value in negotiation dyads marked by stronger relationships Liu, Friedman, & Hong, 2012;Tenbrunsel, Wade-Benzoni, Moag, & Bazerman, 1999;Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). For instance, romantically involved couples reached worse negotiation outcomes than mixed-sex dyads of strangers, who had less concern for maintaining harmonious relations (Fry, Firestone, & Williams, 1983).…”

Section: Women's Cooperativenessmentioning

confidence: 98%

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Kennedy

Kray

2015

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within a framework of inequality the existence of conflict is denied and the means to engage openly in conflict are excluded. -Jean Baker Miller, M. D. The New Psychology of WomenWomen in organizations are succeeding to a lesser degree than men. Women still hold only 5% of CEO positions (Catalyst, 2015), 19% of Board Directorships (Catalyst, 2015 and are estimated to earn only $0.82 for every dollar paid to men (Hegewisch, Ellis, & Hartmann, 2015). When women are under-represented in high status positions, it becomes more difficult for other women to succeed in the organization (Ibarra, 1992(Ibarra, , 1993Kanter, 1977). The female gender group is seen more negatively in firms with fewer senior women (Ely, 1994) and women's skills go unrecognized (Joshi, 2014) 1 .Despite similar career aspirations, the trajectories of high-achieving men and women in MBA programs vary in important ways. A recent survey of Harvard Business School alumni showed that women were less likely than men to hold senior management positions, less likely to Women's relatively worse performance in negotiation is often cited as an explanation for gender differences in advancement and pay within organizations. We review key findings from the past twenty years of research on gender differences in negotiation. Women do underperform relative to men in negotiation, but only under limited circumstances, which means the performance gap is unlikely due to lesser skills on their part. The barriers between women and negotiation excellence are of three types: cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic. Cognitive barriers stem from negative stereotypes about women's negotiating abilities. Motivational barriers stem from desire to prevent women negotiators from excelling in a masculine domain. Paradigmatic barriers stem from how negotiation is currently studied. We call for greater attention to motivational barriers and for changes to the negotiation paradigm. Women negotiators are not incompetent, and training them to negotiate more like men is not obviously the solution. In fact, women have greater concern for others than men do, and their cooperativeness elevates collective intelligence and enables ethical behavior. Under a new paradigm of negotiation, the value of these strengths could become more readily apparent. In particular, we advocate for greater attention to long-term relationships, subjective value, and relational capital, all of which may have important economic implications in real world negotiations. ß

show abstract

“…As such, scholars have argued that when individuals have concerns about forming positive relationships, they tend to avoid actions which could harm these goals (e.g., Baumeister and Leary 1995;Smart, Richman and Leary 2009). Moreover, researchers have documented that when people have relational concerns, they are less likely to disagree or appear at odds with others (e.g., Fry et al 1983;O'Conner and Arnold 2011).…”

Section: The Relationship Between Social Category Diversity Relationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possibility is that a tradeoff exists for situations characterized by social category homogeneity, but is not as applicable in situations characterized by familiarity (i.e., individuals may not be focused on establishing a positive social bond because a bond already exists). Importantly, the nature of the relationship and the stability of the connection must be considered because researchers have found that people in romantic relationships may be just as or more concerned about their social relationships as the strangers in the aforementioned research (Fry et al 1983). Combining these studies together with research on groupthink (Janis 1972(Janis , 1982Janis and Mann 1977) suggests that a curvilinear relationship may exist between the strength of ties among group members, the concern for the relationship, and pre-meeting elaboration and performance outcomes.…”

Section: Relationship Focus Tradeoffmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

Loyd

Wang

Phillips

et al. 2013

Organization Science

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A purported downside of social category diversity is decreased relationship focus (i.e., one’s focus on establishing a positive social bond with a coworker). However, we argue that this lack of relationship focus serves as a central mechanism that improves information processing even prior to interaction and, ultimately, decision-making performance in diverse settings. We introduce the construct of premeeting elaboration (i.e., the extent to which individuals consider their own and others’ perspectives in the anticipation of an interaction) and explore its link with social category diversity and relationship focus. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that when disagreement occurs, social category diversity increases premeeting elaboration, with relationship focus as a central causal mechanism. Experiment 3 shows that premeeting elaboration has important implications for performance: disagreeing dyads with social category diversity elaborate more prior to meeting and, as a result, perform better on a decision-making task than those with social category homogeneity. We discuss the value of studying early-stage interaction and propose a reconsideration of the “downside” of social category diversity.

show abstract

Negotiation Process and out come of Stranger Dyads and Dating Couples: Do Lovers Lose?

Cited by 120 publications

References 9 publications

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About