Not All Threats are Created Equal: How Implicitness and Timing Affect the Effectiveness of Threats in Negotiations

Abstract

The effectiveness of threats in negotiations was examined by exploring two factors likely to affect it: implicitness, or the extent to which the threat mentions what action the perpetrator would take if the target does not comply; and timing, or the time when the threat is stated. Participants were given a negotiation scenario that differed only by the nature of the threat made by their counterpart. The design was a 2 (implicit vs. explicit threat) × 2 (early vs. late threat) factorial design with a control condition (no threat). The study showed that early-implicit and late-explicit threats were both more likely to elicit concessions than early-explicit and late-implicit threats. The two more effective threats were also the ones that made the perpetrator seem less aggressive. Further, perceived credibility mediated the positive effect that late-explicit threats had over late-implicit threats in eliciting concessions. These results support the claim that whether making the threat's sanction implicit is effective depends on its timing, as the nature of bargaining moves and perceptions varies over time (Pruitt 1981). They suggest that the way in which a threat is stated may dramatically influence its effect on the target.Are threats effective in negotiations? This broad question has received much theoretical and empirical attention from negotiation and conflict researchers, as it is relevant to the issue of value claiming in negotiation (e.g., Bonoma and Tedeschi 1974;Pruitt 1981;Schelling 1960;Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Bonoma 1975). In general, past research suggests that threats increase the likelihood of concession making by the target (Rubin and Brown 1975), especially when they are seen as credible and not a mere bluff (for a classical review, see Tedeschi and Bonoma 1977). The purpose of this study is to investigate two factors relating to the way in which a threat is stated and the potential effect of these differences on the credibility and the effectiveness of the threat. Specifically, we examine how the implicitness and timing of a threat may affect the target's perception of the threat and, in turn, the degree to which he or she is willing to make concessions. Effectiveness of threats: A social psychological viewThe empirical social psychological literature has isolated a series of factors that influence the effectiveness of threats as a way to encourage the target to make concessions. These can be mostly organized around two kinds of factors: factors relating to the perpetrator and factors

The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation

“…Even if no real explicit threats were made, the groups in the framing condition may have interpreted them as threats. They could be conceptualized as implicit threats (threats in which the actions done by the perpetrator if the target does not comply are not clearly stated) (Sinaceur and Neale 2005). Since the competitive attitude (implicit threats) occurred from the very beginning of the negotiation game, it may have elicited concessions from the danger-framed groups, which are important elements emphasizing their defensive attitude.…”

Negotiation Outcome Classification Using Language Features

“…This effect is particularly true for explicit threats. Sinaceur and Neale (2005) showed that implicit threats were most effective in inducing concessions if they were early in the negotiation. Explicit threats, the kind more likely to be detected using the linguistic features use in this study, had more effect on concessions and the outcome when they were late in the negotiation.…”

Talking heads : interviewing suspects from a cultural perspective

“…The dominant view in investigative interviewing research is that accusatory behaviour, such as intimidation, is inappropriate (Walton, 2003) because it is generally perceived as hostile (Cheney, Harford, & Solomon, 1972), aggressive (Sinaceur & Neale, 2005), and may evoke feelings of being disrespected and dominated among suspects (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002). Nevertheless, accusatory behaviours are still used by police officers (Kassin et al, 2007;King & Snook, in press;Leo, 1996).…”

“…As such, it may reduce uncooperative behaviour and facilitate coordination (see also Cheney et al, 1972). Previous research has also demonstrated that when parties engage in relationship building, the expression of threats increases the willingness to make concessions (Sinaceur & Neale, 2005). Additional research suggests that intimidation may be effective when it is combined with other, more cooperative, behaviours (e.g., Brodt & Tuchinsky, 2000;Van de Vliert et al, 1999).…”

“…Since the effectiveness of influencing behaviour may be dependent on timing (e.g., Hartwig et al, 2005Hartwig et al, , 2006Sinaceur & Neale, 2005), we explored the time factor by dividing all interviews into two time periods (cf. Giebels & Taylor, 2009) before testing our hypotheses.…”