Pushing in the Dark

Abstract

Do people know when they are seen as pressing too hard, yielding too readily, or having the right touch? And does awareness matter? We examined these questions in four studies. Study 1 used dyadic negotiations to reveal a modest link between targets' self-views and counterparts' views of targets' assertiveness, showing that those seen as under- and over-assertive were likely to see themselves as appropriately assertive. Surprisingly, many people seen as appropriately assertive by counterparts mistakenly thought they were seen as having been over-assertive, a novel effect we call the line crossing illusion. We speculated that counterparts' orchestrated displays of discomfort might be partly responsible-behaviors we termed strategic umbrage. Study 2 revealed evidence for widespread strategic umbrage in real-world negotiations and Study 3 linked these behaviors to the line crossing illusion in a controlled negotiation. Study 4 showed that this illusion predicted outcomes in a multi-round negotiation.

A Cognitive Perspective for Understanding and Training Assertiveness

“…As for the processing of social cues taken from a social event, Ames and Wazlawek (2014) found that, concerning negotiation interactions, even when interaction partners purposely pose false cues to enhance their potential gain, those who are appropriately assertive (by their ones' and their counterparts' report) accurately interpret them, and see themselves as having gone too far and having acted in an over-assertive manner (i.e., the line crossing illusion effect).…”

“…This constitutes a limitation to the certainty we may hold for the presuppositions inherent to an assertive SIP and, at the same time, a motivation for future research endeavors. Using Based on previous findings, we might expect that assertive individuals will endorse a balanced attribution style, given that they activate both positive and negative self-statements in social events ; that assertive individuals will more accurately attend to and later recall both positive and negative situational social cues, and use them to positively evaluate assertive behavior options (Robinson & Calhoun, 1984); that assertive individuals will activate more assertive scripts from memory (Bruch et al, 1988), and will present low levels of anxious physiological arousal (Wolpe, 1973); that assertive individuals will better evaluate the likelihood and comfort felt when behaving assertively (Ames, 2008), as well as the social goals to be fulfilled by behaving assertively (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014), and will, consequently tend to choose and apply assertive behaviors to social interactions (Eisler et al, 1978). Also, we would expect each step of SIP to incrementally contribute to more thoroughly explain assertiveness, especially when the SIP and the overt assertive behavior refer to a specific situational context (Dodge & Price, 1994).…”

“…Contrarily, individuals displaying appropriate assertiveness but who thought others evaluated them as over-assertive, would behave less assertively and settle in future negotiations, consequently not maximizing potential gains for him/herself and others. This effect was even stronger for those individuals who displayed subjective high concern for relational gains, who used future interactions as a way of (unnecessarily) repairing previous interactions (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014). …”

“…If the self is thought of as lovable and capable, if others are seen as trustworthy and emotionally close, and if both the self and others are equally valued in interpersonal encounters, if follows that relationships are thought of as reciprocal encounters, where personal instrumental and emotional needs may be met by sharing, dialoguing, achieving consensus and compromises (Vagos & Pereira, 2009). These themes are noticeably in line with the contents of flexible and adaptive schemas, namely the belief that one is as good as anyone else (…); that one is worthy of having one's need met but not at unnecessary expense to other people; that one's decision and preferences are important, but with an awareness that compromise can be appropriate at times; that responsibility should be taken for meeting one's own needs but with consideration for the needs of others; that one's emotions should be expressed but with appropriate constraints (Elliott & Lassen, 1997, p. 23-24).As for the processing of social cues taken from a social event, Ames and Wazlawek (2014) found that, concerning negotiation interactions, even when interaction partners purposely pose false cues to enhance their potential gain, those who are appropriately assertive (by their ones' and their counterparts' report) accurately interpret them, and see themselves as having gone too far and having acted in an over-assertive manner (i.e., the line crossing illusion effect).2) The activation of core beliefs influences the processing of social cues. Bruch, Kaflowitz, and Berger (1988) found that individuals endorsing a self-schema for assertiveness processed information about assertive situations more easily, and attended to, coded, and retrieved more adjectives associated to assertive characteristics to define themselves and the social event.…”

Tandem anchoring: Informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange.

“…But in a reasonable share of negotiations, a bargainer proposes a range of outcomes (e.g., $7,200 to $7,600). Indeed, in a recent survey asking several hundred U.S. adults to report on their most recent real-life negotiation, more than half said they had made an offer in the form of a range (Ames & Wazlawek, 2014). Despite the prevalence of range offers as starting points in negotiations, the scholarly literature is nearly silent about whether or how this behavior has any effect.…”