The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations

Majority members misperceive even “win-win” diversity policies as unbeneficial to them.

“…Research suggests that people readily compare themselves to others to assess how well-off they are (Festinger, 1954). As a result, people often exhibit a “fixed pie bias” (Thompson & Hastie, 1990), whereby resource allocation is automatically assumed to be zero-sum (Meegan, 2010; Różycka-Tran et al, 2015), even in situations where all people involved can actually be made better off (Harinck et al, 2000; Kern et al, 2020). For instance, negotiators often assume one side must win and the other must lose, leading them to miss out on mutually beneficial outcomes (Bazerman, 1983; Pinkley et al, 1995; Thompson & Hastie, 1990).…”

If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups

“…Decades of research make it clear that people closely attend to how well-off they are compared to others and behave in ways that maximize their relative advantages (8,9). As a result, people often perceive situations to be zero-sum, even in situations that are not (10)(11)(12). For instance, the "fixed pie bias" leads negotiators to see their interests as unavoidably opposed to those of their counterpart, even when there exist opportunities to improve the well-being of one or both parties without harming either (13)(14)(15).…”

Dynamics in International Contract Business Negotiations: A Comparison of Brazil, Russia, Indian and China (BRIC)

“…Bargaining tactics are more consistent with the standard of win-lose negotiations ("claiming value"). These tactics aim to promote the largest slice of the negotiation pie for one side, while the other side remains with the smallest possible slice (Saner, 2000;Kern et al, 2020). The role of relationship is recognized…”