Ups and Downs: Emotional Dynamics in Negotiations and Their Effects on (In)Equity

Abstract

Organizational scholars now acknowledge the relevance of emotions in virtually every aspect of organizational life, including negotiations and conflict resolution. Integrating negotiation phase model theory with social functional models of emotion, we test hypotheses about the development of emotions in negotiations and their effects on the degree of economic (in)equity of the counterpart's subsequent offer during the actual negotiation process. By comparing stalemate dyads with efficient settlement dyads, the study identifies emotional dynamics that characterize successful as opposed to unsuccessful negotiations. Results show that observed differences are primarily the result of impasse dyads spiraling into a negative emotional climate rather than efficient settlement dyads having overall higher levels of positive emotions or increasing them throughout the negotiation process. As predicted by social functional models, the study further confirms that emotions are not only a reaction to the economic (un)fairness of a proposed offer, but their display also influences the payoff (in)equity of the counterpart's subsequent offer. Whether a specific emotional expression increases or decreases the economic fairness of the counterpart's subsequent offer, however, differs across negotiation phases and between dyads that reached an agreement or not. Furthermore, the results show distinct differences between emotions that address individual goal realization in negotiations and emotions that focus on the

Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations

“…Rather than being associated with goal achievement, both dimensions have the relationship with the counterpart as primary referent. They address success or failure in nurturing the relationship, the extent to which interdependence is disrupted or promoted, the willingness to make amends, and perceptions of the nature of the relationship (Griessmair 2017;Kumar 1997;Markus and Kitayama 1991). The first other-versus self-oriented emotional dimension, solidarity-conflict or affiliativeness (Kitayama and Markus 1990;Markus and Kitayama 1991;White 2000), indicates the extent to which an individual is (dis)engaged from a personal relationship (Markus and Kitayama 1991).…”

“…Following the social-functional approach of emotions, negotiators’ emotional expressions have an important feedback, information, and signaling function (Barry et al 2004 ; Griessmair 2017 ; Morris and Keltner 2000 ; Pietroni et al 2008 ). They provide valuable information about negotiators’ willingness to agree, whether they approve of the counterpart’s behavior, how they perceive the status of the relationship, as well as about their attitudes and intentions (Daly 1991 ; Knutson 1996 ; Shapiro 2002 ).…”

“…Further, it is important to distinguish whether the information and incentive function of emotions addresses the negotiators’ goals or their relationship (Griessmair 2017 ; Kumar 1997 ; Markus and Kitayama 1991 ). Goal-oriented emotions such as pleasure and displeasure are related to the progress individuals make towards obtaining their objectives (Frijda 1986 ; Lazarus 1991 ).…”

“…A more detailed description of the emotional dimensions and the underlying methodology can be found inGriessmair (2017).…”

Intrapersonal Emotional Responses to the Inquiry and Advocacy Modes of Interaction: A Psychophysiological Study

“…Via these behavioral tendencies emotions have interpersonal effects, i.e. emotions affect and are transferred onto others in interaction (Christov-Moore and Iacoboni 2015; Olekalns and Druckman 2015;Griessmair 2017). Specific interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations include emotional contagion (e.g.…”