Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The present study sought to expand the literature on the relations of major dimensions of personality with integrative negotiation outcomes by introducing the HEXACO model, investigating both effects of the negotiators’ and their counterparts’ personality traits on objective and subjective negotiation outcomes, and investigating two interactions between the negotiators’ and counterparts’ personalities. One hundred forty–eight participants completed the HEXACO–100 measure of personality. Participants then engaged in a dyadic negotiation task that contained a mix of distributive and integrative elements (74 dyads). Measures of subjective experience and objective economic value were obtained, and actor–partner interdependence models were estimated. Personality was generally a better predictor of subjective experience than objective economic value. In particular, partner honesty–humility, extraversion, and openness predicted more positive negotiation experiences. An actor–partner interaction effect was found for actor–agreeableness by partner–honesty–humility on economic outcomes; agreeable actors achieved worse (better) economic outcomes when negotiating with partners that were low (high) on honesty–humility. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

HEXACO personality negotiation actor-partner interdependence models integrative bargaining

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2014). The HEXACO honesty–humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, Perugini

, Szarota

, De Vries

R. E.

, Di Blas

, … De Raad

(2004). A six–factor structure of personality–descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.2.356.

Bacharach

S. B.

, & Lawler

E. J.

(1981). Power and tactics in bargaining. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 34, 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979398103400204.

Back

M. D.

, Baumert

, Denissen

, Hartung

F.–M.

, Penke

, Schmukle

, … Wrzus

(2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25, 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.811.

Back

M. D.

, & Vazire

(2015). The social consequences of personality: Six suggestions for future research. European Journal of Personality, 29, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/peer.1998.

Barry

, & Friedman

R. A.

(1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.74.2.345.

Becker

W. J.

, & Curhan

J. R.

(2018). The dark side of subjective value in sequential negotiations: The mediating role of pride and anger. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000253.

Bolino

M. C.

, & Grant

A. M.

(2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other–oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260.

10.

Cook

W. L.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405.

11.

Costa

P. T.

, & McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191–8869(92)90236–I.

12.

Crossley

, Woodworth

, Black

P. J.

, & Hare

(2016). The dark side of negotiation: Examining the outcomes of face–to–face and computer–mediated negotiations among dark personalities. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.052.

13.

Cuperman

, & Ickes

(2009). Big five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015741.

14.

Curhan

J. R.

, Elfenbein

H. A.

, & Eisenkraft

(2010). The objective value of subjective value: A multi–round negotiation study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559–1816.2010.00593.x.

15.

Curhan

J. R.

, Elfenbein

H. A.

, & Kilduff

G. J.

(2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013746.

16.

Curhan

J. R.

, Elfenbein

H. A.

, & Xu

(2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.91.3.493.

17.

Curhan

J. R.

, & Pentland

(2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 802–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.92.3.802.

18.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869–013–9308–7.

19.

De Vries

R. E.

, Tybur

J. M.

, Pollet

T. V.

, & Van Vugt

(2016). Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.001.

20.

DeRue

, Conlon

D. E.

, Moon

, & Willaby

H. W.

(2009). When is straightforwardness a liability in negotiations? The role of integrative potential and structural power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1032–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014965.

21.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2013). Individual differences in negotiation. In Olekalns

, & Adair

W. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in negotiation (pp. 25–45). London, England: Edward Elgar.

22.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2015). Individual differences in negotiation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414558114.

23.

Elfenbein

H. A.

, Curhan

J. R.

, Eisenkraft

, Shirako

, & Baccaro

(2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010.

24.

Elfenbein

H. A.

, Eisenkraft

, Curhan

J. R.

, & Dilalla

L. F.

(2017). On the relative importance of individual–level characteristics and dyadic interaction effects in negotiations: Variance partitioning evidence from a twins study. Journal of Applied Psychology., 103, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000255.

25.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, & Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

26.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, Buchner

, & Lang

A.–G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.

27.

Fry

W. R.

(1985). The effect of dyad Machiavellianism and visual access on integrative bargaining outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111005.

28.

Fulmer

I. S.

, & Barry

(2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability and emotional intelligence in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 245–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022914.

29.

Griffin

, & Gonzalez

(1995). Correlational analysis of dyad–level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.118.3.430.

30.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Glöckner

, & Zettler

(2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036074.

31.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Kieslich

P. J.

, Henninger

, Thielmann

, Zettler

, & Back

(2018). Lead us (not) into temptation: Testing the motivational mechanisms linking honesty–humility to cooperation. European Journal of Personality, 32, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2149.

32.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Thielmann

, Klein

S. A.

, & Henninger

(2016). The two faces of cooperation: On the unique role of HEXACO Agreeableness for forgiveness versus retaliation. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.08.004.

33.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Thielmann

, Wührl

, & Zettler

(2015). From Honesty–Humility to fair behavior—Benevolence or a (blind) fairness norm? Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.017.

34.

Hilbig

B. E.

, & Zettler

(2009). Pillars of cooperation: Honesty–humility, social value orientations, and economic behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.003.

35.

Hilbig

B. E.

, & Zettler

(2015). When the cat's away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.003.

36.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Zettler

, & Heydasch

(2012). Personality, punishment and public goods: Strategic shifts towards cooperation as a matter of dispositional honesty–humility. European Journal of Personality, 26, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.830.

37.

Hilbig

B. E.

, Zettler

, Leist

, & Heydasch

(2013). It takes two: Honesty–humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 598–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.008.

38.

Jonason

P. K.

, Slomski

, & Partyka

(2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008.

39.

Kammrath

L. K.

, & Scholer

A. A.

(2011). The Pollyanna myth: How highly agreeable people judge positive and negative relational acts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1172–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407641.

40.

Kass

(2008). Interactional justice, negotiator outcome satisfaction, and desire for future negotiations: R–e–s–p–e–c–t at the negotiating table. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810909284.

41.

Kelley

H. H.

, & Stahelski

A. J.

(1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029849.

42.

Kenny

D. A.

, Kashy

D. A.

, & Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

43.

Kim

P. H.

, Pinkley

R. L.

, & Fragale

A. R.

(2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 799–822. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.18378879.

44.

Krasikova

D. V.

, & LeBreton

J. M.

(2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027962.

45.

Kulik

C. T.

, & Olekalns

(2012). Negotiating the gender divide: Lessons from the negotiation and organizational behavior literatures. Journal of Management, 38, 1387–1415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311431307.

46.

Landolt

M. A.

, & Dutton

D. G.

(1997). Power and personality: An analysis of gay male intimate abuse. Sex Roles, 37, 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025649306193.

47.

Lax

D. A.

, & Sebenius

J. K.

(1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. New York.

48.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00512.x.

49.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2012). Getting mad and getting even: Agreeableness and Honesty–Humility as predictors of revenge intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.004.

50.

Lee

, & Ashton

M. C.

(2016). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO–100. Assessment, 25, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659134.

51.

Lee

, Ashton

M. C.

, Morrison

D. L.

, Cordery

J. L.

, & Dunlop

P. D.

(2008). Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self–and observer reports. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X195175.

52.

Lee

, Ashton

M. C.

, Wiltshire

, Bourdage

J. S.

, Visser

B. A.

, & Gallucci

(2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty–Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1860.

53.

Malloy

T. E.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The Social Relations Model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54, 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1986.tb00393.x.

54.

Marshall

E. M.

, Simpson

J. A.

, & Rholes

W. S.

(2015). Personality, communication, and depressive symptoms across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic longitudinal investigation. European Journal of Personality, 29, 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1980.

55.

Miles

E. W.

, & LaSalle

M. M.

(2009). Gender and creation of value in mixed–motive negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20, 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060910974885.

56.

Moffitt

T. E.

, Robins

R. W.

, & Caspi

(2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse prevention policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745–9133.2001.tb00075.x.

57.

Mueller

J. S.

, & Curhan

J. R.

(2006). Emotional intelligence and counterpart mood induction in a negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17, 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060610736602.

58.

Neale

M. A.

(1997). The new recruit. Evanston, IL: Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.

59.

O'Connor

K. M.

, Arnold

J. A.

, & Burris

E. R.

(2005). Negotiators’ bargaining histories and their effects on future negotiation performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.90.2.350.

60.

Olekalns

, & Smith

P. L.

(2003). Social motives in negotiation: The relationships between dyad composition, negotiation processes and outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022900.

61.

Olekalns

, & Smith

P. L.

(2007). Loose with the truth: Predicting deception in negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551–006–9279–y.

62.

Olekalns

, Smith

P. L.

, & Walsh

(1996). The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0090.

63.

Paulhus

D. L.

, & Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092–6566%2802%2900505–6.

64.

Peugh

J. L.

, DiLillo

, & Panuzio

(2013). Analyzing mixed–dyadic data using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.769395.

65.

Polzer

J. T.

, Mannix

E. A.

, & Neale

M. A.

(1995). Multiparty negotiation in its social context. In Kramer

R. M.

, & Messick

D. M.

(Eds.), Negotiation as a social process (pp. 123–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

66.

Preacher

K. J.

, Rucker

D. D.

, MacCallum

R. C.

, & Nicewander

W. A.

(2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082–989X.10.2.178.

67.

Pruitt

(1983). Achieving integrative negotiation. In Bazerman

M. H.

, & Lewicki

R. J.

(Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35–50). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

68.

Quiñones

M. A.

(1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.80.2.226.

69.

Rayens

M. K.

, & Svavarsdottir

E. K.

(2003). A new methodological approach in nursing research: An actor, partner, and interaction effect model for family outcomes. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10100.

70.

Robinson

R. J.

, Lewicki

R. J.

, & Donahue

E. M.

(2000). Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099–1379%28200009%2921:6%3C649::AID–JOB45%3E3.0.CO;2–#.

71.

Rubin

J. Z.

, & Brown

B. R.

(1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York.

72.

Sass

, & Liao–Troth

M. A.

(2015). Personality and negotiation performance: The people matter. Journal of Collective Negotiations. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2549992.

73.

Schlegel

, Mehu

, van Peer

J. M.

, & Scherer

K. R.

(2018). Sense and sensibility: The role of cognitive and emotional intelligence in negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.12.003.

74.

Sharma

, Bottom

W. P.

, & Elfenbein

H. A.

(2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 293–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613505857.

75.

Tett

R. P.

, & Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait–based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.88.3.500.

76.

Thielmann

, & Hilbig

B. E.

(2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006.

77.

Thielmann

, & Hilbig

B. E.

(2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215600530.

78.

Thompson

(1990a). An examination of naive and experienced negotiators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.59.1.82.

79.

Thompson

(1990b). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.108.3.515.

80.

Trivers

R. L.

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755.

81.

Turel

(2010). Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726–008–9118–x.

82.

Van Kleef

G. A.

, De Dreu

C. K. W.

, & Manstead

A. S. R.

(2004a). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.1.57.

83.

Van Kleef

G. A.

, De Dreu

C. K. W.

, & Manstead

A. S. R.

(2004b). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.87.4.510.

84.

Volkema

, Kapoutsis

, & Nikolopoulos

(2013). Initiation behavior in negotiations: The moderating role of motivation on the ability–intentionality relationship. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12002.

85.

Wiggins

J. S.

(1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait–descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.37.3.395.

86.

Wilson

K. S.

, DeRue

D. S.

, Matta

F. K.

, Howe

, & Conlon

D. E.

(2016). Personality similarity in negotiations: Testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology., 101, 1405–1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000132.

87.

Wiltermuth

, Tiedens

L. Z.

, & Neale

(2015). The benefits of dominance complementarity in negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8, 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12052.

88.

Wolfe

, & McGinn

(2005). Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726–005–3873–8.

89.

Zhao

, & Smillie

L. D.

(2015). The role of interpersonal traits in social decision making: Exploring sources of behavioral heterogeneity in economic games. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314553709.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.64 MB

0.00 MB

0.27 MB

Personality and Integrative Negotiations: A Hexaco Investigation of Actor,Partner,and Actor–Partner Interaction Effects on Objective and Subjective Outcomes

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material