In two studies, we examine how objective complexity—in terms of numbers of negotiable issues—affects negotiators’ aspirations, perceptions, actions, and ultimately, the quality of agreements they reach. We hypothesized and found that when negotiators had a greater number of issues to resolve, they were less ambitious for their own outcomes and developed less accurate insights into their partners’ interests.
AdairW.BrettJ.LempereurA.OkumuraT.ShikhirevP.TinsleyC.LytleA. (2004).
Culture and negotiation strategy. Negotiation Journal,
20(1), 87–111.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986).
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological Research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
3.
BazermanM.CarrollJ. (1987).
Negotiator cognition. Research in Organizational Behavior,
9, 247–288.
4.
BottomW. (2003).
Keynes’ attack on the Versailles Treaty: A study of the consequences of bounded rationality, framing, and cognitive illusions. International Negotiation,
8(2), 367–402.
5.
BrykA.RaudenbuschS. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models.
SAGE.
6.
CampbellD. J. (1982).
Determinants of goal difficulty level: A review of situational and personality influences. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
55, 79–95.
7.
CampbellD. J. (1988).
Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review,
13(1), 40–52.
8.
CampbellD. J.GingrichK. (1986).
The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
86, 160–182.
9.
ChanS. H.SongQ.YaoL. J. (2015).
The moderating role of subjective (perceived) and objective task complexity in system use and performance. Computers in Human Behavior,
51, 393–402.
10.
ChernevA.BockenholtU.GoodmanJ. (2015).
Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
25(2), 333–358.
11.
CrumpL. (2003).
Multiparty negotiation and the management of complexity. International Negotiation,
8, 189–195.
DavisM. H. (1983).
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44(1), 113–126.
14.
De DreuC. K. W. (2003).
Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
91, 280–295.
15.
FisherR.UryW.PattonB. (1991). Getting to yes.
Penguin.
16.
GalinskyA. D.MadduxW. W.GilinD.WhiteJ. B. (2008).
Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science,
19(4), 378–384.
17.
GrayB. (2011).
The complexity of multiparty negotiations: Wading into the muck. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
4(3), 169–177.
18.
GuptaA.LiH.ShardaR. (2013).
Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and perceived workload. Decision Support Systems,
55, 135–145.
19.
HaeremT.PentlandB. T.MillerK. D. (2015).
Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review,
40(3), 446–460.
20.
HollenbeckJ. R.WilliamsC. L.KleinH. J. (1989).
An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 18–23.
21.
HorvathM.HerlemanH. A.McKieR. L. (2006).
Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis. Motivation and Emotion,
30, 171–178.
22.
KennyD. A. (1996a).
Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social Personal Relationships,
13, 279–294.
23.
KennyD. A. (1996b).
The design and analysis of social-interaction research. Annual Review of Psychology,
47, 59–86.
24.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (1986).
Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin,
99, 422–431.
25.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (1996).
A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 138–148.
26.
KimK.CundiffN.ChoiS. (2015).
Emotional intelligence and negotiation outcomes: Mediating effects of rapport, negotiation strategy, and judgement accuracy. Group Decision and Negotiation,
24, 477–493.
27.
KleinH. J.WessonM. J.HollenbeckJ. R.WrightP. M.DeShonR. P. (2001).
The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
85(1), 32–55.
28.
LaxD. A.SebeniusJ. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator.
The Free Press.
29.
LejarragaT. (2010).
When experience is better than description: Time delays and complexity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
23, 100–116.
30.
LewickiR.HiamA.OlanderK. (1996). Think before you speak: A complete guide to strategic negotiation.
Wiley & Sons.
31.
LiuP.LiZ. (2012).
Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
42, 553–568.
32.
LiuW.LiuL.ZhangJ. (2016).
How to dissolve fixed-pie bias in negotiation? Social antecedents and the mediating effect of mental-model adjustment. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
37, 85–107.
33.
MalhotraD.BazermanM. H. (2007). Negotiation genius.
Bantam.
34.
MaynardD. C.HakelM. D. (1997).
Effects of objective and subjective complexity on performance. Human Performance,
10(4), 303–330.
35.
McCuskerC.CarnevaleP. J. (1995).
Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
61, 190–201.
36.
MilesE. W.ClenneyE. F. (2012).
Extremely difficult negotiator goals: Do they follow the predictions of goal setting theory?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
118, 108–115.
37.
NaquinC. E. (2003).
The agony of opportunity in negotiation: Number of issues, counterfactual thinking, and feelings of satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
91, 97–107.
38.
NaylorJ.DickinsonT. (1969).
Task structure, work structure, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
53(1), 167–177.
39.
NealeM.BazermanM. (1985).
The effect of externally set goals on reaching integrative agreements in competitive markets. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
6(1), 19–32.
40.
NealeM.BazermanM. (1991). Cognition and rationality in negotiation.
Free Press.
41.
O’ConnorK. M.ArnoldJ. A. (2011).
Sabotaging the deal: The way relational concerns undermine negotiators. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
47, 1167–1172.
42.
O’ConnorK. M.ArnoldJ. A.MaurizioA. M. (2010).
The prospect of a negotiation: Stress, cognitive appraisal, and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46, 729–735.
43.
PaquetteL.KidaT. (1988).
The effect of decision strategy and task complexity on decision performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
41, 128–142.
44.
PayneJ. (1976).
Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
16, 366–387.
45.
PietroniD.Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W.PagliaroS. (2008).
Emotions as strategic information: Effects of other’s emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands, and integrative behavior in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44, 1444–1454.
46.
PinkleyR. L.NealeM. A.BennettR. J. (1994).
The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
57, 97–116.
47.
PruittD. G.CarnevaleP. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict.
Brooks/Cole.
48.
PruittD. G.RubinJ. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement.
Random House.
49.
QuerouN.RioP.TidballM. (2007).
Multi-party negotiation when agents have subjective estimates of bargaining power. Group Decision and Negotiation,
16(5), 417–436.
50.
RaiffaH. (1982). The art and science of negotiation.
Harvard University Press.
51.
SchaererM.LoschelderD.SwaabR. (2016).
Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
137, 156–171.
52.
SeijtsG. H.LathamG. P.TasaK.LathamB. W. (2004).
Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal,
47(2), 227–239.
53.
SnijdersT.BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling.
SAGE.
54.
SwaabR. I.KernM. C.DiermeierD.MedvecV. (2009).
Who says what to whom? The impact of communication setting and channel on exclusion from multiparty negotiation agreements. Social Cognition,
27(3), 385–401.
55.
SwaitJ.AdamowiczW. (2001).
The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research,
28(1), 135–148.
56.
TajimaM.FraserN. M. (2001).
Logrolling procedure for multi-issue negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation,
10, 217–235.
57.
TasaK.CelaniC.BellC. M. (2013).
Goals in negotiation revisited: The impact of goal setting and implicit negotiation beliefs. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
6(2), 114–132.
58.
ThompsonL. (1990).
Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 515–532.
59.
ThompsonL. (2001). The mind and heart of the negotiator.
Prentice Hall.
60.
ThompsonL.HastieR. (1990).
Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
47(1), 98–123.
61.
TimmermansD. (1993).
The impact of task complexity on information use in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
6, 95–111.
62.
TraavikL. E. M. (2011).
Is bigger better? Dyadic and multiparty integrative negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management,
22(2), 190–210.
63.
TrotschelR.HuffmeierJ.LoschelderD. D.SchwartzK.GollwitzerP. M. (2011).
Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiation: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101(4), 771–790.
64.
TurelO. (2010).
Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decision and Negotiation,
19, 111–125.
65.
Van BeestI.Van KleefG.Van DijikE. (2008).
Get angry, get out: The interpersonal effects of anger communication in multiparty negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44(4), 993–1002.
66.
Van der SchalkJ.BeersmaB.Van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2010).
The more complex the better? The influence of epistemic motivation on integrative bargaining in negotiation. European Journal of Social Psychology,
40, 355–365.
67.
VroomV. (1964). Work and motivation.
Wiley.
68.
WaltonR. E.McKersieR. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system.
McGraw-Hill.
69.
WatkinsM. (1999).
Negotiating in a complex world. Negotiation Journal,
15(3), 245–270.
70.
WatkinsM. (2003).
Analyzing complex negotiations. Harvard Business School Background Note 903–088.
71.
WeningS.KeithN.AbeleA. (2015).
High construal level can help negotiators to reach integrative agreements: The role of information exchange and judgement accuracy. British Journal of Social Psychology,
55, 206–226.
72.
WiltermuthS. S.NealeM. A. (2011).
Too much information: The perils of nondiagnostic information in negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(1), 192–201.
73.
WintersD.LathamG. P. (1996).
The effects of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus complex task. Group and Organization Management,
21, 236–250.
74.
WoodR. E. (1986).
Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
37, 60–82.
75.
ZetikD. C.StuhlmacherA. F. (2002).
Goal setting and negotiation performance: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
5(1), 35–52.
