Price negotiation is often a zero-sum interaction where one party’s gain is another’s loss. In such contexts, a buyer’s willingness to negotiate can depend on the perceived justifiability of negotiation. This research examines how political ideology shapes these perceptions. Two archival studies (N = 56,615) and four preregistered studies (N = 3,157) show that conservative buyers are more likely to negotiate prices for houses and used cars. Conservatives also hold stronger beliefs that buyers should negotiate prices regardless of the seller’s identity—be it a professional dealer, an ordinary seller, a stranger, or a friend. This heightened propensity to justify price negotiation is rooted in conservatives’ endorsement of free-market ideology, which motivates and even moralizes the pursuit of economic self-interest in marketplace interactions. These findings offer a nuanced account of interactions in the marketplace, demonstrating that marketplace behaviors are influenced not only by economic considerations but also by ideological beliefs.
BabcockL.GelfandM.SmallD.StaynH. (2006). Gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations. In De CremerD.ZeelenbergM.MurnighanJ. K. (Eds.), Social psychology and economics. (pp. 239–259). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
2.
BazermanM. H. (1983). Negotiator judgment: A critical look at the rationality assumption. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276483027002007
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.LaiL. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001
5.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
6.
CaseyJ. P.VanmanE. J.BarlowF. K. (2023). Empathic conservatives and moralizing liberals: Political intergroup empathy varies by political ideology and is explained by moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(5), 678–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231198001
De ZavalaA. G.CislakA.WesolowskaE. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility: Need for cognitive closure, conservatism and aggressiveness. Political Psychology, 31(4), 521–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00767.x
9.
DuckittJ.FisherK. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00322
10.
EadehF. R.ChangK. K. (2020). Can threat increase support for liberalism? New insights into the relationship between threat and political attitudes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618815919
11.
ElfenbeinH. A. (2015). Individual differences in negotiation: A nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414558114
12.
EverettJ. A. C.ClarkC. J.MeindlP.LuguriJ. B.EarpB. D.GrahamJ.DittoP. H.ShariffA. F. (2021). Political differences in free will belief are associated with differences in moralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 461–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000286
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
14.
FernandesD.OrdabayevaN.HanK.JungJ.MittalV. (2022). How political identity shapes customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 86(6), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211057508
15.
FrankR. H.GilovichT.ReganD. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.7.2.159
GoenkaS.ThomasM. (2020). The malleable morality of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 562–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000237
18.
GuptaA.WowakA. J. (2017). The elephant (or donkey) in the boardroom: How board political ideology affects CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216668173
19.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
20.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
21.
HorbergE. J.OveisC.KeltnerD.CohenA. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017423
22.
JostJ. T. (2017). The marketplace of ideology: “Elective affinities” in political psychology and their implications for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.003
23.
JostJ. T.BlountS.PfefferJ.HunyadyG. (2003). Fari market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25002-4
24.
JostJ. T.NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.GoslingS. D.PalfaiT. P.OstafinB. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301028
25.
JostJ. T.ThompsonE. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
26.
KuglerK. G.ReifJ. A. M.KaschnerT.BrodbeckF. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000135
27.
LeibbrandtA.ListJ. A. (2015). Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61(9), 2016–2024. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1994
28.
LuJ. G. (2023). Asians don’t ask? Relational concerns, negotiation propensity, and starting salaries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001017
29.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D.GruenfeldD. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294413
30.
MooijmanM.MeindlP.OysermanD.MonterossoJ.DehghaniM.DorisJ. M.GrahamJ. (2018). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000149
31.
NashJ. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n -person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48
32.
OxleyD. R.SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R.HibbingM. V.MillerJ. L.ScaloraM.HatemiP. K.HibbingJ. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321(5896), 1667–1670. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157627
33.
PegolottiF. B. (2017). La pratica della mercatura: Book of Descriptions of Countries and of Measures of Merchandise (A. Evans, Ed.).
PrattoF.CatheyC. (2002). The role of social ideologies in legitimizing political attitudes and public policy. In OttatiV. C.TindaleR. S.EdwardsJ.BryantF. B.HealthL.O’ConnellD. C.Suarez-BalzacarY.PosavacE. J. (Eds.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 135–155). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0569-3_7
36.
RasinskiK. A. (1987). What’s fair is fair—or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.201
37.
RasinskiK. A.TourangeauR. (1991). Psychological aspects of judgments about the economy. Political Psychology, 12(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791344
RozinP.MarkwithM.StoessC. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00685.x
40.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1993). Racism and Support of Free-Market Capitalism: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Political Psychology, 14(3), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791704
41.
SkitkaL. J.TetlockP. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 491–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J
42.
SmallD. A.GelfandM.BabcockL.GettmanH. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.600
TetlockP. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder?Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667073
WestwoodS. J.IyengarS.WalgraveS.LeonisioR.MillerL.StrijbisO. (2018). The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of Partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 57(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12228
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.
