The influence of discussion-induced shared cognition on bargaining behavior was examined. Three studies tested the hypothesis that shared cognition regarding the best method for reaching a bargaining agreement would decrease the frequency of selfish offers. Consistent with this prediction, participants who engaged in such a group discussion made less selfish offers than those who did not discuss (all studies) or those who engaged in a group discussion regarding commonalities that they shared (Study 2). Study 3 showed that the discussion effect was mediated by shared cognition developed through the discussion. Thus, discussion regarding how best to reach bargaining settlements may develop shared cognition that assists in cooperative bargaining. Implications and limitations of the studies are discussed.
AbelsonR. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.
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.
BettenhausenK.MurnighanJ. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.
4.
BouasK. S.KomoritaS. S. (1996). Group discussion and cooperation in social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1144–1150.
5.
BrodtS. E.DietzL. E. (1999). Shared information and information sharing: Understanding negotiation as collective construal. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 7, 263–283.
6.
CamererC.ThalerR. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators, and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.
7.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB.SteinelW.Van KleefG. A. (2007). The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basic processes. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, (2nd ed., pp. 608–629). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R.KwonS. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.
9.
HopthrowT.HulbertL. G. (2005). The effect of group decision making on cooperation in social dilemmas. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 89–100.
10.
KelmanH. C. (1997). Group processes in the resolution of international conflicts: Experiences from the Israeli–Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 52, 212–220.
11.
KerrN. L.Kaufman-GillilandC. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 513–529.
12.
KramerR. M.BrewerM. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.
13.
KramerR. M.PommerenkeP.NewtonE. (1993). The social context of negotiation: Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 633–654.
14.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A.. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.
15.
MessickD. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In MellersB. A.BaronJ. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 11–31). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
MoorheadG.NeckC. P.WestM. S. (1998). The tendency toward defective decision making within self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink for the 21st century. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 327–351.
17.
MurnighanJ. K.PillutlaM. M. (1995). Fairness versus self-interest: Asymmetric moral imperatives in ultimatum bargaining. In KramerR. M.MessickD. M. (Eds.), Negotiation as a social process: New trends in theory and research (pp. 240–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
PostmesT.HaslamS. A.SwaabR. I. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 1–42.
19.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F.. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
20.
PruittD. G.CarnevaleP. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. New York: Brooks/Cole.
21.
PruittD. C.KimmelM. J.. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392.
22.
SchellingT. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
SwaabR.PostmesT.Van BeestI.SpearsR. (2007). Perceived shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 187–199.
24.
ThalerR. H. (1988). The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 195–206.
25.
ThompsonL.FineG. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278–302.
26.
ValenzuelaA.SrivastavaJ.LeeS. (2005). The role of cultural orientation in bargaining under incomplete information: Differences in causal attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 72–88.
27.
Van BovenL.ThompsonL. (2003). A look into the mind of the negotiator: Mental models in negotiation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 387–404.
