Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level.
AalderingH.De DreuC. K. W. (2012). Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15, 713–724. doi:10.1177/1368430212441638
2.
AalderingH.GreerL. L.van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2013). Interest (mis)alignments in representative negotiations: Do pro-social agents fuel or reduce inter-group conflict?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.001
3.
AllredK. G. (2000). Distinguishing best and strategic practices: A framework for managing the dilemma between claiming and creating value. Negotiation Journal, 16, 387–397. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00766.x
4.
BazermanM. H.CurhanJ. R.MooreD. A.ValleyK. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279–314. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279
5.
BazermanM. H.MagliozziT.NealeM. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 294–313. doi:10.1016/0749–5978(85)90026–3
6.
BentonA. A.DruckmanD. (1973). Salient solutions and the bargaining behavior of representatives and non-representatives. International Journal of Group Tensions, 3, 28–39.
7.
BentonA. A.DruckmanD. (1974). Constituents’ bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 141–150. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.1974.tb00664.x
8.
Ben-YoavO.PruittD. (1984a). Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 323–335. doi:10.1016/0022–1031(84)90029–5
9.
Ben-YoavO.PruittD. G. (1984b). Accountability to constituents: A two-edged sword. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 283–295. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90040-0
10.
CarnevaleP. J. D.LawlerE. J. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 636–659. doi:10.1177/0022002786030004003
11.
CarnevaleP. J.O’ConnorK. M.McCuskerC. (1993). Time pressure in negotiation and mediation. In SvensonO.MauleA. J. (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 117– 127). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
12.
De DreuC. K. W.AalderingH.SaygıÖ. (2014). Conflict and negotiation within and between groups. In DovidioJ.SimpsonJ. (Eds.), Handbook on interpersonal relations and group processes (pp. 151–176). Washington DC: APA Press.
13.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB.SteinelW.van KleefG. A. (2007). The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basic processes. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of basic principles in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 608–629). New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB.StroebeK.EuwemaM. C. (2006). The interaction between social motives and epistemic motives in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927–943. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.927
15.
De DreuC. K.GiacomantonioM.ShalviS.SligteD. (2009). Getting stuck or stepping back: Effects of obstacles and construal level in the negotiation of creative solutions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 542–548. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.001
16.
De DreuC. K. W.KooleS.SteinelW. (2000). Unfixing the fixed-pie: A motivated information-processing account of integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975–987. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.79.6.975
17.
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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.78.5.889
18.
DruckmanD. (1977). Boundary role conflict negotiation as dual responsiveness. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 639–662. doi:10.1177/002200277702100406
19.
DruckmanD. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507–556. doi:10.1177/0022002794038003007
20.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657–669. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
21.
GelfandM. J.RealoA. (1999). Individualism–collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 721–736. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.84.5.721
22.
GiacomantonioM.De DreuC. K. W.ShalviS.SligteD.LederS. (2010). Psychological distance boosts value–behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 824–829. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.001
23.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
HuangS. L.LinF. R.YuanY. (2006). Understanding agent-based on-line persuasion and bargaining strategies: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 85–115. doi:10.2753/JEC1086–4415110104
25.
HüffmeierJ.FreundP. A.ZerresA.BackhausK.HertelG. (2014). Being tough or being nice? A meta-analysis on the impact of hard- and softline strategies in distributive negotiations. Journal of Management, 40, 866–892. doi:10.1177/0149206311423788
26.
KelleyH. H.StahelskiA. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91. doi:10.1037/h0029849
27.
KennyD. A.la VoieL. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.339
28.
KlimoskiR. J.AshR. A. (1974). Accountability and negotiator behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 409–425. doi:10.1016/0030–5073(74)90029–4
29.
KruglanskiA. W.FreundT. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90022-7
30.
LewisS. A.FryW. R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 75–92. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90045-9
31.
MadduxW. W.MullenE.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 461–468. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.003
32.
NealeM. A.NorthcraftG. B. (1986). Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 305–317. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90003-8
33.
NelissenR. M. A.DijkerA. J.De VriesN. K. (2007). How to turn a hawk into a dove and vice versa: Interactions between emotions and goals in a give-some dilemma game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 280–286. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.009
34.
O’ConnorK. M. (1997). Groups and solos in context: The effects of accountability on team negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 384–407. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2743
35.
OlekalnsM.SmithP. L.WalshT. (1996). The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 68–77. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0090
36.
PinkleyR. L.GriffithT. L.NorthcraftG. B. (1995). “Fixed pie” a la mode: Information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 101–112. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1035
37.
PruittD. G.LewisS. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621–633. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.621
38.
PruittD. G.RubinJ. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
39.
RitovI. (1996). Anchoring in simulated competitive market negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 16–25. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0062
40.
RubinJ. Z.PruittD. G.KimS. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41.
SaygıÖ.GreerL. L.van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2014). Competitive representative negotiations worsen intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 143–160. doi:10.1177/1368430213507321
42.
SchweinsbergM.KuG.WangC. S.PillutlaM. M. (2012). Starting high and ending with nothing: The role of anchors and power in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 226–231. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.005
43.
SiegelS. A.FourakerL. E. (1960). Bargaining and group decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
44.
SteinelW.AbeleA. E.De DreuC. K. (2007). Effects of experience and advice on process and performance in negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 533–550. doi:10.1177/1368430207081541
45.
SteinelW.De DreuC. K. W.OuwehandE.Ramírez-MarínJ. Y. (2009). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 67–78. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.12.002
46.
SteinelW.van KleefG. A.van KnippenbergD.HoggM. A.HomanA. C.MoffitG. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 779–794. doi:10.1177/1368430210375702
47.
StuhlmacherA. F.ChampagneM. V. (2000). The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 471–491. doi:10.1023/a:1008736622709
48.
StuhlmacherA. F.GillespieT. L.ChampagneM. V. (1998). The impact of time pressure in negotiation: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 97–116. doi:10.1108/eb022805
49.
SwaabR. I.MadduxW. W.SinaceurM. (2011). Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 616–621. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.005
50.
Ten VeldenF. S.BeersmaB.De DreuC. K. W. (2010). It takes one to tango: The effects of dyads’ epistemic motivation composition in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1454–1466. doi:10.1177/0146167210383698
51.
ThompsonL.HastieR. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 98–123. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048
52.
TrötschelR.HüffmeierJ.LoschelderD. D.SchwartzK.GollwitzerP. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 771–790. doi:10.1037/a0023801
53.
Van KleefG. A.SteinelW.van KnippenbergD.HoggM.SvenssonA. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 129–154. doi:10.2139/ssrn.609302
54.
Van LangeP. A. M. (1992). Confidence in expectations: A test of the triangle hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 6, 371–379. doi:10.1002/per.2410060505
55.
WaltonR. E.McKersieR. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
56.
WeingartL. R.BennettR. J.BrettJ. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 504–517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.504
57.
WeingartL. R.HyderE.PrietulaM. J. (1996). Knowledge matters: The effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1205–1217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1205
58.
YuklG. (1974). Effects of the opponent’s initial offer, concession magnitude and concession frequency on bargaining behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 323–335. doi:10.1037/h0036895
