Dovish and Hawkish Influence in Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: The Role of (A)symmetry in Constituencies

Dovish and hawkish constituency pressures influence representative negotiations. Dovish constituency voices promote a collaborative and problem-solving approach, but can also allow for exploitation in negotiations. Hawkish voices encourage a competitive approach, but may leave value on the table. These dynamics are investigated in four experiments. In two interactive dyadic-negotiation experiments (Experiments 1 & 2; N = 186 and N = 220), we investigated how constituency pressures influenced outcomes in two negotiation settings (distributive and integrative). Representatives of dovish constituencies reached higher negotiation outcomes than representatives of hawkish constituencies, when facing a representative with a similar constituency (Experiment 1). However, when representatives with a dovish constituency met with representatives of a hawkish constituency, dovish representatives reached lower gains in both negotiation settings (Experiment 2). This hawkish advantage was replicated in two online scenario studies (Experiments 3 & 4; N = 248 and N = 319). There was no consistent empirical support for the role of a potential future interaction in eliciting representatives’ concessions (Experiment 1–3), however, an absence of accountability to constituents reduced representatives’ competitiveness, irrespective of whom they represented (Experiment 4). Theoretical and practical implications for labor relations, diplomacy, and business negotiations are discussed.

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

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

Bridging Racial Divides: Social Constructionist (vs. Essentialist) Beliefs Facilitate Trust in Intergroup Contexts

Trust serves as the foundation for social harmony and prosperity, but it is not always easy to build. When people see other groups as different, e.g., members of a different race or ethnicity, the perceived boundary often obstructs people from extending trust. This may result in interracial conflicts. The current research argues that individual differences in the lay theory of race can systematically influence the degree to which people extend trust to a racial outgroup in conflict situations. The lay theory of race refers to the extent to which people believe race is a malleable social construct that can change over time (i.e., social constructionist beliefs) versus a fixed essence that differentiates people into meaningful social categories (i.e., essentialist beliefs). In our three studies, we found evidence that social constructionist (vs. essentialist) beliefs promoted interracial trust in intergroup contexts, and that this effect held regardless of whether the lay theory of race was measured (Studies 1 and 3) or manipulated (Study 2), and whether the conflict was presented in a team conflict scenario (Study 1), social dilemma (Study 2), or a face-to-face dyadic negotiation (Study 3). In addition, results revealed that the lay theory’s effect on interracial trust could have critical downstream consequences in conflict, namely cooperation and mutually beneficial negotiation outcomes. The findings together reveal that the lay theory of race can reliably influence interracial trust and presents a promising direction for understanding interracial relations and improving intergroup harmony in society.

Resolving Disputed Financial Reporting Issues: Effects of Auditor Negotiation Experience and Engagement Risk on Negotiation Process and Outcome

SUMMARY: In an experiment involving a dyadic negotiation between a computer-simulated client and practicing auditors, we examine the effects of engagement risk and auditor negotiation experience on the process and outcomes of client-auditor negotiations. We find that auditors with lower negotiation experience who encounter a high risk client use a more concessionary negotiation strategy, achieve a negotiated outcome that is more aggressive (consistent with the client's aggressive preference), and are less confident that the outcome they negotiate is acceptable under GAAP compared with the negotiation process and outcome results of auditors with higher negotiation experience. In contrast, auditors with higher negotiation experience use a less concessionary strategy, achieve an outcome that is more conservative regardless of risk context, and are more confident that the outcome they negotiate is acceptable under GAAP. This study illustrates the important roles that engagement risk, task-specific negotiation experience, and pressure from the client regarding an aggressive financial reporting preference play in the process and outcomes of client-auditor negotiation.

Lambs Among Lions? The Impact of Ethical Ideology on Negotiation Behaviors and Outcomes

Relationships between individuals' ethical orientations (classified on dimensions of idealism and relativism), their negotiation strategies, their views of ethically ``marginal'' tactics, and their outcomes in dyadic negotiation are examined. Results indicate a relationship between ethical orientation and negotiation strategy. Specifically, absolutists (high on idealism, low on relativism) tended to employ more assertive negotiation strategies than did those of other ethical orientations. Individuals in no one category of ethical ideology outperformed those in any other category in terms of integrativeness of agreements or outcomes. Absolutists viewed ethically questionable tactics as less acceptable, whereas subjectivists found them more acceptable. We found that individuals less accepting of questionable tactics (``lambs''), who negotiated against those more accepting of such tactics (``lions''), were able to achieve better outcomes and a greater percentage of joint outcomes.