Regulatory Focus at the Bargaining Table: Promoting Distributive and Integrative Success

The authors demonstrate that in dyadic negotiations, negotiators with a promotion regulatory focus achieve superior outcomes than negotiators with prevention regulatory focus in two ways. First, a promotion focus leads negotiators to claim more resources at the bargaining table. In the first two studies, promotion-focused negotiators paid more attention to their target prices(i.e., their ideal outcomes) and achieved more advantageous distributive outcomes than did prevention-focused negotiators. The second study also reveals an important mediating process: Negotiators with a promotion focus made more extreme opening offers in their favor. Second, a promotion focus leads negotiators to create more resources at the bargaining table that benefit both parties. A third study demonstrated that in a multi-issue negotiation, a promotion focus increased the likelihood that a dyad achieved a jointly optimal or Pareto efficient outcome compared to prevention-focused dyads. The discussion focuses on the role of regulatory focus in social interaction and introduces the notion of interaction fit.

[1]  K. Lemm,et al.  Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: the role of self-discrepancies and event framing. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION , 1992 .

[3]  T. Mussweiler.  The durability of anchoring effects , 2001 .

[4]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Promotion and Prevention Experiences: Relating Emotions to Nonemotional Motivational States , 2001 .

[5]  E. Higgins.  Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle , 1998 .

[6]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Maximizing Versus Satisficing : Happiness Is a Matter of Choice , 2002 .

[8]  T. M. Tripp,et al.  An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency☆ , 1992 .

[9]  R. Liebert,et al.  The effects of information and magnitude of initial offer on interpersonal negotiation , 1968 .

[10]  Cameron Anderson,et al.  Power, Approach, and Inhibition , 2003 .

[11]  Joe C Magee,et al.  From power to action. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Matthias Schroder,et al.  Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text , 2003 .

[13]  N. Liberman,et al.  Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: regulatory focus and the "goal looms larger" effect. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[15]  L. Thompson.  Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. , 1990 .

[16]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? , 1989 .

[17]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Using Nonconscious Behavioral Mimicry to Create Affiliation and Rapport , 2003, Psychological science.

[19]  L. Thompson,et al.  The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator , 1997 .

[20]  A. Galinsky,et al.  From self-prediction to self-defeat: behavioral forecasting, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the effect of competitive expectations. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  M. Neale,et al.  The Role of Negotiator Aspirations and Settlement Expectancies in Bargaining Outcomes , 1994 .

[22]  Cameron Anderson,et al.  The experience of power: examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Lewis A. Froman,et al.  Research reports. Compromise and logroll: Comparing the efficiency of two bargaining processes , 1970 .

[24]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  N Liberman,et al.  Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  E. Higgins,et al.  Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations : Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making , 1997 .

[28]  A. Galinsky,et al.  Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation , 1991 .

[30]  L. Thompson.  Information exchange in negotiation , 1991 .

[31]  E T Higgins,et al.  Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general impact of promotion and prevention. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  A. Galinsky,et al.  First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions , 1987 .

[34]  Harold H. Kelley,et al.  Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. , 1972 .

[35]  Gerardo A. Okhuysen,et al.  Saving the worst for last: The effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens☆ , 2003 .

[36]  L. Thompson,et al.  Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  G. Downey,et al.  Tactical Differences in Coping With Rejection Sensitivity: The Role of Prevention Pride , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[38]  N Liberman,et al.  Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: implications for attributional functions. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  E. Higgins,et al.  Transfer of value from fit. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  A. Tenbrunsel,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2013 .

[41]  Robin L. Pinkley,et al.  The Negotiated Allocation of Benefits and Burdens: The Impact of Outcome Valence, Contribution, and Relationship , 1995 .

[42]  G. Yukl.  Effects of situational variables and opponent concessions on a bargainer's perception, aspirations, and concessions. , 1974 .

[43]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Equity, Equality, or Need? The Effects of Organizational Culture on the Allocation of Benefits and Burdens , 1995 .

[44]  F. Strack,et al.  When stereotype disconfirmation is a personal threat: How prejudice and prevention focus moderate incongruency effects. , 2000 .

[45]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring , 1999 .

[46]  James K. Sebenius,et al.  The Manager as Negotiator , 1987 .

[47]  Jens Förster,et al.  Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment : Regulatory focus and the goal looms larger effect , 1998 .

[48]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[49]  L. Tiedens,et al.  Power moves: complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom1 , 2001 .

[51]  E Tory Higgins,et al.  Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: what feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[52]  K. Sassenberg,et al.  Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach , 2003 .