NEGOTIATION PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES IN PROSOCIALLY AND EGOISTICALLY MOTIVATED GROUPS

This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on interpersonal trust, negotiation behavior, amount of impasses, and joint outcomes in three‐person negotiations. Students participated in a joint venture negotiation, in which motivational orientation was manipulated by allocating individual incentives (egoistic motive) vs. team incentives (prosocial motive). Results indicated that prosocially motivated negotiators achieved more integrative agreements and fewer impasses, and reported higher trust, more problem solving, and less contending behavior than egoistically motivated negotiators. Hierarchical regression suggested that the finding that prosocial groups achieved higher joint outcomes can be explained by higher levels of trust, more problem solving behavior, and less contending behavior in prosocial groups.

[1]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Social Value Orientations and Strategy Choices in Competitive Negotiations , 2022 .

[3]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation : The disruptive effects of punitive capability , 1998 .

[4]  Joseph P. Forgas,et al.  On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Carsten K. W. De Dreu,et al.  Gain–loss frames and cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. , 1997 .

[6]  Kathleen M. O'connor MOTIVES AND COGNITIONS IN NEGOTIATION: A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION AND AN EMPIRICAL TEST , 1997 .

[7]  Onne Janssen,et al.  Concern for the other's goals: Key to (de-)escalation of conflict , 1996 .

[8]  Allen C. Amason Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams , 1996 .

[9]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior , 1995 .

[10]  Richard L. Moreland,et al.  Back to the Future: Social Psychological Research on Groups , 1994 .

[11]  R. Bennett,et al.  The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. , 1993 .

[12]  Paul E. Spector Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? , 1987 .

[13]  P. Carnevale,et al.  Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations , 1986 .

[14]  A. Isen,et al.  The Influence of Positive Affect and Visual Access on the Discovery of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation , 1986 .

[15]  M. Brewer,et al.  Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Justin W. Schulz,et al.  The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare , 1978 .

[17]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Negotiation in Small Groups , 1989 .

[18]  L. Thompson,et al.  Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. , 1988 .

[19]  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.

[20]  M. Deutsch Chapter 2 – Interdependence and Psychological Orientation1 , 1982 .

[21]  Peter J. Carnevale,et al.  Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. , 1980 .

[22]  D. Messick,et al.  Motivational bases of choice in experimental games , 1968 .