Skip to main content
Log in

The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multimethod research was conducted to investigate how relationship orientation affects cognitions and tactics of dealing with conflicts. In-depth interviews by a clinical psychologist revealed differences in perspective on the relationship, and content analysis of a videotaped laboratory simulation revealed differences in tactics attributable to differential concern for relationship preservation. A second laboratory simulation manipulated the duration of the negotiators' relationship to investigate the effects of relationship orientation when situational factors are taken into account. The results generally show that relationship-oriented negotiators tend to view relationships with the other party as continuous rather than episodic, adopt flexible postures, and avoid relationship-impairing tactics; they also show that situation can have a strong effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acitelli, L.K. (1992). “Gender Differences in Relationship Awareness and Marital Satisfaction Among Young Married Couples.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amidjaja, I.R., and W.E. Vinacke. (1965). “Achievement, Nurturance, and Competition in Male and Female Triads.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 447–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedell, J. and F. Sistrunk. (1973). “Power, Opportunity Costs, and Sex in a Mixed-Motive Game.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25, 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S.L. (1974). “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42, 155–162.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caplow, T.M. (1968).Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (1974). “Family Structure and Feminine Personality.” In M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds.),Women, Culture and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M.S., and H.T. Reis. (1988). “Interpersonal Processes in Close Relationships.”Annual Review of Psychology 39, 609–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrath, D.W. (1972). “Sex Role and ‘Cooperation’ in the Game of Chicken.”Journal of Conflict Resolution 16, 265–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B.M., A. Jordan, A. Irvine, and P.S. Laser. (1982). “Age Changes in the Detection of Deception.”Child Development 53, 701–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dindia, K., and M. Allen. (1992). “Sex Differences in Self-Disclosure: A Meta-Analysis.”Psychological Bulletin 112, 106–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duck, S. (1988).Handbook of Personal Relationships. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gahagan, J.P., and J.T. Tedeschi. (1969). “Shifts of Power in a Mixed-Motive Game.”Journal of Social Psychology 77, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilkey, R.W., and L. Greenhalgh. (1992). “Clinical Assessment Methods for the Laboratory: The Study of Narcissism and Negotiator Effectiveness.” Working paper, Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College.

  • Gilligan, C. (1982).In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1992). “The Gender-Based Foundations of Negotiation Theory.” In B.H. Sheppard, R.J. Lewicki, and R. Bies (eds.),Research in Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, L. (1987). “Relationships in Negotiations.”Negotiation Journal 3, 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, L., and D.I. Chapman. (1992). “The Effect of Working Relationships on the Process and Outcomes of Negotiations.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas.

  • Greenhalgh, L., and R.M. Kramer. (1990). “Strategic Choice in Conflicts: The Importance of Relationships.” In R.L. Kahn and M.N. Zald (eds.),Organizations and Nation-States: New Perspectives on Conflict and Cooperation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J.A. (1984). “Gender Differences in Touch: A Theoretical and Empirical Review.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 440–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J.J. (1992). “The Effect of Friendship on Bargaining: Experimental Studies of Personal Business Transactions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas. Published in theProceedings.

  • Hinde, R.A. (1979).Towards Understanding Relationships. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, T.B. (1980). “Sex Roles and Dirty Word Usage: A Review of the Literature and a Reply to Haas.”Psychological Bulletin 88, 614–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H., E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, and D.R. Peterson. (1983).Close Relationships. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindskold, S., and J.T. Tedeschi. (1971). “Reward Power and Attraction in Interpersonal Conflict.”Psychonomic Science 22, 211–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, E.C.J., and D.W. Andrews. (1990). “Perspective Taking as a Predictor of Marital Adjustment.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 126–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, A.J., B.E. Lott, T. Reed, and T. Crow. (1970). “Personality-Trait Descriptions of Differentially Liked Persons.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 284–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G.F., L. Thompson, and M.H. Bazerman. (1991). “Social Utility and Decision Making in Interpersonal Contexts.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 426–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E.E., and C.N. Jacklin. (1974).The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, C.G., D.M. Messick, D.M. Kuhlman, and F.T. Campos. (1973). “Motivational Bases of Choice in Three-Choice Decomposed Games.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, 572–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E.A. (1991). “Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Small Groups: The Effects of Power, Justice Norms, and the Anticipation of a Future Relationship.” Working Paper No. 76, Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.

  • Miller, G.H., and S.G. Pyke. (1973). “Sex, Matrix Variations, and Perceived Personality Effects in Mixed-Motive Games.”Journal of Conflict Resolution 17, 335–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J.F. (1950). “The Bargaining Problem.”Econometrica 18, 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M.A., and M.H. Bazerman. (1983). “The Role of Perspective Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review 36, 378–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M.A., and M.H. Bazerman. (1991).Cognition and Rationality in Negotiations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neslin, S.A., and L. Greenhalgh. (1983). “Nash's Theory of Cooperative Games as a Predictor of the Outcomes of Buyer-Seller Negotiations: An Experiment in Media Purchasing.”Journal of Marketing Research 20, 368–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, J., J.L. Graham, and M.C. Gilly. (1988). “The Influence of Gender on Behaviors and Outcomes in a Retail Buyer-Seller Negotiation Simulation.”Journal of Retailing 64, 427–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft, G.B., and M.A. Neale. (1991). “Negotiating Successful Research Collaboration.” Working Paper No. 78, Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.

  • Oskamp, S., and C. Kleinke. (1970). “Amount of Reward in a Variable in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G. (1967). “Reward Structure and Cooperation: The Decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma Game.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7, 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D.G., and J.Z. Rubin. (1986).Social Conflict. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., and A.M. Chammah. (1965). “Sex Differences in Factors Contributing to the Level of Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 831–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J.Z., and B.R. Brown. (1975).The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. (1993). “Speech Patterns and the Concept of Utility in Cognitive Maps: The Case of Integrative Bargaining.”Academy of Management Journal 36, 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L. (1985). “Toward a Woman Centered Organization Theory.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego.

  • Strodtbeck, F.L., and R.D. Mann. (1956). “Sex Role Differentiation in Jury Deliberations.”Sociometry 19, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, J.T., T. Bonoma, and S. Lindskold. (1970). “Threateners' Reactions to Prior Announcement of Behavioral Compliance or Defiance.”Behavioral Science 15, 171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (1990). “Negotiation Behavior: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues.”Psychological Bulletin 108, 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., and T. DeHarpport. (1991). “Effects of Relationship, Task Expectancy, and Communal Orientation on Interpersonal Conflict.” Working Paper, Department of Psychology, University of Washington.

  • Valley, K.L. (1991). “Relationships and Resources: A Network Exploration of Allocation Decisions.” Working Paper, Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.

  • Valley, K.L., and M.A. Neale. (1991). “The Role of Relationships in Negotiations at Work.” Working Paper, Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.

  • Warr, P.B. (1971). “Pollyanna's Personal Judgments.”European Journal of Social Psychology 1, 327–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wish, M., M. Deutsch, and S.J. Kaplan. (1976). “Perceived Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, 409–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, F.Y., D.R. McCreary, and K.G. Duffy. (1990). “A Further Validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A Multitrait-Multimethod Study.”Sex Roles 22, 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., B.M. DePaulo, and R. Rosenthal. (1981). “Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 14. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greenhalgh, L., Gilkey, R.W. The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics. Group Decis Negot 2, 167–183 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884770

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884770

Key words

Navigation