Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 3–20

Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on Negotiations

  • Rebecca J. Wolfe
  • Kathleen L. Mcginn
Article

Abstract

In an experimental study, we investigate perceived relative power in negotiations and its effect on the distribution of resources and the integrativeness of agreements. We contrast perceived relative power with the objective individual level measure of power often used in past research: the parties’ alternatives to a negotiated agreement. We found that alternatives affected the distribution of outcomes, while perceived relative power and alternatives affected the integrativeness of outcomes. We found that negotiating pairs who perceived a smaller difference in relative power reached agreements of greater integrativeness than pairs who perceived a greater power difference, even after controlling for alternatives and aspirations. We explore the implications of treating power in negotiations as a perceived and relational construct.

Keywords

alternatives aspirations negotiation perceptions power 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. and J. Berdahl. (2002). “The Experience of Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 1362–1377.Google Scholar
  3. Bachrach, S. B. and E. J. Lawler. (1981). Bargaining: Power, Tactics and Outcomes, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. B., M. H. Bazerman, and J. S. Carroll. (1991). “An Evaluation of Learning in the Bilateral Winner’s Curse,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 48, 1–22.Google Scholar
  5. Bargh, J. A., P. Raymond, J. B. Pryor, and F. Strack. (1995). “Attractiveness of the Underling: An Automatic Power Sex Association and its Consequences for Sexual Harassment and Aggression,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 768–781.Google Scholar
  6. Barron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. (1986). “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Yoav, O. and D. G. Pruitt. (1984). “Resistance to Yielding and the Expectation of Cooperative Future Interaction in Negotiation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20, 323–335.Google Scholar
  8. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Buunk, B. P., B. J. Doosje, L. G. J. M. Jans, and L. E. M. Hopstaken. (1993). “Perceived Reciprocity, Social Support, and Stress at Work: The Role of Exchange and Communal Orientation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 801–811.Google Scholar
  10. Camerer, C. and D. Lovallo. (1999). “Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach,” The American Economic Review 89, 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, P. T. (1998). “Implicit Theory and Situational Priming Effects on Power Sharing Decisions: An Experimental Study, Working Paper,” Columbia University.Google Scholar
  12. De Dreu, C. K. W. and P. J. Carnevale. (2003). “Motivational Bases of Information Processing and Strategy in Negotiation and Social Conflict,” in M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Emerson, R. M. (1962). “Power-Dependence Relations,” American Sociological Review 27, 31–40.Google Scholar
  14. Festinger, L. (1954). “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,” Human Relations 7, 117–140.Google Scholar
  15. Fiske, S. T. (1993). “Controlling Other People,” American Psychologist 48, 621–628.Google Scholar
  16. French, J. R. P. and B. H. Raven. (1959). “The Basis of Social Power,” in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frost, P. J. (1987). “Power, Politics and Influence,” in F. M. Jablin (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Galinsky, A.D., D. H. Gruenfeld, and J. C. Magee. (2003). “From Power to Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 453–466.Google Scholar
  19. Georgesen, J. C. and M. J. Harris. (2000).“The Balance of Power: Interpersonal Consequences of Differential Power and Expectancies,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 1239–1257.Google Scholar
  20. Giebels, E., C. K. W. De Dreu, and E. van de Vliert. (1998). “The Alternative Negotiator as the Invisible Third at the Table: The Impact of Potency Information,” International Journal of Conflict Management 9,5–21.Google Scholar
  21. Gill, M. J. and W. B. Swann. (2004). “On What it Means to Know Someone: A Matter of Pragmatics”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, 405–418.Google Scholar
  22. House, R. J. (1988). “Power and Personality in Complex Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 305–357.Google Scholar
  23. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Kelman, H. C. (1958). “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 51–60.Google Scholar
  25. Keltner, D. K., D. H. Gruenfeld, and C. Anderson. (2003). “Power, Approach and Inhibition,” Psychological Review 110, 265–284.Google Scholar
  26. Keltner, D. K. and R. J. Robinson. (1997). “Defending the Status Quo: Power and Bias in Social Conflict,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10, 1066–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kipnis, D. and S. M. Schmidt. (1983). “An Influence Perspective on Bargaining within Organizations,” in M. H. Bazerman and R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in Organizations, Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 303–319.Google Scholar
  28. Larson, A. (1992). “Network Dyads in Entreprenurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships,” Administrative Science Quarterly 37, 76–105.Google Scholar
  29. Lawler, E. J. and J. Yoon. (1993). “Power and the Emergence of Commitment Behavior in Negotiated Exchange,” American Sociological Review 58, 465–481.Google Scholar
  30. Mannix, E. A. and M. A. Neale. (1993). “Power Imbalance and the Pattern of Exchange in Dyadic Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 119–133.Google Scholar
  31. McAlister, L., M. H. Bazerman, and P. Fader. (1986). “Power and Goal Setting in Channel Negotiations,” Journal of Marketing Research 23, 228–236.Google Scholar
  32. McClelland, D. M. (1975). Power: The Inner Experience, New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar
  33. McGinn, K. L. and A. T. Keros. (2002). “Improvisation and the Logic of Exchange in Socially Embedded Transactions,” Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 442–473.Google Scholar
  34. Moore, D. A. (in press). “The Unexpected Benefits of Final Deadlines in Negotiation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  35. Musseweiler, T. (2003). “Comparison Processes in Social Judgment: Mechanisms and Consequences,” Psychological Review 110, 472–489.Google Scholar
  36. Neale, M. A. (1999). New Recruit. Evanston, IL: Dispute Resolution Research Center, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  37. Neale, M. A., V. Huber, and G. Northcraft. (1997). “The Framing of Negotiations: Contextual Versus Task Frames,” Organizational-Behavior-and-Human-Decision-Processes 39, 228–241.Google Scholar
  38. O’Connor, K. (1997). “Motives and Cognitions in Negotiation: A Theoretical Integration and an Empirical Test,” International Journal of Conflict Management 8, 114–131.Google Scholar
  39. Olekalns, M. (1991). “The Balance of Power: Effects of Role and Market Forces on Negotiated Outcomes,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 1012–1033.Google Scholar
  40. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pinkley, R. L. (1995). “Impact of Knowledge Regarding Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation: Whose Knowledge Counts?” Journal of Applied Psychology 80, 403–417.Google Scholar
  42. Pinkley, R. L., M. A. Neale, and R. J. Bennett. (1994). “The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57, 97–116.Google Scholar
  43. Pittutla, M. and J. K. Murnighan. (2003). Power Lost, Power Gained: Egocentric Action and Inconsistent Perceptions, Working Paper, Kellogg school of Management, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  44. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ritov, I. (1996). “Anchoring in Simulated Competitive Market Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66, 228–237.Google Scholar
  46. Ross, L. and R. E. Nisbett. (1991). The Person and the Situation, Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. Rubin, J. Z. and B. R. Brown. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rubin, J. Z., D. G. Pruitt, and S. H. Kim. (1994). Social Conflict: Escalation. Stalemate and Settlment, Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. Salancik, G. R. and J. Pfeffer. (1977). “Who Gets Power and How They Hold on to it: A Strategic Contingency Model of Power,” Organizational Dynamics 5, 3–25.Google Scholar
  50. Sondak, H. and M. H. Bazerman. (1991). “Power Balance and the Rationality of Outcomes in Matching Markets,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 1–23.Google Scholar
  51. Snodgrass, S. E., M. A. Hecht, and R. Ploutz-Snyder. (1998). “Interpersonal Sensitivity: Expressivity or Perceptivity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 238–249.Google Scholar
  52. Thibaut, J. W. and H. H. Kelley. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Thompson, L. and T. DeHarpport. (1994). “Social Judgment, Feedback, and Interpersonal Learning in Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58, 327–345.Google Scholar
  54. Weingart, L. R., L. L. Thompson, M. H. Bazerman, and J. S. Carroll. (1990). “Tactical Behavior and Negotiation Outcomes,” The International Journal of Conflict Management 1, 7–31.Google Scholar
  55. Winter, D. G. (1973). The Power Motive, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zartman, I. W. and J. Z. Rubin (eds.). (2000). Power and Negotiation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zetik, D. C. and A. F. Sthuhlmacher. (2002). “Goal Setting and Negotiation Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 5, 35–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca J. Wolfe
    • 1
  • Kathleen L. Mcginn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Business AdministrationHarvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations