Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 31–49 | Cite as

Response modes in negotiation

  • Davide Pietroni
  • Gerben A. Van Kleef
  • Carsten K. W. De DreuEmail author


Negotiators may respond to each other’s offers and demands in different ways. Whereas many negotiation experiments present participants with numerical information about offers and counteroffers (e.g., “I propose 6–8–2”; numerical response mode), real life negotiations often involve affective and evaluative statements (e.g., “I didn’t like your last offer, but I would be happy to explore alternatives”; affective response mode). The present research explores the differential consequences of responding in affective as opposed to numerical terms. Specifically, we predicted and found that affective responses increase the impact of social and contextual cues on negotiation behavior. Three studies demonstrate that the impact of other’s toughness (Experiment 1), other’s respectability (Experiment 2), and other’s appearance (Experiment 3) on a negotiator’s demands and concessions is greater when the other provides affective rather than numerical feedback.


Negotiation Affect Information processing Social cues 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F, Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organ Behavi Human Decis Process 70:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkwell JW (1995) Strong tests of expectation states theory. Soc Psychol Quart 58:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron RA (1990) Environmentally induced positive affect: it’s impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation, and conflict. J Appl Soc Psychol 20:368–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron RA, Fortin SP, Frei RL, Hauver LA, Shack ML (1990) Reducing organizational conflict: the role of socially-induced positive affect. Int J Conflict Manage 1:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman MH, Curhan JR, Moore DA, Valley KL (2000) Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol 51:279–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Yoav O, Pruitt D (1984) Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 34:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnevale PJ, Isen AM (1986) The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 37:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow-Chua F (1997) Empirical evaluation of choice and judgment under ambiguity. Dissertation abstracts international section A: humanities & social sciences 57:4487Google Scholar
  9. De Dreu CKW, Carnevale PJ (2003) Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, Academic Press, New York vol. 35 pp 235–291Google Scholar
  10. De Dreu CKW, Carnevale PJ (2005) Disparate methods and common findings in the study of negotiation. Int Negotiation 10:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Dreu CKW, Koole S, Steinel W (2000) Unfixing the fixed-pie: toward a motivated information-processing model of integrative negotiation. J Pers Soc Psycho 79:975–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Dreu CKW, Nauta A, Van de Vliert E (1995) Self-serving evaluation of conflict behavior and escalation of the dispute. J Appl Soc Psycho 25:2049–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Dreu CKW, Van Kleef GA (2004) The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Dreu CKW, Van Lange PAM (1995) The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 21:1178–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Dreu CKW, Giebels E, Van de Vliert E (1998) Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: the disruptive effects of punitive capability. J Appl Psychol 83:408–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Gilder TC, Wilke HAM (1990) Processing sequential status information. Soc Psychol Quart 53:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druckman D (2005) Doing research: methods of inquiry for conflict analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman D, Bonoma TV (1976) Determinants of bargaining behavior in a bilateral monopoly situation II: opponent’s concession rate and similarity. Behav Sci 21:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Druckman D, Zechmeister K, Solomon D (1972) Determinants of bargaining behavior in a bilateral monopoly situation: opponent’s concession rate and relative defensibility. Behav Sci 17:514–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 8:709–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisek M, Berger J, Norman RZ (1995) Evaluations and the formation of expectations. Am J Soc 101:721–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedman R, Anderson C, Brett J, OlekalnsM, Goates N, Lisco CC (2004) The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes. J Appl Psychol 89:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammond KR, Hamm RM, Grassia J, Pearson T (1987) Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytic cognition in expert judgement. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 17:753–770Google Scholar
  26. Isen AM, Daubman KA, Nowicki GP (1987) Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:1122–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kopelman S, Rosette AS, Thompson L (2006) The three faces of eve: an examination of the strategic display of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 99:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewicki R, Saunders D, Minton JW (eds) (1999) Negotiation: readings, exercises, and cases. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Liebert RM, Smith WP, Hill JH, Keiffer M (1968) The effects of information and magnitude of initial offer on interpersonal negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 4:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mittal B (1988) The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. J Econ Psych 9:499–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1987) Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ Behav Hum Dec 39:84–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Pietroni D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu (2006) Emotions as strategic information: effects of other’s emotions on fixed-pie perception and integrative behavior in negotiation. (manuscript under review)Google Scholar
  34. Pillutla MM, Murnighan JK (1996) Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organ Beha Hum Dec 68:208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academy Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Pruitt DG (1998) Social conflict. In: Gilbert D, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) Handbook of social psychology 4th edn., vol 2. pp. 89–150 McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ (1993) Negotiation in social conflict. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  38. Pruitt DG, Syna H (1985) Mismatching the partner’s offers in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 21:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ridgeway C (1991) The social construction of status value: gender and other nominal characteristics. Soc Forces 70:367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schelling T (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Sinaceur M, Tiedens LZ (2006) Get mad and get more than even: when and why anger expression is effective in negotiations. J Exp Soc Psychol 42:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Kahneman D (eds.) Intuitive judgment: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith DL, Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ (1982) Matching and mismatching: The effect of own limit, other’s toughness, and time pressure on concession rate in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:876–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning. The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90:293–315Google Scholar
  45. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004a)The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004b) The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 87:510–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Pietroni D, Manstead ASR (2006) power and emotion in negotiations: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. Eur J Soc Psychol 36:557–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Kleef GA, Van Dijk E, Steinel W, Harinck F, Van Beest I (this issue) Anger in social conflict: cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decis NegotiationGoogle Scholar
  49. Watson C (1994) Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behaviour and outcomes. Negotiation J 10:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yukl GA (1974) Effects of the partner’s initial offer, concession magnitude, and concession frequency on bargaining behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 30:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yurtsever G (2001)Tolerance of ambiguity, information, and negotiation. Psychol Rep 89:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Pietroni
    • 1
  • Gerben A. Van Kleef
    • 2
  • Carsten K. W. De Dreu
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.University of ChietiPescaraItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations