Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 51–63 | Cite as

Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation

  • Peter J. CarnevaleEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study examined decision frame (“gain” vs. “loss”) and negotiator affect (positive vs. control) in a simulated bilateral negotiation where negotiators dealt with a programmed opponent and made offers and counteroffers on three issues that differed in value. Direct comparisons between the gain and loss frame conditions, in the control-affect condition, revealed a replication of the standard frame effect: a loss frame produced fewer concessions than a gain frame. However, an interaction effect indicated that the frame effect reversed in the positive affect condition: under positive affect, a loss frame produced greater concessions than a gain frame. In addition, the data indicated a replication of earlier work showing that positive affect can lead to more integrative agreements in negotiation. The results suggest that positive affect can influence location of a reference point in evaluating prospective outcomes; one implication is that prospect theory can be useful for understanding the effects of affect in bilateral negotiation.

Keywords

Negotiation Frame Affect Mood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F and Raia CP (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 70: 175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkes H, Herren L and Isen A (1988). The role of potential loss in the influence of affect on risk-taking behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 42: 181–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby FG, Isen AM and Turken U (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychol Rev 106: 529–550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron RA (1990). Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation and conflict. J Appl Social Psychol 20(5): 368–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman M, Magliozzi T and Neale MA (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 35: 294–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottom WP (1998). Negotiator risk: sources of uncertainty and the impact of reference points on negotiated agreements. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 76: 89–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Budescu DV and Weiss W (1987). Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: a test of prospect theory. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 39: 184–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnevale PJ (1995) Property, culture and negotiation. In: Kramer R, Messick DM (eds) Negotiation as a social process, pp 309–323Google Scholar
  9. Carnevale PJ and Conlon D (1988). Time pressure and strategic choice in mediation. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 42: 111–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnevale PJ and De Dreu CKW (2006a). Motive: the negotiator’s raison d’être. In: Thompson, L (eds) Frontiers of social psychology: negotiation theory and research, pp 55–76. Psychology Press, New York pp Google Scholar
  11. Carnevale PJ and De Dreu CKW (2006b). Laboratory experiments on negotiation and social conflict. In: Carnevale, PJ and De Dreu, CKW (eds) Methods of negotiation research, pp. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden The Netherlands Google Scholar
  12. Carnevale PJ and Isen AM (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 37: 1–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnevale PJ, Keenan P (1990) Decision frame and social motivation in integrative bargaining. Paper presented at the third meeting of the international association for conflict management, Vancouver, Canada, June, 1990Google Scholar
  14. Carnevale PJ and Pegnetter R (1985). The selection of mediation tactics in public-sector labor disputes: a contingency analysis. J Social Issues 41: 65–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carnevale PJ, Vliert E, De Dreu CKW and Emans BJM (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 60: 90–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCusker C and De Dreu CKW (1997). Gain-loss frames on cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: a transformational analysis. J Pers Social Psychol 72: 1093–1106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ and Martino B (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313: 684–687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman D (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: a metaanalysis. J Conflict Resol 38: 507–556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erez A and Isen AM (2002). The influence of positive affect on components of expectancy motivation. J Appl Psychol 87(6): 1055–1067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forgas JP (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and behavior. J Pers Social Psychol 74: 565–577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haselhuhn MP and Mellers BA (2005). Emotions and cooperation in economic games. Cogn Brain Res 23: 24–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilty J and Carnevale PJ (1993). Black-hat/white-hat strategy in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 55: 444–469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isen AM and Geva N (1987). The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: the person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 39: 145–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isen AM, Nygren TE and Ashby FG (1988). The influence of positive affect on the perceived utility of gains and losses. J Pers Social Psychol 55: 710–717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isen AM, Shalker T, Clark M and Karp L (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory and behavior: a cognitive loop. J Pers Social Psychol 36: 1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D and Tversky A (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman D and Tversky A (1995). Conflict resolution: a cognitive perspective. In: Arrow, K (eds) Barriers to conflict resolution, Chapter 3, pp. Norton, New York Google Scholar
  28. Kliger D and Levy O (2003). Mood-induced variation in risk preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 52: 573–584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kopelman S, Rosette A and Thompson L (2006). The three faces of eve: strategic displays of positive neutral and negative emotions in negotiations. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 99: 81–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koszegi B and Rabin M (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart J Econ 121: 1133–1165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kramer R, Newton E and Pommerenke P (1993). Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: effects of self-esteem and mood. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 56(1): 110–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kühberger A (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 75: 23–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuhlman DM and Carnevale PJ (1984). Differences in nonverbal demeanor between cooperators, competitors and individualists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada Google Scholar
  34. Lanzetta JT and Englis BG (1989). Expectations of cooperation and competition and their effects on observers’ vicarious emotional responses. J Pers Social Psychol 56: 543–554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lerner JS, Small DA and Loewenstein G (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: effects of specific emotions on economic transactions. Psychol Sci 15: 337–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin IP, Schneider SL and Gaeth GJ (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 76: 149–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ledgerwood A, Liviatan I, Carnevale PJ (2007) Group identity completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychol SciGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin LL, Ward W, Achee JW and Wyer RS (1993). Mood as input: people have to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. J Pers Social Psychol 64: 317–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCusker C and Carnevale PJ (1995). Framing in resource dilemmas: loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 61: 190–201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neale MA, Huber VL and Northcraft GB (1987). The framing of negotiations: contextual vs. task frames. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 39: 228–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Novemsky N and Kahneman D (2005). How do intentions affect loss aversion. J Marketing Res 42: 139–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olekalns M (1994). Context, issues and frame as determinants of negotiated outcomes. Brit J Social Psychol 33: 197–210 Google Scholar
  43. Olekalns M (1997). Situational cues as moderators of the frame-outcome relationship. Brit J Social Psychol 36: 191–209 Google Scholar
  44. O’Quin K and Aronoff J (1981). Humor as a technique of social influence. Social Psychol Quart 44: 349–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pillutla MM and Murnighan JK (1996). Unfairness, anger and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 68: 208–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pruitt DG (1981). Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New York Google Scholar
  47. Pruitt DG and Lewis SA (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. J Pers Social Psychol 31: 621–633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rottenstreich Y and Hsee CK (2001). Money, kisses and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12: 185–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sanna LJ, Parks CD and Chang EC (2003). Mixed-motive conflict in social dilemmas: mood as input to competitive and cooperative goals. Group Dyn: Theory, Res Practice 7: 26–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shelley GP, Kuhlman DM (2003) Nonverbal encoding and decoding of social value orientation. Poster presented at the10th international conference on social dilemmas, Marstrand, Sweden, August.Google Scholar
  51. Shiv B, Loewenstein G, Bechara A, Damasio H and Damasio AR (2005). Investment behavior and the negative side of the emotion. Psychol Sci 16: 435–439 Google Scholar
  52. Smith DL, Pruitt DG and Carnevale PJ (1982). Matching and mismatching: the effect of own limit, other’s toughness, and time pressure on concession rate in negotiation. J Pers Social Psychol 42: 876–883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thaler R (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1: 36–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trötschel R, Gollwitzer PM (2007) Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. J Exp Social Psychol (in press)Google Scholar
  55. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quart J Econ 106: 1039–1061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Kleef GA, Manstead ASR and De Dreu CKW (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Social Psychol 86(1): 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management & Organization, Marshall School of BusinessUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations