Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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: 175–187

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bazerman M, Magliozzi T and Neale MA (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 35: 294–313

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carnevale PJ (1995) Property, culture and negotiation. In: Kramer R, Messick DM (eds) Negotiation as a social process, pp 309–323

  9. Carnevale PJ and Conlon D (1988). Time pressure and strategic choice in mediation. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 42: 111–133

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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, 1990

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Druckman D (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: a metaanalysis. J Conflict Resol 38: 507–556

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haselhuhn MP and Mellers BA (2005). Emotions and cooperation in economic games. Cogn Brain Res 23: 24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hilty J and Carnevale PJ (1993). Black-hat/white-hat strategy in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 55: 444–469

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahneman D and Tversky A (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koszegi B and Rabin M (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart J Econ 121: 1133–1165

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kühberger A (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes 75: 23–55

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ledgerwood A, Liviatan I, Carnevale PJ (2007) Group identity completion and the symbolic value of property. Psychol Sci

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Novemsky N and Kahneman D (2005). How do intentions affect loss aversion. J Marketing Res 42: 139–140

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rottenstreich Y and Hsee CK (2001). Money, kisses and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12: 185–190

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Thaler R (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1: 36–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Trötschel R, Gollwitzer PM (2007) Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. J Exp Social Psychol (in press)

  55. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quart J Econ 106: 1039–1061

    Article  Google 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): 57–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Carnevale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carnevale, P.J. Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17, 51–63 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9090-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Negotiation
  • Frame
  • Affect
  • Mood