Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 179–196 | Cite as

A Satisfied Mind: Motivational Orientation, Feedback and the Subjective Value of Negotiation Outcomes

  • Mara OlekalnsEmail author
  • Philip L. Smith
Article
  • 410 Downloads

Abstract

Although negotiation research has systematically investigated the factors that contribute to negotiators’ satisfaction with economic outcomes, relatively less attention has been given to the factors that influence their satisfaction with social outcomes. In this research, we used a computer-based task to present pairs of outcomes (own outcome, other’s outcome) to participants and asked them to rate their satisfaction with their own outcomes, their self-image and an opponent’s perceived willingness to negotiate in the future. Because satisfaction is context-sensitive, we tested how two factors influenced these ratings: motivational orientation, whether negotiators held cooperative or individualistic goals, and feedback, whether negotiators received feedback only about an opponent’s economic outcome or received feedback about both an opponent’s economic outcome and satisfaction with the outcome. Our analysis showed informative parallels between the satisfaction ratings of participants who were cooperatively-oriented or received feedback about an opponent’s satisfaction with outcomes, and between those who were individualistically-oriented or received outcome-only feedback. Whereas participants’ satisfaction changed most rapidly with increasing joint gain when they were cooperatively-oriented or received outcome satisfaction feedback, participants’ satisfaction changed most rapidly with increasing outcome differences when they were individualistically-oriented or received outcome-only feedback. Several three-way interactions showed that the most rapid changes in negotiators’ satisfaction occur when interdependence is highlighted, that is, when cooperatively-motivated negotiators receive information about an opponent’s outcome satisfaction.

Keywords

Negotiation Motivational orientation Subjective utility Feedback 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Discovery Grant Australian Research Council (Grant No. 1093256).

References

  1. Anderson WD, Patterson ML (2008) Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments. J Soc Psychol 148:223–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balakrishnan PL, Patton C, Lewis PA (1993) Toward a theory of agenda setting in negotiations. J Consum Res 19:637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnevale PJ, Lawler EJ (1986) Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiation. J Confl Resolut 30:636–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll JS, Payne JW (1991) An information processing approach to two-party negotiations. Res Negot Organ 3:3–34Google Scholar
  5. Conlon DE, Hunt CS (2002) Dealing with feeling: the influence of outcome representations on negotiation. Int J Confl Manag 13:38–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curhan JR, Pentland A (2007) Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. J Appl Psychol 92:802–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curhan JR, Elfenbein HA, Xu H (2006) What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 91:493–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curhan JR, Neale MA, Ross L, Rosencranz-Engelmann J (2008) Relational accommodation in negotiation: effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Org Behav Hum Decisi Proc 107:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curhan JR, Elfenbein HA, Kilduff G (2009) Getting off on the right foot: subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. J Appl Psychol 94:524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curhan JR, Elfenbein HA, Eisenkraft N (2010) The objective value of subjective value: a multi-round negotiation study. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:690–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Dreu CKW, Boles TL (1998) Share and share alike or winner take all? The influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR, Kwon S (2000) Influence of social motives on integrative negotiations: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortang RS, Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2003) Negotiating the spirit of the deal. Harv Bus Rev 81:66–75Google Scholar
  14. Gillespie J, Brett JM, Weingart LR (2000) Interdependence, social motives, and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:779–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gino F, Pierce L (2010) Lying to level the playing field: why people may dishonestly help or hurt others to create equity. J Bus Ethics 95:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iedema J, Poppe M (1994) Effects of social value orientation on expecting and learning others’ orientations. Eur J Soc Psychol 24:565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikle FC, Leites N (1962) Political negotiation as a process of modifying utilities. J Confl Resolut 6:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelley HH, Stahelski A (1970a) Errors in perception of intentions in a mixed motive game. J Exp Soc Psychol 16:411–438Google Scholar
  19. Kelley HH, Stahelski AJ (1970b) Social interaction basis of cooperators and competitors beliefs about others. J Pers Soc Psychol 16:66–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolb DM, Williams J (2001) Breakthrough bargaining. Harv Bus Rev 79:89–97Google Scholar
  21. Koning L, Van Dijk E (2013) Motivated cognition in negotiation. In: Olekalns M, Adair WL (eds) Handbook of research on negotiation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis SA, Fry WR (1977) Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Perform 20:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loewenstein GF, Thompson L, Bazerman MH (1989) Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McClintock CG, Liebrand WB (1988) Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: a transformational analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messick DM, McClintock CG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc Psychol 4:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Messick D, Sentis K (1979) Fairness and preference. J Exp Soc Psychol 15:418–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Messick D, Sentis K (1985) Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data. Eur J Soc Psychol 15:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morley IE, Stephenson JM (1977) The social psychology of bargaining. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mumpower JL, Sheffield J, Darling TA, Milter RG (2004) The accuracy of post-negotiation estimates of other negotiator’s payoffs. Group Decis Negot 13:259–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novemsky N, Schweitzer ME (2004) What makes negotiators happy? The differential effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 95:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connor KM (1997) Motives and cognitions in negotiation: a theoretical integration and an empirical test. Int J Confl Manag 8:114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connor KM, Arnold JA, Burris ER (2005) Negotiators’ bargaining histories and their effects on future negotiation performance. J Appl Psychol 90:350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olekalns M, Brett JM (2008) Beyond the deal: next generation negotiation skills. Negot Confl Manag Res 1:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olekalns M, Smith PL (1999) Social value orientations and strategy choices in competitive negotiations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:657–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olekalns M, Smith PL (2003a) Social motives in negotiation: the relationship between dyad composition, negotiation processes and outcomes. Int J Confl Manag 14:233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olekalns M, Smith PL (2003b) Testing the relationships among negotiators’ motivational orientations, strategy choices and outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol 39:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olekalns M, Smith PL (2011) Psychological aspects of negotiation strategy. In: Christie DJ (ed) Encyclopedia of peace psychology. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  38. Olekalns M, Brett JM, Weingart L (2003) Phases, transitions and interruptions: the processes that shape agreement in multi-party negotiations. Int J Confl Manag 14:191–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parks CD, Rumble AC (2001) Elements of reciprocity and social value orientation. Pers Soc Psych Bull 27:1301–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pietroni D, Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW (2008) Response modes in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Pruitt DG, Lewis SA (1975) Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 31:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schei V, Rognes J, Shapiro D (2011) Can individualists and cooperators play together? The effect of mixed social motives in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 47:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulz JW, Pruitt DG (1978) The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare. J Exp Soc Psychol 14:480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson L, DeHarpport T (1994) Social judgment, feedback, and interpersonal learning in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 58:327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson L, Hastie R (1990) Social perception in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:98–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tinsley C, O’Connor K, Sullivan N (2002) Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 88:621–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tzafrir SS, Sanchez RJ, Tirosh-Unger K (2012) Social motives and trust: implications for joint gains in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 21:839–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Kleef G, De Dreu C (2002) Social value orientation and impression formation: a test of two competing hypotheses about information search in negotiation. Int J Confl Manag 13:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Lange PA (1992) Confidence in expectations: a test of the triangle hypothesis. Eur J Pers 6:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weingart LR, Bennett RJ, Brett JM (1993) The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J Appl Psychol 78:504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weingart LR, Brett JM, Olekalns M, Smith PL (2007) Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 93:994–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Business SchoolThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne School of Psychological SciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations