Abstract
In this article we investigate the effects of negotiator trust and mediation on negotiating behavior and perceptions. We conduct three experiments in sequence with each succeeding study building on the results of the prior study. All used the same simulated dispute between a bar owner and customers. In the first experiment we found that negotiators who trusted the bar owner’s integrity moved further on an acceptable offer scale than those that did not. Results from a second experiment showed a strong main effect for trust but no difference for the presence vs. absence of a mediator. The third experiment also found strong trust effects but no differences among three mediation approaches; facilitative, directive or transformative. However, directive mediators were seen as less helpful and influential than both facilitative and transformative mediators. The trust findings were statistically mediated by a negotiator’s mindset, which consisted of perceptions of negotiation as a win-lose contest or problem-solving debate. These findings are discussed in terms of the power of trust and the value of main effects for advancing knowledge about negotiation and mediation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson RP (1999) God must have loved main effects. Distinguished Scientist Award Presentation D 5,American Psychological Association. Boston
Ade V, Schuster C, Harinck F, Troetschel R (2018) Mindset-oriented negotiation training (MONT): Teaching more than skills and knowledge. Front Psychol: 9 (article 907). Doi:10t.3389/fpsyg.2018,00907
Ashford JB, Faith RL (2004) Testing models of justice and trust. a study of mediation in child dependency disputes. Natl Assoc Soc Work Soc Work Res28(1):18– 27
Baruch Bush, R.A. and Pope, S.G.(2002).Changing the quality of conflict interaction: The principles and practice of transformative mediation Pepp. Disp. Resol. L. J. 3 (1): 67–95.
Bendahmane D., McDonald JW (1986) Perspectives on Negotiation: Four Cases and Interpretations.Washington DC: Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State
Caspi PV, Olekalns, M, Druckman, D. (2016) After the fall: Regulatory focus and trustworthiness as determinants of negotiators’ response to a crisis. J Trust Res 7 (1): 51–70
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Cronin MA, Weingart R (2007) The differential effects of trust and respect on team conflict In K. J. Behfar, L. L. Thompson, Conflict in Organizational Groups: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
De Rouen K, Bercovitch J, Pospiesza P (2011) Introducing the civil wars mediation(CWM) Dataset. J Peace Res 48(5):663–672
Dirks, K., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D, & Ferrin, D.L. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, pp 87–103.
Druckman D (1968). Prenegotiation experience and dyadic conflict resolution in a bargaining situation. J Expt Soc Psychol 4 (4): 367–383
Druckman D (1993) The situational levers of negotiating flexibility. J Confl Res 37(2): 236–276
Druckman, D (1995) Situational levers of position change: Further explorations. The Annals of the Amer Acad of Pol and Soc Sci 542:61–80
Druckman D, Albin C (2011) Distributive justice and the durability of peace agreements. Rev Inter Stud 37: 1137–1168
Druckman D, Olekalns M (2013) Motivational primes, trust, and negotiators’ reaction to a crisis. J Confl Resolut 57 (6): 966–990
Druckman D, Broome BJ., Korper SH (1988) Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking? J Confl Resolut 32 (3): 489–510
Druckman, D., Parlamis, J., and Burns, Z. (2022). Can loyal party members be flexible negotiators? Impacts of constituent support, term limits, and bipartisan roles. Inter J Conft Manag, in press
Druckman D, Lewicki, RJ, Doyle SP (2019) Repairing violations of trustworthiness innegotiation. J Appli Soc Psychol 49 (3): 145–158
Druckman D, Mitterhofer,R, Filzmoser M, Koeszegi ST (2014) Resolving impasses in negotiation: Does e-mediation work? Group Decis Negot 23 (2): 193–210
Druckman D, Adrian L, Damholdt MF, Filzmoser M, Koszegi,ST, Seibt J, Vestergaard C (2021) Who is best at mediating a social conflict? Comparing robots, screend and humans.Group Dec Negot 30 (2): 395–426
Galinsky AS, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J Pers Socl Psychol 81 (4): 657–689
Grieg JM, Owsiak AP, Diehl PF (2019) International conflict management. Wiley, New York
Harinck F, Druckman D (2017) Do negotiating interventions matter? Resolving conflicting interests and values. J Confl Resolut 61 (1): 29–55
Harinck F, Druckman D (2019) Values and interests: Impacts of affirming the other and mediation on settlements. Group Dec Negot 28 (3): 453–474
Irmer C, Druckman D (2009) Explaining negotiation outcomes: Process or context? Negot Confl Manag Res 2 (3): 209–235
Kong DT, Lount RB, Olekalns M, Ferrin DL (2017) Advancing the scientific understanding of trust in the contexts of negotiation and repeated bargaining. J Trust Res 7 (1):15–21
Kressel K, Henderson T, Reich W, Cohen C (2013) Multidimensional analysis of mediator style. Confl ResolutQ (3): 135–171
Lu SC, Kong DT, Ferrin DL, Dirks KT (2017) What are the determinants of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations? Meta-analytic evidence and implications for future research.J Trust Res 7 (1): 22–50
Lewicki RJ, Stevenson MA (1997) Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions and a research agenda. Presented at the conference on Trust and Business: Barriers and Bridges.DePaul University, Chicago.
Lohvinenko, M., Starynskyi, M, Rudenko, L, Kordunian, I (2021) Models of mediations:ATheoretical and legal analysis. Confl Resolut Q (39): 51–65
Mazei, J., Huffmeier, J., Freund, P.A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke, L., Hertel, G. (2015) A meta-analysis om gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychol Bull 141 (1): 85–104
McDermott EP (2012) Discovering the importance of mediator style – An interdisciplinary challenge. Negot Confl Managt Res (5): 340–353
Nugent WR, Williams M, Umbresit MS (2004) Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: a meta-analysis. Res Soc Work Pract 14(6):408–416
Shaw LA (2010) Divorce mediation outcome research: a meta-analysis. Confl Resolut Q 27(4):447–467
Thompson L, Hastie R (1990) Social perception in negotiation. Org Behav Hum Dec Proc 47. (1): 98–123.
Wall JA (1979) The effects of mediator rewards and suggestions upon negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(9):1554–1560
Wilkenfeld J, Young K, Asal V, Quinn D (2003) Mediating international crises: Cross -national and experimental perspectives. J Confl Resolut 47 (3): 279–301
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Endnote
There was a fourth item “If you had to make a counteroffer, what would your preferred percentage increase be?”,which could be answered by filling out any percentage between 0% and 100%. Unfortunately, we could not use this item in the acceptance scale, since only 42 out of 77 participants filled out this measure.
Appendix
Appendix
Dear participant,
Below you will find a description of a situation. Please read it carefully and imagine yourself being in that situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
Here is the situation:
You and your friends are regular customers at a bar called “The Barking Fish”. You have been meeting your friends here weekly for more than five years. The bar is cozy and has a relaxed atmosphere. They have your favorite beer on tap, and the waiters are very nice, so you and your friends are really happy with this meeting place. It is also one of the few bars in this town.
Recently however, the bar owner has decided to increase the prices by 30%. She says she wants to raise money for particular charities (her University, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Red Cross). You prefer that there be no increase in the prices for charitable donations. You and your friends are unhappy with this decision. You think it is ridiculous that you are somehow forced to donate to charity. You want to make your own decisions about whether to donate to charity, and if so, you want to decide how much and to which charity. In short, you think it is unfair that the owner increases the prices for this reason. As regular customers you have tried to negotiate about the prices, but that has not worked so far.
In the previous round of talks you developed an understanding of the bar owner’s intentions. You asked why she felt a need to raise the prices. Her response was: “As the owner I have the right to set the prices. I can decide to increase or decrease them at any time for any reason”. She continued by saying that “the increase satisfies my need to make charitable donations. I would like to donate to three charities, my University, veterans of foreign wars, and the Red Cross.” You have been told that in an earlier fundraising activity, she has indeed given a large amount of money to support the charities. You appreciated her desire to help others and regarded her response to be genuine. You concluded that she was a person of integrity and could be trusted. (Trust Condition)
In the previous round of talks you became suspicious about the bar owner’s intentions. You asked why she felt the need to raise the prices. Her response was: “As the owner I have the right to set the prices. I can increase or decrease them at any time for any reason.” In what appeared to be an act of desperation, she replied that “she could donate a portion of the profits to three charities of her choosing, which are my University, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Red Cross.” However, you have been told that in an earlier fundraising activity, she has used a large amount of the money raised to support her own business rather than the charities. As the discussion went on, you became increasingly suspicious of her motives. You concluded that she lacks integrity and is not to be trusted. (Distrust Condition)
Added in experiment 2: Presence of Mediator Condition.
Little progress has been made in the most recent discussions. The way to break this impasse was to arrange for a mediator. Both of you agreed with this decision and the talks will continue.
The mediator that has been arranged is Casey Van Dyke. During the meeting, you and the bar owner can use Casey’s services as needed. Casey can make suggestions but will not make decisions for the two of you. It is your decision on whether to reach an agreement on any price increases.
Added in experiment 2: Absence of Mediator Condition.
Little progress has been made in the most recent discussions. The way to break this impasse was to arrange for a new meeting. Both of you agreed with this decision and the talks continued.
You are being asked to negotiate an acceptable agreement with the bar owner. It is your decision whether to reach an agreement on any price increases. The two of you have agreed not to seek the services of a third party such as a mediator to help with the negotiations.
Given your level of trust in the bar owner, what would you do? Please answer the questions below while keeping in mind your level of trust in the bar owner.
Experiment 3 Manipulation of Mediator Style.
Text added to scenario in facilitative conditions.
Little progress has been made in the most recent discussions. The only way to break this impasse was to arrange for a mediator. Both of you agreed with this decision and the talks will continue.
The mediator that has been arranged is Casey Van Dyke. During the meeting with Casey, you and the bar owner do most of the talking, and Casey listens. When you reached yet another impasse, the mediator asked “how you would like to continue, and what could you do to resolve the impasse.” Each of you had a different response to this question although you agree on the value of donating a share of profits to charities. Casey listened but did not offer new ideas. This mediator is focused on facilitating the process but refrains from giving direct advice or suggestions. It is your decision whether to reach an agreement on any price increases.
In short: The mediator facilitates the meeting rather than directing it or trying to transform the conflict.
Text added to scenario in directive mediator condition.
Little progress has been made in the most recent discussions. The only way to break this impasse was to arrange for a mediator. Both of you agreed with this decision and the talks will continue.
The mediator that has been arranged is Casey Van Dyke. During the meeting Casey gave you and the bar owner instructions and sets the agenda. When you and the bar owner reached yet another impasse, the mediator told you how to continue and the actions needed in order to break through the impasse. Each of you had a different response to this situation although you agree on the value of donating a share of profits to charities. Casey listened and guided the two of you on moving forward. This mediator is focused on directing the talks and steering them toward an agreement on any price increases and the actions needed to get you there.
In short: The mediator directs the meeting rather than facilitating it or trying to transform the conflict.
Text added to scenario in transformational mediator condition.
Little progress has been made in the most recent discussions. The only way to break this impasse was to arrange for a mediator. Both of you agreed with this decision and the talks will continue.
The mediator that has been arranged is Casey Van Dyke. During the meeting with Casey, Casey listens and helps the parties to identify the opportunities for empowerment and recognition and supports your process of decision-making and communication. The mediator reflects on what each party has communicated and pays full attention to the parties, but does not have a pre-determined agenda. Casey empowers you to focus attention on your relationship with the bar owner. You are encouraged to discuss how to repair any damage that this issue has caused and seek to work together with mutual respect. Casey seeks to transform this conflictual interaction into a more constructive one where each of you affirms the positive aspects of your relationship. .
In short: Rather than to direct or facilitate the meeting, the mediator helps to transform the conflictual interaction by empowering the parties to handle the situation constructively.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Druckman, D., Harinck, F. Trust Matters in Negotiation. Group Decis Negot 31, 1179–1202 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09796-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09796-9