Power and the Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations

Abstract

This study examines how the illusion of transparency in negotiation differs depending on whether one is the powerful or less powerful negotiator. The illusion of transparency is the tendency for individuals to overestimate the extent to which their internal states and intentions are apparent to an outside observer. Thus, this illusion equals the difference between perceived and actual transparency. We predict that less powerful negotiators experience more perceived transparency than do powerful negotiators and that powerful negotiators exhibit greater actual transparency than do less powerful negotiators. The main hypothesis that the illusion of transparency is greater for less powerful negotiators than for powerful negotiators was supported.

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

REFERENCES

  1. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518–529. 144 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barr, C. & Kleck, R. (1995). Self-other perception of the intensity of facial expressions of emotions: Do we know what we show? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 608–618.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, B. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Camerer, C., Lowenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relationships. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fiske, S., Morling, B., & Stevens, L. (1996). Controlling self and others: A theory of anxiety, mental control, and social control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grigsby, D. (1983). Improving individual performance. In M. Bazerman and R. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiation in organizations, pp. 320–338. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hall, J. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165–208.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Keysar, B. & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89–109.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keysar, B., Ginzel, L., & Bazerman, M. (1995). States of affairs and states of the mind: The effect of knowledge of beliefs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lewicki, R. & Litterer, J. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenthal, R., Hall, J., DiMatteo, M., Rogers, P., & Archer, D. (1979). Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rubin, J. & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Snodgrass, S. (1985). Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146–155.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Snodgrass, S. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154–158.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Snodgrass, S., Hecht, M., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238–249.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tyler, T. (1988). The psychology of authority relations: A relational perspective on influence and power in groups. In Power and Influence in Organizations, pp. 251–260. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vorauer, J. (in press). The other side of the story: Transparency estimation in social interaction. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Future directions in social cognition.

  26. Vorauer, J. & Claude, S. (1998). Perceived versus actual transparency of goals in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 371–385.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vorauer, J. & Ross, M. (1993). Making mountains out of molehills: An informational goals analysis of self-and social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 620–632.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Garcia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garcia, S.M. Power and the Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations. Journal of Business and Psychology 17, 133–144 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016204417910

Download citation

  • transparency in negotiation
  • mixed-power relationships