Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Past Negotiations on Negotiation Counterpart Preferences

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choosing the right counterpart can have a significant impact on negotiation success. Unfortunately, little research has studied such negotiation counterpart decisions. Three studies examined the influence of past negotiations on preferences to negotiate again with a counterpart. Study 1 found that the more favorable a past negotiated agreement the stronger the preference to negotiate with the counterpart in the future. Moreover, this relation was mediated through liking of the counterpart. Study 2 manipulated the difficulty of achieving a favorable agreement in the negotiation and found a significant effect of this situational factor such that subsequent counterpart preferences were less favorable when the negotiation was difficult. Similar to Study 1, this effect was mediated through liking of the counterpart. Study 3 examined the possibility of debiasing negotiator preferences from the biasing influence of situational characteristics by providing relevant information about the negotiation situation. Replicating the results of Study 2, negotiation difficulty affected counterpart preferences before additional information was given or when irrelevant information was given. However, once negotiators received relevant information on the negotiation situation, the effect of negotiation difficulty disappeared. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51: 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry B, Oliver RL (1996) Affect in dyadic negotiation: a model and propositions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67: 127–143. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Neale MA, Valley KL, Zajac EJ, Kim YM (1992) The effects of agents and mediators on negotiation outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 53: 55–73. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90054-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid E, Walster E (1974) Physical attractiveness. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 7. Academic Press, New York, pp 157–212

  • Brockner J, Swap WC (1976) Effects of repeated exposure and attitudinal similarity on self-disclosure and interpersonal attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 33:532–540. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.531

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne D (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne D, Griffitt W (1973) Interpersonal attraction. Annu Rev Psychol 24:317–336. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman D, Broome BJ (1991) Value differences and conflict resolution: familiarity or liking?. J Conflict Resolut 35: 571–593. doi:10.1177/0022002791035004001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erev I, Barron G (2005) On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychol Rev 112:912–931. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.912

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev I, Roth AE (1998) Predicting how people play games: reinforcement learning in games with unique strategy equilibrium. Am Econ Rev 88: 848–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes WK (1964) Probability learning. In: Melton AW(eds) Categories of human learning. Academic Press, New York, pp 89–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T, Medvec VH (2002a) Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:1131–1140. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky AD, Seiden VL, Kim PH, Medvec VH (2002b) The dissatisfaction of having your first offer accepted: the role of counterfactual thinking in negotiations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28:271–283. doi:10.1177/0146167202282012

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 104:650–669. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh L (1987) Relationships in negotiations. Negotiation J 3:235–243. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1987.tb00418.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosoda M, Stone-Romero EF, Coats G (2003) The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Pers Psychol 56:431–463. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashy DA, Kenny DA (2000) The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In: Reis HT, Judd CM(eds) Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 451–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley H, Thibaut J, Radloff R, Mundy D (1962) The development of cooperation in the minimal social situation. Psychol Monogr 76:19

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Barry B, Saunders DM, Minton JW (2003) Negotiation, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott AJ, Lott BE (1974) The role of reward in the formation of positive interpersonal attitudes. In: Huston TL(eds) Foundations of interpersonal attraction. Academic Press, New York, pp 171–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E (2003) Editor’s comment: conflict and conflict resolution—a return to theorizing. Acad Manage Rev 28: 543–546

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Larrick RP, Su SK (1999) Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: when situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:52–67. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.77.1.52

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale MA, Bazerman MH (1991) Cognition and rationality in negotiation. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE, Ross L (1980) Human inference strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 95:186–197. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.05.005

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reb J (2007) How to decide with whom to negotiate: understanding negotiation counterpart decisions. Working paper, Singapore Management University

  • Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz L(eds) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 10. Academic Press, New York, pp 174–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S(eds) Sociological methodology 1982. American Sociological Association, Washington, pp 290–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel AE, Wade-Benzoni KA, Moag J, Bazerman MH (1999) The negotiation matching process: relationships and partner selection. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 80:252–284. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2861

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (2001) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike R (1911) Animal intelligence: experimental studies. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

    Google Scholar 

  • Valley KL, Neale MA, Mannix EA (1994) Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: the effects of relationships on the process and outcome of negotiations. In: Lewicki RJ, Sheppard B, Bies R(eds) Research on negotiation in organizations, vol 4. JAI Publishing, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35: 151–175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9(2, Pt. 2):1–27. doi:10.1037/h0025848

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore, 178899, Singapore

    Jochen Reb

Authors
  1. Jochen Reb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen Reb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reb, J. The Influence of Past Negotiations on Negotiation Counterpart Preferences. Group Decis Negot 19, 457–477 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9130-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9130-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation