Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableDecision frames and the social utility of negotiation outcomes(SPRINGER, 2023-04)
-
ItemSee the Benefit: Adversity Appraisal and Subjective Value in Negotiation(WILEY, 2018-10)Negotiation scholars know relatively little about how negotiators can overcome adverse circumstances and end negotiations with an enhanced sense of satisfaction. Using a series of two negotiations simulations, we tested whether cognitive reappraisal influences negotiators' responses to adverse experiences. After completing a negotiation in which they either did – or did not – encounter difficulties, participants identified a challenging moment and wrote about either the benefits or harms they associated with that moment. They then completed a second negotiation and reported their post‐negotiation satisfaction using the Subjective Value Inventory. Compared to negotiators who did not encounter adversity, those negotiators who did encounter challenges and engaged in benefit finding reported higher levels of process and relationship satisfaction than those who engaged in harm finding. We also found that negotiators reported greater process and relationship satisfaction under adverse circumstances (hard negotiation or harm‐finding appraisal) when their partners used inclusive language (we, ours, us) in the second negotiation.
-
Item
-
ItemMaybe It's Right, Maybe It's Wrong: Structural and Social Determinants of Deception in Negotiation(Springer, 2014-06)Context shapes negotiators' actions, including their willingness to act unethically. Focusing on negotiators use of deception, we used a simulated two-party negotiation to test how three contextual variables-regulatory focus, power, and trustworthiness-interacted to shift negotiators' ethical thresholds. We demonstrated that these three variables interact to either inhibit or activate deception, providing support for an interactionist model of ethical decision-making. Three patterns emerged from our analyses. First, low power inhibited and high power activated deception. Second, promotion-focused negotiators favored sins of omission, whereas prevention-focused negotiators favored sins of commission. Third, low cognition-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience fit between power and regulatory focus, whereas affect-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience misfit between these structural context variables. We conclude that regulatory focus primes different moral templates: promotion-focused negotiators' decision to deceive is determined by moral pragmatism, whereas prevention-focused negotiators' decision to deceive is determined by opportunism. Because each combination of power and regulatory focus was tied to a specific subcomponent of trust, we further conclude that negotiators engage in motivated information search to determine whether they should deceive their opponents. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
-
Item