Conflict Management
Article presentation
THE IMPACT OF MESSAGE FRAME ON
NEGOTIATORS' IMPRESSIONS,
EMOTIONS, AND BEHAVIORS
Mara Olekalns
University of Melbourne
Christopher Robert
University of Missouri-Columbia
^ , Tahira Probst
Washington State University
Philip L Smith
University of Melbourne
Peter Carnevale
New York University
Ashok Raj
4200710330
Introduction
This experiment examined the impact of negotiators' cooperative and
competitive expectations on the interpretation of ambiguous messages.
In a simulated bilateral negotiation, participants received an initial set
of cooperative, competitive or ambiguous messages, followed by a set of
ambiguous messages. Negotiators who received cooperative of competitive
messages weighed communality more heavily than power in
their assessment of ambiguous messages, whereas negotiators who
received two sets of ambiguous messages weighed power more heavily
than communality. A cooperative-ambiguous message sequence resulted
in less positive emotions whereas a competitive-ambiguous message
sequence increased cooperation and resulted in more positive emotions.
The baseline condition of six ambiguous messages cued increased competition
and also resulted in less positive emotions
• "What's most important to you in this negotiation?“
How should the other party interpret this message?
One interpretation is that this is an attention to facilitate problemsolving by trying to understand the other party's underlying needs
and interests, implying a cooperative approach. An alternative
interpretation is that the negotiator is trying to gain information
that can be used for personal gain, implying a more competitive
approach
How do negotiators decide whether the other party is
behaving cooperatively or competitively?
Negotiators, like other social actors, engage in a
process of uncertainty reduction by attempting to
clarify the other party's underlying goals and motives
negotiators' communications vary in the degree to
which they clearly signal underlying strategic intent. At
any point in a negotiation, negotiators are likely to
interpret ambiguous communications from the other
party within the context created by earlier messages
that more clearly conveyed their opponent's strategic
intent.
The focus is on three types of responses: impressions,
behaviors and emotions.
To investigate how strategies that clearly convey the
intentions of the other party shape negotiators'
responses when they subsequently encounter more
ambiguous strategies, we establish or 'frame' the
context by sending three unambiguously cooperative
or competitive messages to negotiators. then consider
how negotiators who have been framed in a
cooperative or competitive way respond to more
ambiguous messages.
• two competing models of the relationship: differ in that
one implies stability in reactions (Response lag) whereas
the other implies change in reactions (Response
adaptation).
• the Response Lag Model—predicts that negotiators' early
experiences with the other party create a frame that
shapes negotiators‘ interpretations of and reactions to
subsequent messages would be interpreted as conveying
cooperative intent if it occurred after a sequence of clearly
cooperative statements, and as conveying competitive
intent if it occurred after a sequence of clearly competitive
statements.
the Response Lag model suggests that a negotiator's initial
impressions of the other party, established by cooperative or
competitive messages, will either remain unchanged or show
minimal change when these messages are replaced by more
ambiguous ones.
• Response Adaptation Model—predicts that negotiators recognize
and respond rapidly to behavioral shifts by the other party. This
model inches that a contrast effect will operate to influence the
interpretation of ambiguous messages. When an ambiguous
message follows a series of clearly cooperative or competitive
messages, it breaks with a pattern of consistent behavior. As a
result, it is likely to attract attention and to be interpreted as
signaling a strategic shift
• the Response Adaptation model implies that initial
impressions established by cooperative or competitive
messages will shift quickly in response to a shift toward
ambiguity by one's opponent, and that a negotiator's
behaviors and emotions will follow suit
• Two dimensions-power and communality
•
In negotiation, these dimensions find parallels in
descriptions of competitive negotiations, thought to
emphasize power and control, and cooperative
negotiations, thought to emphasize relationship—
building, communality and trust
• The question is how the initial impressions formed when
negotiators encounter a series of clearly cooperative or competitive
strategies are affected by a move to strategies that are more
ambiguous in their intent.
• Indirect evidence for such a framing effect comes from Prisoner's
Dilemma Game research.
• This research demonstrates that cooperatively—motivated
individuals weight a morality (communality) dimension more
heavily than a might (power) dimension when forming impressions
of other people whereas competitively-motivated individuals
weight a might dimension more heavily than a morality dimension
in the impression formation process, the might-morality effect
Negative Shift in Impressions
Hypothesis la: Cooperatively-framed
negotiators will weigh communality more
heavily than power in their assessment of
both cooperative and ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis Ib: Competitively-framed
negotiators will weigh power more heavily
than communality in their assessment of both
competitive and ambiguous messages.
Theory and research suggests that a move
from cooperation to ambiguity is likely to be
interpreted negatively and decrease trust
negotiators will interpret ambiguous messages
as competitive and revise their impressions of
the other party, that is, they will weigh power
more heavily than communality in their
interpretation of ambiguous messages
Positive Shift in Impressions
• Hypothesis 2a: Cooperatively framed
negotiators will show a negative shift in their
impressions of ambiguous messages.
• Hypothesis 2b: Competitively framed
negotiators will show a positive shift in their
impressions of ambiguous messages.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Negotiation tiieory identifies two approaches to negotiation, cooperative and
con^etitive, associated with distinct sets of behaviors. A cooperative approach has
the goal of meeting tlie needs and interests of both parties; that is, of maximizing
joint gain. This approach is linked to the use of cooperative and problem-solving
strategies such as information exchange, concessions and process matiagement.
Conversely, a competitive approach en^hasizes the goal of meeting one party's
need; that is, of maximizing individual gain. Strategically, competitive negotiators
aim to influence their opponents through tbe use of contentious strategies such as
argumentation, substantiation, demands and threats
• Negotiators who have received clearly
cooperative messages will
• continue to select cooperative messages and
those who have encountered clearly
• con^etitive messages will continue to select
competitive messages, even though
• the other party is now using more ambiguous
strategies.
• Hypothesis 3a: Negotiators who receive a series
of clearly cooperative messages
• will continue to select cooperative messages in
• response to later, ambiguous messages.
• Hypothesis 3b: Negotiators who receive a series
of clearly competitive messages
• will continue to select con^)etitive messages in
• response to later, ambiguous messages.
• negotiators who experience a switch from cooperation
to
• ambiguity will respond with con^etitive messages to
protect themselves against
• potential exploitation; negotiators who experience a
switch from competition to
• ambiguity will respond with cooperative messages in
order to reciprocate and preserve
• the apparently more cooperative approach of the other
party and increase the
• likelihood of settlement.
Hypothesis 4a: Negotiators who receive a
series of clearly cooperative messages will
show a negative behavioral shift in response
to ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 4b: Negotiators who receive a
series of clearly competitive messages will
show a positive behavioral shift in response to
ambiguous messages.
Research has established that emotion plays an
important role in shaping negotiators' behavior.
For example, positive affect reduces the use of
contention and increases both cooperation and
concession-making negotiators who encounter
cooperation will report more positive emotions
than those who encounter competition.
Hypothesis 5a: Negotiators who receive a series
of clearly cooperative messages will report
positive emotions and continue to report positive
emotions in response to ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 5b: Negotiators who receive a series
of clearly competitive messages will report
negative emotions and continue to report
negative emotions in response to ambiguous
messages.
Consequences of Sustained Ambiguity
• it is possible that prolonged ambiguity influences
negotiators' impressions of the other party, their
emotions, and their behaviors Negotiators who
avoid discussion are likely to increase the level of
uncertainty in the negotiation. Similarly, the
sustained use of ambiguous strategies may be
interpreted as an attempt to avoid engaging with
the negotiation. sustained use of ambiguous
strategies may be interpreted as an attempt to
avoid engaging with the negotiation
• Sustained ambiguity will lead to
(a) increasingly negative impressions of the
other party,
(b) increasingly competitive responses, and
(c) increasingly negative emotions over time.
• One hundred and two undergraduate
psychology students at a large mid western
• university participated in this experiment.
Participants were randomly
• assigned to one of three experimental
conditions (ambiguous, competitive,
cooperative)
• Phase 1
Participants receive a series of 3 messages: all
either cooperative, competitive, or
ambiguous, depending on framing condition
• Phase 2
All participants receive a series of 3
ambiguous messages