The objective value of subjective value: A multi-round negotiation study (Curhan et al.,
2010)
Does Subjective Value Matter?
-
Subjective value (Subjective Value (SV)): social, perceptual, and emotional
consequences of a negotiation.
o Has a valence in that it refers to the positivity or negativity of a social
psychological outcome.
-
Subjective Value (Subjective Value (SV)) encompasses four factors:
o Instrumental Subjective Value (SV): the subjective perception that the economic
outcome is beneficial, balanced, and consistent with principles of legitimacy and
precedent;
o Self Subjective Value (SV): losing face versus feeling competent and satisfied
that one has behaved appropriately;
o Process Subjective Value (SV): the perception that one has been heard and
treated justly, and that the process was efficient;
o Relationship Subjective Value (SV): involves positive impressions, trust, and a
solid foundation for working together in the future.

-
The third and fourth factors together form a broader construct of rapport.
Relationship Marketing, which is fostering close relationships between buyers and
sellers or channel partners, is economically advantageous.
-
Three Reasons Why Subjective Value (SV) can be Important to Negotiators:
1. Subjective Value (SV) can serve as a good in itself;
2. Subjective Value (SV) can influence learning and future behaviours;
3. Subjective Value (SV) resulting from one negotiation may feed back, positively or
negatively, into future economic outcomes.
Negotiation over Time
-
Participants who had reached an impasse in a prior simulation were more likely to reach
an impasse in a subsequent simulation—even when initial impasses were assigned
randomly.
Results
-
Feelings about instrumental outcomes have a component of perceptual accuracy that
reflects actual instrumental outcomes.
-
Divergence between objective and subjective value in that—despite the high positive
correlation between a negotiator's objective score and instrumental Subjective Value (SV)
for pairs of counterparts, their objective scores were highly negatively correlated, whereas
their subjective feelings about instrumental outcomes were essentially independent.
-
The two parties agreed with each other in the form of positive correlations between
negotiation partners in their Process Subjective Value (SV) and Relationship Subjective
Value (SV).
-
There is substantial consistency in individual negotiators' skills.
Discussion
-
Subjective Value (SV) is objectively valuable in negotiation. → Subjective impressions
appear to pay off economically in subsequent negotiations.
-
Subjective Value (SV) can be inherently valuable, insofar as negotiators attempt to
maximize socio-emotional rewards aside from instrumental rewards.
-
Individuals earned more objective value in the second negotiation if they had experienced
greater Subjective Value (SV) in the first negotiation.
-
Negotiation dyads created more joint value in the second negotiation if partners had
experienced greater Total Subjective Value (SV) in the first negotiation.
o The effects were significant for Global, Instrumental, and Relationship
Subjective Values (SV).
-
For Instrumental Subjective Value (SV), negotiators who felt that their first
settlements were favorable, fair, and balanced may have benefited subsequently
from greater motivation and effort.
-
Negotiators reported a greater desire to negotiate again with their counterparts after
experiencing greater Subjective Value (SV).
o Objective performance had no such predictive power, which is striking because,
rationally, one should prefer to negotiate with counterparts against whom one has
performed objectively well.
Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation
(Wang et al., 2012)
Introduction
-
Negotiators who express anger tend to receive larger concessions and claim more value.
o Negotiations may shape reputations: a critical asset that can significantly
influence negotiators' future opportunities and outcomes.
-
Individuals care not only about the agreement that is reached, but also about the fairness
of their treatment in the process.
o When fairness is violated, individuals often engage in retaliatory behaviour
(overt or covert).
o Individuals often acquiesce to unfair treatment in public but pursue retribution
through secretive and insidious means.
Overt and Covert Effects of Anger Expression
-
Emotion as Social Information (EASI) model: expression of emotions through
nonverbal (facial expression, body posture, or tone of voice) and/or verbal (language)
channels can influence an observer through both an inferential and an affective
mechanism.
o Inferential influence occurs when individuals actively interpret others'
expressions for meaning. Emotion-based inferences then inform and shape the
observers' subsequent attitudes and behaviors.
o The affective mechanism of reactions to expressed emotions in negotiation;
emotional expressions elicit affective reactions in observers which may then
influence observers' subsequent behaviors.
-
Rational-Choice arguments: negotiators are strategic actors who detect and decipher
opponents' emotional expressions and act on that information to maximize their
interests.
-
One negotiator's expressed anger often results in a negative emotional reaction in the
other negotiator.
Study 1
-
An opponent's expression of anger influenced both a negotiator's overt concessions and a
negotiator's covert retaliation towards the opponent.
o Overtly, negotiators were more likely to reach agreement when their opponents
expressed anger.
o The same negotiators were also more likely to covertly retaliate against their
opponents who expressed anger.
-
These negotiators also denied gratifying opportunities and imposed significant obstacles
for their opponent after the negotiation. → Anger expression leads to retaliatory behavior
intended to harm angry opponents.
-
Feelings of mistreatment mediated the effect of opponents' expression of anger on focal
negotiators' covert retaliation. → Negotiators sabotaged those who expressed anger
because they felt offended by the anger.
Study 2
-
Power in negotiations can be understood as the degree of perceived dependence between
the negotiators.
-
Given the lack of desirable alternatives to a negotiated agreement, low-power
negotiators are more likely to appease their angry opponents by making larger
concessions during the negotiation.
-
Since high-power negotiators are less dependent on their low-power opponents, there is
less pressure for them to concede to the demands of their opponents even when anger is
expressed.
o High-power negotiators demanded a large portion of the value regardless of
whether or not their low-power opponents expressed anger.
o Power influenced negotiators' value claiming behavior in response to
opponents' anger expression through perceived risk of adopting a demanding
stance overtly.
-
Both low-power and high-power negotiators covertly retaliated against angry opponents.
o High-power negotiators struck back as vigorously as did low-power negotiators
after their opponent expressed anger.
General Discussion
-
If focusing solely on claiming value, expressing anger indeed appears to be helpful when
negotiating with others who are lower or equal in power.
-
Covert retaliation in two forms in these studies:
o Withholding important resources;
o Creating obstacles for a negotiator.
The communication orientation model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound,
and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes (Swaab et al.,
2012)
-
Face-to-face contact can hinder as well as help the ability to craft and achieve mutually
satisfactory negotiation agreements and high-quality decision-making outcomes.
-
Communication orientation model: proposes that the presence of visual, vocal, and
synchronous communication channels:
o Help communicators with a neutral orientation achieve efficient and effective
negotiation and group decision-making outcomes;
o Does not affect the achievement of high-quality outcomes for communicators with
a cooperative orientation;
o But hurts the outcomes of communicators with a noncooperative orientation.
Negotiation and Group Decision-Making
-
A high-quality outcome is defined in two ways:
o Successfully reaching an agreement when there are one or more possible
agreements that make both parties better off versus declaring an impasse and
walking away from the table, which would leave both parties worse off than if a
deal had been reached;
o Involves reaching an agreement that expands the total amount of resources
available to both parties, often referred to as joint profit.
-
To achieve high joint profit the parties must make mutually beneficial tradeoffs or
identify and optimize compatible interests.
-
A high-quality group decision-making outcome can be defined in three ways:
o Whether decision-makers select an objectively right answer;
o A decision that has been identified as superior by outside experts;
o A group's ability to reach consensus on a judgment task when agreement among
group members is superior to no agreement.
-
Sharing and integrating information is considered to be a precondition for high-quality
outcomes.
The Link Among Sight, Sound, Synchronicity, and Outcome Quality: Theoretical
Approaches and Empirical Inconsistencies
-
On one hand, the presence of communication channels (sight, sound, and synchronicity)
may increase the likelihood that communicators will develop incipient levels of trust
necessary to discover and integrate information for mutual benefit.
-
On the other hand, eliminating these communication channels may increase the
probability of high-quality agreements.
o Not being able to see, hear, or directly respond to others may shroud antagonistic
behaviors that can be roadblocks to information sharing and integration.
-
Richness approach: communication settings differ along a continuum of richness, where
richness is based on the ability of communication channels to provide communication
synchronicity and carry visual or vocal information exchange.
o Social presence theory;
o Information richness theory;
o Cluelessness model;
o Reduced social cues approach.
-
The key proposition of the richness approach is that the presence of sight, sound, and
synchronicity makes social interactions more personal, and as a result the capacity of any
a communication channel to convey multiple communication cues determines whether
people will be able to work effectively with each other, especially when they are faced
with an ambiguous task.
-
The ability of communication channels to carry visual channels or vocal channels or
provide rapid feedback through synchronous communication facilitates rapport building
and information exchange.
-
Eye contact can fulfill an important role in building rapport and signaling respect to the
counterpart. — Presence of visual channels is a key determinant of cooperation and
information integration.
-
The level, range, and variability of voice pitch, as well as the loudness and tempo of voice,
are all thought to be helpful to interpret emotions accurately. — Misunderstandings are
more likely to occur over email than in phone conversations and the inability to speak to
and hear others decreases the use of cooperative tactics in negotiations.
-
Communication synchronicity facilitates the ease with which people can socially validate
each other's opinion, which then increases the exchange of information. —
Communication suffers when people cannot directly respond to one another in real time.
-
Criticism richness approach: the approach is technologically deterministic and ascribes
too much influence to the presence or absence of communication channels and too little
attention to the role of the social context in which communication takes place.
-
Social information processing theory (SIP): communicators strive to develop positive
and meaningful relationships and social cues and information are indispensable for the
development of such relationships.
-
Developing meaningful relationships in the absence of visual contact, vocal contact, or
synchronicity, takes more time.
o The negative effects of non face-to-face interactions on the establishment of social
relationships diminish over time.
-
Social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE): the salience of social identities
moderates the effects of communication channels on group processes. The presence of
communication channels can either intensify or diminish a group process depending on
existing social identities.
o Cognitive component: intragroup discussions and describes how the salience of
social identity moderate the effects of visual contact. It argues that conditions of
anonymity may either lead to depersonalized perceptions of self and others and
strengthen the salience of social identities that are already in place or amplify
personal identity and independence in contexts in which no shared identity exists
from the outset.
o Strategic component: describes how the absence or presence of individuating
information enhances or diminishes influence in intergroup interactions.
Conditions of anonymity can increase a low-power party's strategic freedom and
influence when the communication environment obscures and shrouds their lack
of power.
-
Strong social identities can overcome the absence of communication channels.
-
The theories directly contradict the richness approach by showing that the absence of
visual, vocal, and synchronous communication channels does not necessarily
deteriorate social interactions.
-
None of the previous theories provide a full explanation for why the presence of
communication channels may sometimes have negative consequences for negotiation
and group decision-making outcomes.
-
Neither SIP nor SIDE provides a comprehensive model that covers both negotiations and
group decision-making.
The Communication Orientation Model
-
Communication orientation model: the main orientation with which people approach their
interaction holds the key to theoretical and empirical parsimony.
-
Sharing and integrating information is a critical process by which these orientations
interact with communication channels to affect negotiation and group decision-making
outcomes.
-
The presence of paraverbal and nonverbal cues such as tone of voice, facial expression,
and gesture allows communicators with unknown orientations to learn more about the
other side and potentially trust them enough to share and integrate information.
o The presence of communication channels help establish rapport.
-
People with cooperative communication orientations are more likely to value joint
welfare, share information about priorities and preferences, and interpret others' actions as
efforts to coordinate, which, in turn, increases the quality of their interaction outcomes.
-
Differs from SIP and SIDE in focusing on how a cooperative communication orientation
based on strong interpersonal ties and shared social identities leads individuals to share
and integrate information regardless of the presence of communication channels.
-
Using a noncooperative lens to define the situation, people may interpret each other's
actions as efforts to dominate and exploit, which then inspire competitive tactics to defend
and protect one's own interests.
-
The presence of communication channels can create mutually reinforcing competitive
tactics and intensify negative emotions that decrease the chances of disclosing accurate
information about underlying interests for communicators with noncooperative
orientations.
-
Information sharing and successful integration for communicators with noncooperative
orientation are more likely to be achieved in the absence of communication channels.
Cross-Cultural Differences as a Test of the Communication Orientation Model
-
Individuals in interdependent cultures adopt a cooperative approach to social relations—at
least with ingroup members.
-
Individuals from independent cultures tend to think of themselves as autonomous
individuals separate from others, give personal goals priority over ingroup goals, and
approach their social world with a less cooperative approach to interdependent decision
making.
Negotiation Meta-Analysis
-
The presence of communication channels improved negotiation outcome quality for
neutrally oriented negotiators, had no effect on outcome quality for cooperatively oriented
negotiators, and decreased outcome quality for negotiators with a noncooperative
orientation.
-
The positive effects of communication channels were more pronounced in Western
cultures, in which people presumably enter into negotiations with a neutral orientation,
than in Eastern cultures, in which people likely enter into negotiations with a more
cooperative orientation.
Group Decision-Making Meta-Analysis
-
The positive impact of the presence of communication channels on group decision making
was lower when people held a cooperative orientation compared to when they had a
neutral orientation for both intellective and judgment decision tasks.
-
Culture moderated the findings for people with a neutral orientation such that the positive
effects of visual channels were more pronounced in Western cultures than in Eastern
cultures.