Research Proposal
Proposed Research Topic: what negotiation strategies make intentions for future cooperation
Purposes: With the internationalization of Chinese firms, more and more negotiations will be
observed between Chinese and foreign businessmen, so it is important to investigate Chinese
negotiators’ unique strategies as well as their consequences. This study will investigate the
relationship among negotiation strategies, objective and subjective outcomes, and intentions for
future cooperation. Thompson (1990) proposed that negotiation outcomes consisted of two broad
classes: economic and social psychological outcomes. Traditional negotiation studies
overwhelmingly focused on economic outcomes such as individual gain and joint gain. However,
scholars now appealed that more attentions should be given on negotiators’ subjective judgment
and psychological experience rather than simply economic gain (e.g. Curhan, Elfenbein, & Xu,
2006). Specifically, this study attempts to address three research questions: a) what negotiation
strategies affect negotiator’s desire to build a long-term cooperative relationship with the other
party; b) do objective and subjective outcomes serve as the mechanisms in this relationship; c) if
they both play as the mediators, what is the relative importance between them, on the spot and in
the long run.
Theoretical Background:
Negotiation outcomes include the integrative and distributive features of the agreement. For
the distributive negotiation, distributive tactics can be commonly observed as they were
indispensible to obtain greater pie. However, competitive negotiators frequently use tactics which
others view as “unethical”, in that these tactics either violate standards of truth telling or violate
the perceived rules of negotiation (Lewicki & Robinson, 1998). Scholars have analysed five most
frequently used tactics: traditional competitive bargaining, misrepresentation of information,
bluffing, influencing an opponent’s professional network, and inappropriate information
collection (Robert, Lewicki, & Donahue, 2000).
In addition, for the integrative negotiation, the positive effect of information sharing is often
exercised via two distinct processes: better decision making and more efficient group processes
(Hackman, 1990; Tjosvold, 1985). Information seeking and sharing improve the accuracy of
negotiators’ judgments about the other party and leads to more mutually beneficial agreements
(e.g. Aslani, Ramirez-Marin, Yao, Semnani-Azad, Brett, Zhang, Tinsley, Weingart, & Adair
2013; Butler Jr, 1999; Kemp & Smith, 1994; Thompson, 1991).
Recently, the initial focus on the economic outcomes of negotiation has widened to include
investigations of subjective outcomes. In an attempt to measure subjective concerns, Curhan et al.
(2006) surveyed people on what they value in negotiation. Four distinct considerations emerged:
feelings about instrumental outcomes (i.e., how much money they made), feelings about
themselves (e.g., how competent they were in the negotiation), feelings about the process (e.g.,
whether the conversation was constructive) and feelings about the relationship (i.e., whether the
negotiation preserved or strengthened it).
Theoretical Framework: The overall theoretical framework is presents in figure 1.
Figure 1 Overall Framework
Proposition 1: Information sharing will be positively related to negotiator’s objective
outcome.
Proposition 2: Distributive tactics will be negatively related to negotiator’s subjective
outcome.
Proposition 3: Negotiator’s objective outcome will be positively related to negotiator’s
intention for future cooperation.
Proposition 4: Negotiator’s subjective outcome will mediate the relationship between
negotiator’s objective outcome and intention for future cooperation.
Proposition 5: Negotiator’s subjective outcome will be relatively important than objective
outcome to affect the intention for future cooperation.
Method: I plan to request for access to collect data in a MBA class instructed by my advisor. This
course is on management communication and a two-party mixed-motive negotiation is arranged
as the exercise in one cession. There will be around 100 students participate in this exercise to
form around 50 dyads.
For the measures, I plan to measure negotiation strategies, outcomes, and intention for future
cooperation after the negation. Besides, I will code the negotiation strategies from the sound
recording and measure the intention for future cooperation two weeks letter with different scale.
The scale of information sharing will be adopted from Aslani et al. (2013) and Gunia, Brett,
Nandkeolyar, and Kamdar (2011), and it consists of 4 items. The scale of distributive tactics will
be adopted from Robert, Lewicki, and Donahue (2000). The original scale consisted of five
factors but we have to remove two factors (influencing an opponent’s professional network and
inappropriate information collection) since they are not behaved in the negotiation process per se.
The adjusted scale consisted of ten items. In addition, the objective outcome will be measured by
points obtained in the negotiation and the subjective outcome will be measured by the scale
adopted from Curhan, Elfenbein, and Xu (2006). It consisted of 16 items.
For the analyzed methods, I plan to employ multiple regression to test hypotheses 1 to 3,
process analysis (Hayes, 2012) to test hypothesis 4, and relative importance method (Johnson &
LeBreton; 2004; Kraha, Turner, Nimon, Zientek, & Henson, 2012) to test hypothesis 5.
Timetable:
Issues
Deadline
Prepare proposal by
1st March
Complete literature review by
20th March
Prepare negotiation materials by
1st April
Data collection
16th April
Complete data analysis by
30th May
Complete first draft by
30th July
References
Aslani, S., Ramirez-Marin, J., Yao, J., Semnani-Azad, Z., Brett, J., Zhang, Z., Tinsley, C.,
Weingart, L., & Adair, W. 2013. Honor, face and dignity cultures: A tri-cultural study of
negotiations. Working paper, Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management,
Evanston, IL.
Butler Jr, J. K. 1999.Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation
effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24: 217-238.
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. 2006. What do people value when they negotiate?
Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(3): 493.
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Paying a price: Culture, trust,
and negotiation consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4): 774.
Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Johnson, J. W. & LeBreton, J. M. 2004.History and use of relative importance indices in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 238-257.
Kraha, A., Turner, H., Nimon, K., Zientek, L. R., & Henson, R. K. 2012. Tools to support
interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:
1-16.
Lewicki, R. J. & Robinson, R. J. 1998. Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical
study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6): 665-682.
Robert, J. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. 2000. Extending and testing a five factor model of
ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(6): 649-664.
Thompson, L. L. 1991. Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 27: 161-179.
Tjosvold, D. 1985. Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of
Management, 11: 21-37.
Appendix A
Information sharing questions (four items with a seven-point Likert scale)
1. I asked the other party about his/her priorities.
2. I shared information about my priorities.
3. I asked the other party what their needs were.
4. I told the other party about my needs in the negotiation.
Distributive tactics questions (ten items with a seven-point Likert scale)
1. I made an opening demand that is far greater than what I really hope to settle for.
2. I conveyed a false impression that I am in absolutely no hurry to come to a negotiated
agreement, thereby trying to put time pressure on my opponent to concede quickly.
3. I made an opening demand so high/low that it seriously undermines my opponent's confidence
in his/her ability to negotiate a satisfactory settlement.
4. I promised that good things will happen to my opponent if he/she gives me what I want, even if
I know that I can't (or won't) deliver these things when the other’s cooperation is obtained.
5. In return for concessions from my opponent now, offer to make future concessions which I
know I will not follow through on.
6. I guaranteed that my constituency will uphold the settlement reached, although I know that they
will likely violate the agreement later.
7. I intentionally misrepresent information to my opponent in order to strengthen my negotiating
arguments or position.
8. I intentionally misrepresent the nature of negotiations to my constituency in order to protect
delicate discussions that have occurred.
9. I denied the validity of information which my opponent has that weakens my negotiating
position, even though that information is true and valid.
10. I intentionally misrepresent the progress of negotiations to my constituency in order to make
my own position appear stronger.
Subjective outcome questions (16 items with a seven-point Likert scale)
1. How satisfied are you with your own outcome—i.e., the extent to which the terms of your
agreement (or lack of agreement) benefit you?
2. How satisfied are you with the balance between your own outcome and your counterpart(s)’s
outcome(s)?
3. Did you feel like you forfeited or “lost” in this negotiation? (reverse scored)
4. Do you think the terms of your agreement are consistent with principles of legitimacy or
objective criteria (e.g., common standards of fairness, precedent, industry practice, legality, etc.)?
5. Did you “lose face” (i.e., damage your sense of pride) in the negotiation? (reverse scored)
6. Did this negotiation make you feel more or less competent as a negotiator?
7. Did you behave according to your own principles and values?
8. Did this negotiation positively or negatively impact your self-image or your impression of
yourself?
9. Do you feel your counterpart(s) listened to your concerns?
10. Would you characterize the negotiation process as fair?
11. How satisfied are you with the ease (or difficulty) of reaching an agreement?
12. Did your counterpart(s) consider your wishes, opinions, or needs?
13. What kind of “overall” impression did your counterpart(s) make on you?
14. How satisfied are you with your relationship with your counterpart(s) as a
result of this negotiation?
15. Did the negotiation make you trust your counterpart(s)?
16. Did the negotiation build a good foundation for a future relationship with your counterpart(s)?