negotiation dynamics case study

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Negotiation →

• 29 Feb 2024

Beyond Goals: David Beckham's Playbook for Mobilizing Star Talent

Reach soccer's pinnacle. Become a global brand. Buy a team. Sign Lionel Messi. David Beckham makes success look as easy as his epic free kicks. But leveraging world-class talent takes discipline and deft decision-making, as case studies by Anita Elberse reveal. What could other businesses learn from his ascent?

• 26 Sep 2023
• Cold Call Podcast

The PGA Tour and LIV Golf Merger: Competition vs. Cooperation

On June 9, 2022, the first LIV Golf event teed off outside of London. The new tour offered players larger prizes, more flexibility, and ambitions to attract new fans to the sport. Immediately following the official start of that tournament, the PGA Tour announced that all 17 PGA Tour players participating in the LIV Golf event were suspended and ineligible to compete in PGA Tour events. Tensions between the two golf entities continued to rise, as more players “defected” to LIV. Eventually LIV Golf filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing the PGA Tour of anticompetitive practices, and the Department of Justice launched an investigation. Then, in a dramatic turn of events, LIV Golf and the PGA Tour announced that they were merging. Harvard Business School assistant professor Alexander MacKay discusses the competitive, antitrust, and regulatory issues at stake and whether or not the PGA Tour took the right actions in response to LIV Golf’s entry in his case, “LIV Golf.”

• 22 Nov 2022
• Research & Ideas

When Agreeing to Disagree Is a Good Beginning

When conflict stems from honest and open listening, disagreement can be a good thing, say Francesca Gino and Julia Minson. But developing those skills requires patience and discipline.

• 20 Apr 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?

This study of field and lab data strongly suggests that people do not necessarily make better decisions when the stakes are very high. Results highlight the potential economic consequences of cognitive biases.

• 02 Apr 2021

Salary Negotiations: A Catch-22 for Women

Too assertive or too nice? New research from Julian Zlatev probes the lose-lose dynamics that penalize women in negotiations and perpetuate gender inequity. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 31 Mar 2020

Controlling the Emotion of Negotiation

Leslie John discusses the importance of asking (and answering) the right questions when negotiating, particularly under emotional stress. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 May 2019

The Unexpected Way Whistleblowers Reduce Government Fraud

Even unfounded allegations by whistleblowers can force government contractors to renegotiate their terms, say Jonas Heese and Gerardo Perez Cavazos. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 08 Mar 2019

Seven Negotiation Lessons from Amazon's HQ Disaster in Queens

After a lengthy courting process, Amazon thought its plan for a New York HQ campus was in the bag. But the company failed a primary goal of negotiations, says James Sebenius. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Oct 2018

Shaky Business: How Handshakes Win Negotiations

A handshake before a negotiation can have a surprisingly strong effect on the outcome, according to Michael Norton, Francesca Gino, and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 30 Jul 2018

Why Ethical People Become Unethical Negotiators

You may think you are an ethical person, but self-interest can cloud your judgment when you sit down at the bargaining table, says Max Bazerman. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 Jul 2018

Henry Kissinger's Lessons for Business Negotiators

Much has been written about Henry Kissinger the diplomat and United States secretary of state, but surprisingly little about Kissinger the dealmaker. A trio of Harvard scholars remedies that with Kissinger the Negotiator: Lessons from Dealmaking at the Highest Level. Co-author James Sebenius discusses what business negotiators can learn. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 23 Jan 2018

Transaction Costs and the Duration of Contracts

When buyers transact with sellers, they select not only whom to transact with but also for how long. This paper develops a model of optimal contract duration arising from underlying supply costs and transaction costs. The model allows for the quantification of transaction costs, which are often unobserved, and the impact of these costs on welfare.

• 05 Apr 2017

For Women Especially, It Pays to Know What Car Repairs Should Cost

Consumers can negotiate cheaper auto repair prices by convincing service reps they know something about market rates—helping women overcome gender discrimination, according to recently published research by Ayelet Israeli and co-authors. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 Dec 2016

How The 2016 Presidential Candidates Misled Us With Truthful Statements

Paltering, a subtle form of lying where an almost true statement is used, is not unknown in the world of politics. Here are several examples. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

How To Deceive Others With Truthful Statements (It's Called 'Paltering,' And It's Risky)

Presidential candidates do it. Business leaders do it. You probably do it, too. Paltering is a gentle form of lying, but is reviled by negotiators on the receiving end. Research by Francesca Gino, Michael Norton, and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 23 May 2016

A Little Understanding Motivates Copyright Abusers to Pay Up

Many Internet users don't give a second thought to copying and reusing an image. Hong Luo and Julie Holland Mortimer explain how copyright holders can gently persuade abusers to do the right thing. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 11 May 2016

Fix This! Why is it so Painful to Buy a New Car?

Car-buying sends shivers up the backbones of American consumers, so why hasn’t the industry stepped up to create a better experience? Leonard Schlesinger, Jill Avery, and Ryan Buell tell their own war stories and talk about how the battle might yet be won. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 18 Apr 2016

The Cost of Leaning In

Women who are forced to negotiate tend to fare worse than if they hadn’t negotiated at all, according to research by Christine Exley, Muriel Niederle, and Lise Vesterlund. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 Apr 2016

Knowing When to Ask: The Cost of Leaning-in

The popular push for women to “lean in” holds that women should negotiate on their own behalf to overcome the gender wage gap. This study, however, shows the importance of choice in successful negotiations. Women usually choose to enter negotiations leading to financial gains and avoid negotiations that would result in financial losses. Regardless of the reasons for avoidance, leaning-in is not automatically the best advice for women.

• 04 Apr 2016

How to Negotiate Situations That Feel Hopeless

In Negotiating the Impossible, Deepak Malhotra outlines key lessons for negotiating sticky situations, with examples that include the Cuban Missile Crisis, disputes in the National Football League and National Hockey League, and several instances of high-stakes deal-making where companies found themselves negotiating against the odds. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• About our Courses
• Sales Negotiation Training
• Procurement Negotiation Training
• Essential Negotiator
• Negotiation Simulation Game
• Advanced Negotiation Training
• Customized Negotiation Training
• Open Enrolment Calendar
• Course Comparison
• All Resources

Case Studies

• Definitions

Home » Resources » Case Studies

Researchers and students asked us for case studies, so we delivered. We hope that you're able to learn from these practical examples from around the world. Check out our negotiation training when you're ready to elevate your negotiation capability.

Issues in Negotiation: How to Solve a Problem

Negotiating with WalMart Buyers

How Microsoft Outnegotiated Netscape in the Browser War

Trust Building in a Trilateral China Japan Western Negotiation

Nepal–India Water Negotiations (Power Asymmetry)

Business Expansion Woven From Trust

Camp David Third Party Intervener

The Cost of Death on Chinese Roads

The Panama Canal Negotiations

Contract Renegotiation with the Chilean Government

A Negotiation Case Study: Exploring the Enron Case in India

Scientists and Bureaucrats - Orientation Issues

Gaming in Shanghai

Andorra Versus the European Community (EC)

How Giving Face in China Translates to Negotiation Success

Creative Problem-Solving in Negotiations

Power in Negotiation

Kuwait Invasion Negotiation Perspective

Lehman Leadership Negotiation Rivalry

Chinese Water Selling Negotiation

Newsletter Signup

International Negotiation in China and India pp 90–115 Cite as

Negotiating in India: Some Case Studies

• Rajesh Kumar &
• Verner Worm  

517 Accesses

In this chapter we discuss three salient cases that illustrate Indian negotiating behavior. The cases have been constructed on the basis of published material. It needs to be noted that these cases represent high profile and salient disputes in which the Indian government was a major player. In all of these cases, the Indian government was interacting either with a multinational firm (Enron, Union Carbide) or with other governments and international trade organizations (WTO). The negotiations were often protracted, difficult, and messy. The dynamics of the negotiation processes can be well understood from the standpoint of the institutional perspective, which has formed the basis of our comparing India with China. The Enron case represents a well-publicized dispute between the state government of Maharashtra and the now defunct Enron corporation. The parties negotiated and renegotiated, but to no avail. The Union Carbide (now part of Dow Chemical) dispute dates back to the Bhopal tragedy of 1984, when a leak of a poisonous gas led to thousands of deaths. Although the Indian government and Union Carbide initially reached a financial settlement, the Indian government has to this day continued to insist on the extradition of the then Union Carbide Chairman, Warren Andersen, a request which the US has turned down previously. Our discussion of the case highlights all of the salient elements in this apparently never-ending controversy.

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1999) ‘Enron in India — Lessons from a Renegotiation’, Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 1 March, vol. 35, Issue 1, 51.

Google Scholar  

C. Gopinath (1999) ‘Investing in Newly Industrializing Economies: Managerial Lessons from Enron Controversy’, Long Range Planning , vol. 32, issue 3, 345.

Article   Google Scholar  

R. P. Teisch et al. Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1999) ‘Enron in India — Lessons from a Renegotiation’, Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 1 March, vol. 35, issue 1, 51.

Richard P. Teisch & William A Stover(1999) ‘Enron in India — Lessons from a Renegotiation’, Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 1 March, vol. 35, issue 1, 51.

C. Gopinath (1999) ‘Investing in Newly Industrializing Economies: Managerial Lessons from Enron Controversy’, Long Range Planning , vol. 32, issue 3, 344–51.

R. P. Teisch, (1999) ‘Enron in India — Lessons from a Renegotiation’, Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 1 March, vol. 35, issue 1, p. 51.

M. Palnitkar and K. S. Nayar (1995) ‘Enron Decision: Shockwaves’, India Abroad , 11 August, vol 1, 24.

C. Gopinath (1999) ‘Investing in Newly Industrializing Economies: Managerial Lessons from Enron Controversy’, Long Range Planning , vol. 32, issue 3, 349.

Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1999) ‘Enron in India — Lessons from a Renegotiation’, Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business , 1 March, vol. 35, issue 1, 51.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 440.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, 2.

J. Karliner (1994) ‘Toxin Town’, New Statesman & Society , 2 December, vol. 7, issue 331, 18.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, 6.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover(1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 442.

S. Jasanoff (1988) ‘The Bhopal Disaster and the Right to Know’, Social Science and Medicine , vol. 27, issue 10, 1113.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, 3.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch and William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 443.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, p. 3.

M. Sam Mannan, Harry H. West, Kiran Krishna, Abdalrehman Aaldeeb, Nir Keren, Sanjeev Rsaraf, Yen-Shan Liu, Michela Gentile (2005) ‘The Legacy of Bhopal: The Impact Over the Last 20 Years and Future Directions’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries , vol. 18, issue 4–6, 221.

J. Cassels (1993) The Uncertain Promise of Law: Lessons from Bhopal (Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated), 150.

M. Hariharan (2004) ‘A Toxic Legacy’, Asian Chemical News , vol. 11, issue 472, 12.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 449.

J. F. Steiner (1991) ‘The Second Tragedy of Bhopal’, Business Forum , vol. 16, issue 3, 31.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 445.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 47.

S. Jasanoff (1988) ‘The Bhopal Disaster and the Right to Know’, Social Science and Medicine , vol. 27, no. 10, 1115.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, 447.

M. Hariharan (2004) ‘A Toxic Legacy’, Asian Chemical News , vol. 11, issue 472, 13.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, p. 5.

D. C. Sharma (2002) ‘Indian Government Reduces Charges against Union Carbide’, The Lancet , vol. 360, July, 148.

T. Patel (1996) ‘Bhopal Disaster in India and Trade Aspects’, Journal of TED Case Studies , vol. 5, issue 1, p 6.

D. Bannerjee (2010) ‘Indian Panel Revisits Bhopal Leak Issues’, Wall Street Journal — Eastern Edition , 22 June, vol. 255, issue 144, A12.

R. Clayton Trotter, Richard P. Teisch & William A. Stover (1989) ‘Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy’, Journal of Business Ethics , vol. 8, issue 6, p. 443.

T. N. Srinivasan and S. D. Tendulkar (2003) Reintegrating India with the World Economy (Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC), 79.

A. Narlikar (2006) ‘Peculiar Chauvinism or Strategic Calculation? Explaining the Negotiation Strategy of a Rising India’, International Affairs , vol. 2, issue 1, 63.

A. Narlikar (2003) International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the GATT & WTO (London: Routledge), 36.

C. Hamilton and J. Whalley (1988) Coalitions in the Uruguay Round: The Extent, Pros and Cons of Developing Country Participation 1, 2 , Working paper no. 2751 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research), 13–14.

Book   Google Scholar  

C. Hamilton and J. Whalley (1988) Coalitions in the Uruguay Round: The Extent, Pros and Cons of Developing Country Participation 1, 2 , Working paper no. 2751 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research), 3.

C. Hamilton and J. Whalley (1988) Coalitions in the Uruguay Round: The Extent, Pros and Cons of Developing Country Participation 1, 2 , Working paper no. 2751 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research), 15.

A. Panagariya (1999) ‘The WTO Trade Policy Review of India, 1998’, World Economy , August, vol. 22, issue 6, 822.

A. Narlikar (2006) ‘Peculiar Chauvinism or Strategic Calculation? Explaining the Negotiation Strategy of a Rising India’, International Affairs , vol. 2, issue 1, 64.

J. Degnbol-Martinussen (2002) ‘External Constraints on Policy-Making and Industrial Development in India’, The European Journal of Development Research , vol. 14, no. 1, 48.

J. Degnbol-Martinussen (2002) ‘External Constraints on Policy-Making and Industrial Development in India’, The European Journal of Development Research , vol. 14, no. 1, 49.

A. Narlikar and J. Odell (2006) ‘The Strict Distributive Strategy for a Bargaining Coalition: The Like Minded Group in the World Trade Organization’, in John Odell (ed.) Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 123.

A. Narlikar (2006) ‘Peculiar Chauvinism or Strategic Calculation? Explaining the Negotiation Strategy of a Rising India’, International Affairs , vol. 2, issue 1, 65.

A. Narlikar and J. Odell (2006) ‘The Strict Distributive Strategy for a Bargaining Coalition: The Like Minded Group in the World Trade Organization’, in John Odell (ed.) Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 124.

J. Degnbol-Martinussen (2002) ‘External Constraints on Policy-Making and Industrial Development in India’, The European Journal of Development Research , vol. 14, no. 1, 65.

A. Narlikar and J. Odell (2006) ‘The Strict Distributive Strategy for a Bargaining Coalition: The Like Minded Group in the World Trade Organization’, in J. Odell (ed.) Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 128.

S. P. Cohen (2001) India: Emerging Power (Brookings Institution Press: Washington DC), 71.

A. Narlikar (2006) ‘Peculiar Chauvinism or Strategic Calculation? Explaining the Negotiation Strategy of a Rising India’, International Affairs , vol. 2, issue 1, 72.

S. P. Cohen (2001) India: Emerging Power (Brookings Institution Press: Washington DC), 85.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2011 Rajesh Kumar and Verner Worm

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kumar, R., Worm, V. (2011). Negotiating in India: Some Case Studies. In: International Negotiation in China and India. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230353909_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230353909_7

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-31921-3

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-35390-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Business & Management Collection Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology

Personality

• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Negotiation and bargaining.

• Wolfgang Steinel Wolfgang Steinel Leiden University, Department of Psychology
•  and  Fieke Harinck Fieke Harinck Leiden University, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.253
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve.

There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate.

Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation.

Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

• negotiation
• negotiation style
• multiparty negotiations
• motivated information processing

Bargaining and negotiation, the “back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed” (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2012 , p. xxv), are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2021 ).

Negotiation and bargaining are common terms for discussions aimed at reaching agreement in interdependent situations, that is, in situations where parties need each other in order to reach their goals. While both terms are often used interchangeably, Lewicki et al. ( 2021 ) distinguish between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation. Distributive refers to situations where a fixed amount of a resource (e.g., money or time) is divided, so that one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. In such win–lose situations, like haggling over the price of a bicycle, bargainers usually take a competitive approach, trying to maximize their outcomes. Integrative refers to situations where the goals and objectives of both parties are not mutually exclusive or connected in a win–lose fashion. In such more complex situations that usually involve several issues (rather than the distribution of only one resource), interdependent parties try to find mutually acceptable solutions and may even search for win–win solutions, that is, they cooperate to create a better deal for both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

The distinction between bargaining and negotiation reflects the research tradition, where bargaining has largely been investigated from an economic perspective, focusing on the dilemma between immediate self-interest and benefit to a larger collective. Negotiation has mostly been investigated from the perspective of social psychology, organizational behavior, management, and communication science and has mainly focused on the effect on, and behavior and cognition of people in richer social situations.

Research Paradigms

Negotiation research has applied various paradigms. Game-theoretic approaches, such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma and related matrix games, in which simultaneous choices together influence two parties’ outcomes, explore how people handle the conflict between immediate self-interest and longer-term collective interests (see Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013 , for a review). A paradigm to investigate behavior in purely distributive settings is the Ultimatum Bargaining Game (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982 ). It models the end phase of a negotiation: one player offers a division of a certain resource (e.g., €100 split 50–50), and the other player can either accept, in which case the offer is carried out, or reject, in which case both players get nothing. Studies in ultimatum bargaining have consistently shown that even in distributive one-shot interactions, bargainers not only try and maximize their own outcomes, but are also driven by other-regarding preference, can reject unfair offers (Güth & Kocher, 2014 ), are concerned about being and appearing fair (Van Dijk, De Cremer, & Handgraaf, 2004 ), and are affected by their own and a counterpart’s emotions (Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef, 2012 ).

While ultimatum bargaining is a context-free simulation of a distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation has predominantly been studied in richer contexts that simulate real-life decision-making. Research has largely relied on negotiation simulations to identify and analyze participants’ behaviors and measured economic outcomes (Thompson, 1990 ). Field studies on negotiation behavior have been conducted to a much smaller extent (Sharma, Bottom, & Elfenbein, 2013 ).

The remainder of this article will first describe the strategy and planning for negotiations, and the behavior and outcomes of negotiations. It will then cover research on factors that affect behavior and outcome in integrative negotiation, starting with intrapersonal factors, such as cognitions and emotions. Then aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, culture, and group constellations will be covered, before moving on to aspects of the situational context, such as time, communication media, and conflict issues, and concluding with some emerging lines of research.

Negotiation Preparation and Goals

The goal of negotiations.

The goal of negotiations may be deal-making or dispute resolution. Before entering the actual negotiation, well-prepared negotiators define the goals they want to achieve and the key issues they need to address in order to achieve these goals (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Deal-making (e.g., a student selling his bike) involves two or more parties who have some common goals (e.g., transferring ownership of the bike from the seller to the buyer) and some incompatible goals (receiving a high price vs. paying a low price), and try and negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo (the seller keeping the bike) or any alternative agreements with third parties (e.g., selling the bike to someone else or buying a different bike). Negotiation with the aim of dispute resolution (e.g., a student complaining about the noise a flatmate makes) occurs when parties who are dependent on each other (e.g., because they share a flat) realize that they are blocking each other’s goal attainment (preparing for an exam vs. listening to punk rock) and negotiate what can be done to solve the problem.

Preparing for Negotiations

Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets, and limits, and to prepare an opening offer (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). Figure 1 shows the key points in the example of a student selling his bike to another student. The target point is the point at which each negotiator aspires to reach a settlement. For example, the seller hopes to sell his bike for €280, and the buyer hopes to buy it for €190. By making opening offers beyond their targets, negotiators create leeway for concessions while pursuing their goal. In the bike example, the seller has prepared an opening offer (e.g., an asking price) of €320, while the buyer planned to start the negotiation by offering to pay €150. Well-prepared negotiators define their limits before entering a negotiation by setting a resistance point, that is, the price below which a settlement is not acceptable (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). If, for example, the seller would accept any price above €200 and the buyer is willing to pay up to €280, it is likely that they settle on a price somewhere in this range. This zone between the two parties’ resistance points is called zone of potential agreements (ZOPA; Lewicki et al., 2021 ).

Figure 1. Overview of Key Points in Negotiation Preparation (Example).

Well-prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reaching a deal in the upcoming negotiation, in particular of their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA; Fisher et al., 2012 ). As the quality of a negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement, and thus their dependency on their counterpart, attractive BATNAs increase a negotiator’s power.

Deal-making and dispute resolution differ in the way parties are dependent on each other: in deal-making, both parties can have independent alternatives that they can unilaterally decide to turn to instead of reaching a deal (the buyer may find a different seller, and the seller might find another potential buyer). Disputes that occur between parties who share a common fate, like flatmates, parents of a child, co-owners of a company, or different ethnic or religious groups living on the same territory, can only be solved by the parties working together. The alternative to not solving a dispute for both disputants therefore is conflict escalation (e.g., sabotaging the stereo installation), a victory for one (and a grudge for the other) or a stalemate in which neither party is willing to abandon their position. These alternatives usually do not last or they damage the relationship between the parties.

Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes

Negotiation is communication. Parties communicate either directly, or through agents, and exchange offers and counteroffers, usually alongside arguments, questions, proposals, cooperative statements, commitments, threats, and so on. How people behave in negotiations is influenced by their preferred negotiation style. The Dual Concern Model (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ) describes how two types of concerns jointly determine negotiation styles. These two concerns, which can both range in intensity from low (i.e., indifference) to high, are the concern about a party’s own outcome and the concern about the other’s outcome, as displayed in Figure 2 . Importantly, the model does not postulate concern about a party’s own interests (also called concern for self or self-interest) and concern about the other’s outcomes (also called concern for other or cooperativeness) as opposite ends of one scale, but rather as two dimensions that can vary independently.

Figure 2. Dual-Concern Model.

Parties with a low concern for self and for other will probably be avoiding negotiations, leaving the other party without an agreement. Parties with a high concern for self and a low concern for other are likely to use forcing behaviors, while aiming to achieve the own goals by imposing a solution onto the other. Forcing (also called contending), like using threats or other forms of pressure, is detrimental to the relationship with the other party, and can lead parties into a conflict spiral, especially when they are similarly powerful (Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Parties with a low concern for self and a high concern for other are likely to engage in yielding . Yielding (also called accommodating), like making large concessions or accepting the other party’s demands, is often the strategy of parties who feel weaker than their counterpart or have a strong need for harmony. This can lead into a dynamic of exploitation. It is less effective when negotiating important issues, since yielding on important issues will leave the yielding party dissatisfied with the outcome. Parties with an intermediate concern about both parties’ outcomes are likely to use compromising , a “meet-in-the-middle” approach often considered a democratic and fair way of solving conflicts between mutually exclusive goals. Parties who compromise, however, might settle for a simple solution and overlook more creative solutions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ).

The negotiation styles displayed in Figure 2 , on the diagonal from yielding via compromising to forcing, entail distributive behavior. Distributive behavior aims to distribute the value of a deal in a win–lose fashion—one’s losses are the other’s gains. These are the behavior that bargainers engage in during positional bargaining—each side takes a position, argues for it, and might make concessions in order to move toward a compromise (Fisher et al., 2012 ). The negotiation style problem-solving, which is located beyond this distributive diagonal, aims at reaching win–win agreements. Instead of focusing on their positions, parties with a high concern for self and for other may focus on their interests. Interests are the underlying causes or reasons why negotiators take a certain position (Fisher et al., 2012 ). Engaging in integrative problem-solving behavior, negotiators try to find solutions that integrate both parties’ interests and are thus better for both parties than a simple compromise would be (see the article “ Conflict Management ” for a more elaborate description of the dual concern model).

Differentiation before Integration

Negotiations often follow a differentiation-before-integration pattern in which negotiating parties start with distributive, forcing behavior, such as threatening the other party or fiercely arguing for their own interests. Only after realizing that this competitive behavior does not bring them any closer to an agreement, for example because the other party does the same, they tend to switch to more integrative negotiation and become willing to look for mutually satisfactory agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Olekalns & Smith, 2005 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). In lab studies, such switches from competitive to cooperative negotiation often occur after temporary impasses (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 )—moments in a negotiation in which parties take a time-out before having reached an agreement. In field studies, such switches have been described as “ripe moments” (Zartman, 1991 ) or “turning points” (Druckman, 2001 ; Druckman & Olekalns, 2011 ).

Outcomes of Negotiations

Outcomes of negotiations are either an impasse when no agreement is reached or an agreement that can be either distributive (win–lose) or integrative (win–win). Outcomes can be measured as objective or economic outcomes—such as money or points—and as subjective outcomes—such as satisfaction with the outcome or process and willingness to interact in the future (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009 ). Distributive agreements are those that divide some fixed resources between parties in a win–lose way—one party’s gains are the other party’s losses. An example would be a situation in which a buyer and seller are negotiating only about the price of a bike. Win–lose does not necessarily imply victory of one party over the other—a simple compromise (50–50) where parties meet in the middle of their initial demands is an example of a distributive agreement as well. Distributive negotiation styles are likely to lead to impasses when parties match their forcing behavior, or to distributive agreements when one party yields to the forcing of the other or when both decide to compromise and “meet in the middle.”

Integrative agreements are those that divide an expanded set of resources and thereby increase the benefit for both negotiators. Contrary to distributive bargaining, which is dominated by value-claiming strategies, integrative negotiation offers the possibility to create value, that is, to find solutions that improve the outcomes to both parties (Lewicki et al., 2021 ). A key activity in integrative negotiation is to generate alternative solutions to the problem at hand. One way to generate alternative solutions is by adding resources and negotiating about more than initially planned, thereby making a deal more attractive to both parties. Figuratively, negotiators expand the pie before they divide it. For example, the seller of a bicycle might add a good bicycle lock that he does not need any more, thereby making a better deal selling his bike and lock, while the buyer gets a good lock for his new bike and in total pays less than he would have paid if he had to buy a new lock in a shop.

Another way to generate alternative solutions is by discussing multiple issues rather than single issues, and by determining which issues are more and less important. For example, the seller of the bicycle might be a returning exchange student who cannot take the bike to his home country, but he needs to use it until the final days of his stay. By negotiating the price and delivery date, buyer and seller may integrate the seller’s preference for a late delivery with the buyer’s preference for a lower price. Integrative negotiation styles can lead to integrative agreements; if negotiators trust each other, exchange information, and gain an accurate understanding of their preferences and priorities, they might detect common interests (Rubin et al., 1994 ) and mutually beneficial trade-offs across topics that vary in importance (Ritov & Moran, 2008 ), so-called logrolling (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). Parties can also reach integrative agreements through an implicit way of exchanging information, for example by proposing multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs; Leonardelli, Gu, McRuer, Medvec, & Galinsky, 2019 ) and letting the other side choose which offers they prefer. For example, knowing that a rental bike would cost €50 a week, the seller may propose two equally attractive offers—selling the bike immediately for €300, or selling it in one week for €250. The prospective buyer, provided he has little urgency, might choose the latter option, thereby creating value from the different priorities that the two parties have.

An important ability of negotiators is perspective-taking, the cognitive capacity to consider the world from another individual’s viewpoint (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Trötschel, Hüffmeier, Loschelder, Schwartz, & Gollwitzer, 2011 ). Perspective-taking helps negotiators detect logrolling opportunities and thereby exploit the integrative potential of a negotiation situation (Trötschel et al., 2011 ).

Cognitions (how people think about a situation) influence negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Cognitions have been the focus of the behavioral decision perspective on negotiations that was dominant in the 1980s and 1990s (for an overview, see Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000 ). Two of the most prominent biases are fixed-pie perceptions and anchoring.

Fixed-Pie Perception

A fixed-pie perception is the common assumption that the interests of the parties are diametrically opposed such that “my gain is your loss” (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ). This idea is related to the view that negotiation is a purely distributive contest in dividing a fixed amount of resources in which the winner claims a larger share than the loser. When both parties have a fixed-pie perception, they are unlikely to notice that their priorities may differ and might overlook profitable opportunities for a mutually beneficial exchange of concessions (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”).

Anchoring is the tendency to rely on a first number when making a judgment. For example, the interested buyer might offer a higher price if, immediately before negotiating the price of the second-hand bike, he saw an ad for a bike costing €1,500, than if he saw a bike offered for €100. The offer made for the second-hand bike is thus influenced (anchored) by prior information. This bias is related to the first-offer effect. In negotiations, the first offer functions as an anchor point at which the negotiation starts and a negotiation agreement is often in favor of the first party that proposes a concrete number (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001 ; Loschelder, Trötschel, Swaab, Friese, & Galinsky, 2016 ).

Emotions (how people feel about a situation) and the expression thereof have a profound influence on negotiation processes and outcomes. The effects of emotions on the negotiation process can be intrapersonal—a person’s mood or emotion influences his or her own behavior. These effects can also be interpersonal—one person who expresses his or her emotions affects another person’s behavior (Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck, & Van Beest, 2008 ).

Intrapersonal Effects of Emotions

The intrapersonal effects of emotions are straightforward. Negotiators who are in a bad mood, or who feel angry or disappointed, are more likely to engage in forcing behavior and less likely to accommodate the other party. On the other hand, negotiators who are in a good mood or feel happy are more likely to be lenient negotiation partners who are willing to make a deal (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997 ; Friedman et al., 2004 ; Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2006 ; Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2010 ; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004 ).

Interpersonal Effects of Emotions

The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations are summarized by the Emotions-As-Social-Information Model (Van Kleef, 2009 ), which proposes that a negotiator’s emotions affect the behavior of their counterparts via two distinct processes. Emotions trigger inferential processes and affective reactions in the targets of those emotions. The inferential process means that emotions give information about the aspirations of a party—an angry reaction of a counterpart on a proposal signals that the counterpart has set ambitious limits. As a result, an angry reaction by party A often triggers a yielding response by party B, in order to satisfy party A and reach an agreement (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). A happy reaction by party A, on the other hand, might indicate the proposal is near target point of party A, and party B may conclude that no further concessions are required in order to reach an agreement.

Emotions might also trigger an affective reaction in the receiver; an expression of anger of party A is likely to engender an angry reaction by party B in return, whereas a more happy reaction will trigger a happier response. In general, the interpersonal effect of anger is exemplified by the finding that negotiators who express anger will get a yielding response from their counterpart, but only when the other party is willing and able to take the emotions of the angry party into account (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006 ; Van Kleef et al., 2004 ). On the other hand, an expression of happiness is met with a more competitive or less yielding response. Expressing anger in negotiations can backfire, however (Van Kleef et al., 2008 ). Anger directed at the person, rather than at a proposal, is likely to lead to retaliation rather than concessions (Steinel, Van Kleef, & Harinck, 2008 ), and the same effect occurs for angry expressions in value-laden conflict (Harinck & Van Kleef, 2012 ); people may overtly concede to a counterpart who expresses anger, but they might subsequently retaliate covertly (Wang, Northcraft, & Van Kleef, 2012 ). Similarly, expressing anger helps powerful negotiators who may receive a conciliatory response, but harms powerless parties, who are more likely to receive an angry, non-conciliatory response (Overbeck, Neale, & Govan, 2010 ; Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest, 2008 ). Also, fake expressions of anger aimed at trying to get the other party to concede are more likely to lead to intransigence rather than to conciliatory behavior in the receiving party, due to reduced trust (Campagna, Mislin, Kong, & Bottom, 2016 ; Côté, Hideg, & Van Kleef, 2013 ).

The cognitions and emotions of negotiation parties show that negotiators are humans; they think, make mistakes, and feel. In fact, for many people negotiations can be quite stressful due to either their thoughts or their feelings about the negotiation. The next section, “ Gender ,” will address situational characteristics that influence negotiation processes, behaviors, and outcomes, focusing on three major situational factors—the gender composition of the negotiating dyad, the power positions of the dyad members, and the cultural environment in which negotiations take place.

Gender differences can arise in negotiation, showing a general advantage for male negotiators over female negotiators. These differences tend to disappear, however, when negotiators are more experienced, when the range of potential agreements is known, or when they negotiate for someone else (Mazei et al., 2015 ). Gender differences in negotiation can largely be explained by stereotypical thinking. The stereotypical ideas of an effective negotiator—strong, dominant, assertive, and rational—tend to align with stereotypical male characteristics, whereas the stereotypical ideas about an ineffective negotiator—weak, submissive, accommodating, and emotional—tend to align with stereotypical female characteristics, suggesting that male negotiators are more effective than female negotiators (Bowles, 2012 ; Kray & Thompson, 2005 ).

These stereotypical ideas can play a role in negotiations when negotiators use them to figure out how to behave and when they want to predict how the other party is likely to behave (Bowles, 2012 ; Mazei et al., 2015 ). In general, male negotiators are expected to be competitive, whereas female negotiators are expected to be more cooperative. For example, people are likely to make lower offers to women than to men and expect women to be more easily satisfied with the offers they receive (Ayres & Siegelman, 1995 ; Kray, Locke, & Van Zant, 2012 ; Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999 ).

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is an important cause for the lower negotiation outcomes achieved by female than by male negotiators (Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2002 ; Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001 ). People experience a stereotype threat when they feel their performance is evaluated on a task in a domain for which they are aware of negative stereotypes about their group’s abilities (Derks, Scheepers, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2011 ). For example, female participants who are evaluated on a math test or in a negotiation might experience stereotype threat, due to the stereotypical belief that women are bad at math or in negotiation. Under conditions in which the stereotype threat is neutralized by presenting the negotiation as a learning tool rather than as an assessment tool, or when female characteristics are linked to negotiation success, gender differences diminish or disappear (Kray et al., 2001 , 2002 ). Gender differences also disappear when people negotiate on behalf of another person or party (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010 ). In that situation, the female stereotypes of caring for others and the negotiation aim align, and male and female negotiators perform equally well.

Stereotype Reactance

Several remedies mitigate this potential disadvantage for female negotiators. First, awareness of stereotype threat can reduce its effects by stereotype reactance . In a study using typical math tests, gender differences disappeared when the test was presented as a problem-solving task rather than a math test, and also when participants received additional information explaining how stereotype threat can interfere with women’s performance on a math test (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005 ). As such, informing female negotiators that a negotiation might trigger a stereotype threat that might interfere with their performance can help neutralize the stereotype threat and its effects.

Backlash is the negative reaction that female negotiators face when they engage in gender-incongruent competitive negotiation behavior (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ). Women can prevent expectancy violations and thus minimize the likelihood of backlash by giving external attributions for competitive behaviors (anticipatory excuses or justifications, such as “my mentor advised me to . . .” or “my association has released a salary survey, and my salary seems to be below average . . .”) or by stressing gender-normative behavior, like using inclusive language (“I am sure we can find a mutually satisfactory agreement”), or influence tactics that indicate warmth and caring (“can you help me to . . .”; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ).

Finally, gender differences tend to diminish when clear instructions to negotiate signal that behaving competitively is not counter-normative. At the individual level, for instance, gender differences disappear when people need to negotiate on behalf of others, a case in point when negotiating is something that a person is supposed to do (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005 ). At a higher level, organizations could, for example, be more transparent about what can or cannot be negotiated, the so-called zones of negotiability (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012 ), specifying what terms of employment are open for discussion (Bowles, 2012 ). The bottom line seems to be that normalizing negotiations and negotiating behavior will diminish gender differences.

A general definition of power is the ability to control one’s own and others’ resources and outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ). In negotiation, power is negatively related to dependency: the more powerful party needs the negotiation to a lesser extent than the less powerful party in order to achieve certain outcomes or to satisfy certain needs. Based upon this idea, power in negotiation research is most often operationalized by giving parties a good or a bad BATNA (Giebels, De Dreu, & Van de Vliert, 2000 ; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 , as described in the section “ Negotiation Preparation and Goals ”). A good BATNA can be a good alternative offer by another party (Magee et al., 2007 ), the existence of an alternative negotiation party (Giebels et al., 2000 ), or the existence of several alternative negotiation parties (Mannix & Neale, 1993 ). A good BATNA leads to more power in the negotiation; negotiators with a good BATNA are less dependent on the negotiation because they can opt for the alternative to reach a beneficial outcome. Other manipulations of power are role instructions (e.g., boss vs. employee; De Dreu & Van Kleef, 2004 ), a power priming writing task (Magee et al., 2007 ), or knowledge about the BATNA (Wong & Howard, 2017 ).

Ample research shows that equal power between negotiation parties—with both parties having comparable BATNAs—generally leads to more integrative agreements than unequal power between negotiation parties (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Mannix & Neale, 1993 ; Wong & Howard, 2017 ). Other research, however, shows that parties who differ in power achieve better collective outcomes (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994 ; Wei & Luo, 2012 ). Depending on circumstances, both power equality and power differences can be harmful. Power equality decreases performance if it leads to power struggles (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010 ), while power differences decrease performance when power disparity is not aligned with task competence (Tarakci, Greer, & Groenen, 2016 ), or when individualistically motivated power holders exploit weaker counterparts (Giebels et al., 2000 ; Van Tol & Steinel, 2020 ). Furthermore, it seems that it is not the asymmetrical BATNA situation per se, but the knowledge about BATNA asymmetry that drives the lower joint outcomes in unequal power situations. By knowing the power advantage, the more the powerful negotiator tends to focus on value claiming, which leads to more judgment errors about the other party, impeding their information sharing and in the end resulting in lower joint outcomes (Wong & Howard, 2017 ). These findings are supported by earlier research showing that the party who feels or is most powerful in the negotiation, is also more likely to engage in or initiate negotiations, make the first offer (leading to more favorable outcomes for that party), and claim a larger share of the outcomes (Magee et al., 2007 ; Pinkley et al., 1994 ).

Interestingly, having no BATNA seems to be more beneficial than having a weak BATNA, because weak BATNAs may function as anchors, influencing negotiators to make less ambitious first offers than those negotiators who have no BATNA at all, who in turn are not influenced by this kind of low anchor and feel more free to make a relatively high first offer (Schaerer, Swaab, & Galinsky, 2015 ).

Culture is the unique character of a social group (Brett, 2000 ), including cultural values about what is important and cultural norms about how to behave (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2000 , 2018 ; Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, & Janssens, 1995 ). Negotiation research concerning culture can be distinguished as intra cultural negotiation research or inter cultural negotiation research (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Gunia, Brett, & Gelfand, 2016 ; Liu, Friedman, Barry, Gelfand, & Zhang, 2012 ). Intracultural research focuses on negotiations between parties from the same culture, and compares negotiations within one culture to negotiations within another culture—a comparison of French–French negotiations versus U.S.–U.S. negotiations, for example. Intercultural negotiation research focuses on negotiations between parties from different cultures, such as French–U.S. negotiations. Although culture can be defined as the unique character of a social group, most negotiation research concerning culture focuses on different nationalities rather than on specific social groups within or between nations.

Studies on the effects of culture on negotiation allow general assumptions on how specific cultural backgrounds affect negotiators’ behavior. However, not everybody adheres to their cultural characteristics to the same extent, and variations within cultures are large, therefore predictions about individual negotiators require caution (Brett, 2000 ).

Cultural differences in how people exchange information and how they deal with power are relevant for negotiation processes and outcomes (Hofstede, 2011 ; Torelli & Shavitt, 2010 ). Most intra- and intercultural negotiation research focuses on differences concerning information exchange and/or influence and power tactics (Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ). Information can be shared directly by giving or asking information about preferences and priorities, as in the United States, or indirectly, by proposals and counterproposals, as in Asian countries. The reactions to proposals and the proposals themselves can also give information about a party’s preferences and priorities (Brett, 2000 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ). Both types of information sharing can lead to integrative outcomes.

Research has mainly compared Western (mostly Northern American negotiators) to East Asian cultures (e.g., Chinese or Japanese negotiators; Adair et al., 2004 ; Brett & Okumura, 1998 ; Tinsley, 1998 ; Tinsley & Pillutla, 1998 ). These cultures differ on several dimensions, with the United States being more individualist, low context, and egalitarian, and East Asian cultures generally being more collectivistic, high context, and hierarchical (Adair et al., 2004 ). These cultural differences have several consequences. For example, negotiators from low-context cultures in which communication is explicit and direct are more likely to use direct rather than indirect information sharing. Also, parties from more egalitarian cultures might pay less attention to power or status differences between the negotiating parties than counterparts from more hierarchical societies. Higher-status negotiators from these societies may interpret this as a lack of respect and react by using their power or competitive strategies.

From the 2010s, the cultural logic approach (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ) has been introduced into the field of negotiations (Aslani et al., 2016 ; Brett, 2018 ; Gunia et al., 2016 ; Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2015 ). This approach distinguishes three different cultures: dignity, honor, and face cultures. In dignity cultures every person has an equal amount of inherent worth that does not depend on the opinions of others. Most Western societies are dignity cultures. In honor cultures, on the other hand, a person’s worth depends on the extent to which the person adheres to the honor code in that person’s own eyes and in the eyes of others. Honor cultures exist in the Middle East and in the southern United States. And finally, in face cultures there are stable hierarchies and people have face as long as they fulfill their duties and obligations accompanying their position in the hierarchy. Face cultures are found in East Asia (Leung & Cohen, 2011 ). The first results using this categorization show that, in intracultural negotiations, parties in dignity cultures use more (direct) information sharing and less competitive influencing behaviors compared to honor and face cultures. Also, dignity cultures are more likely to reach win–win agreements, and to reach a more equal division of outcomes between the parties compared to honor and face cultures (Aslani et al., 2016 ).

Figure 3 displays a model of intercultural negotiation (Brett, 2000 ). It posits that cultural values influence parties’ interests, preferences, and priorities. As such, different cultural values can determine the integrative potential in the negotiation and whether and where profitable trade-offs are possible. On the other hand, cultural norms influence parties’ negotiation behaviors and strategies, so combinations of different cultures can lead to specific interactional patterns. Both the existence of different preferences and priorities and the interaction pattern influence the final outcomes of the intercultural negotiation. Cultural intelligence, defined as a person’s capability to successfully adapt to new cultural settings, has been shown to increase a negotiator’s effectiveness in intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010 ).

Figure 3. How Culture Affects Negotiation.

Negotiations within and between Groups

Much of the empirical laboratory research into negotiation processes and outcome has investigated a basic situation in which two parties, both representing their own interests, negotiate with each other. Some studies have investigated situations that are more socially complex, for example with the conflict being between groups rather than individuals (i.e., intergroup negotiation), sometimes with individuals representing their constituent group (i.e., representative negotiation) or with several negotiators representing each side (i.e., team negotiation), or with negotiations involving more than two parties (i.e., multiparty negotiation). Some 21st-century studies have shed light on the increased social and procedural complexities in these negotiation settings.

Intergroup Negotiations

Intergroup negotiations are typically conducted by representatives (Walton & McKersie, 1965 )—negotiators who represent the group, pursuing not just their own personal interests but also the interests of their constituents. Representatives often negotiate more competitively than people who negotiate on their own behalf, as they tend to think that their constituency favors a competitive approach (Benton & Druckman, 1974 ). The extent to which representatives stick to the group norm (or what they think the groups wants) depends on their need to secure group membership. Representatives who occupy marginal positions in attractive groups seek to demonstrate their belongingness to the group, and they therefore behave more competitively toward an opposing player than representatives who hold central positions in their group (Van Kleef, Steinel, Van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Moffitt, 2007 ). Similarly, representatives with an insecure position in their group follow the group norm more strictly—the more so the higher their dispositional need to belong to the group (Steinel et al., 2010 ). Group norms, however, are not always clear. Constituencies may consist of different individuals—some are hawks, preferring a competitive stance toward the opposing group, while others are doves, favoring cooperation with the opponents. The attention-grabbing power of hawkish messages renders even a minority of hawks in a constituency more influential than doves (Aaldering & De Dreu, 2012 ; Steinel, De Dreu, Ouwehand, & Ramirez-Marin, 2008 ). Another way for constituencies to influence group negotiations is by selecting their representative, a choice that groups make depending on the purpose of the negotiation. When negotiations are identity-related (e.g., about moral issues), groups favor representatives who represent their group norms, or are more extreme than their own group, and as distant as possible from the opposing group. When negotiation are instrumental (i.e., when attaining a favorable outcome is central), however, groups prefer negotiators who deviate from the group norms in a way that brings them closer to the norms that the opposing group holds (Teixeira, Demoulin, & Yzerbyt, 2010 ).

Multiparty Negotiations

Multiparty negotiations differ from interactions between two negotiators in several respects. As every party brings goals, interests, and strategies to the negotiation table, group negotiations are more demanding on information-processing capacities (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ). Furthermore, team negotiations differ from dyadic negotiations, because they occur in a social environment similar to group decision-making, characterized by increased social complexity. Group dynamics depend largely on the goals that individual group members pursue—does everyone try to maximize their individual outcomes, or does the group strive to maximize collective outcomes? Groups which pursue a common goal reach more integrative agreements because they trust each other more and exchange more information than teams of people who pursue their individual goals (Weingart, Bennett, & Brett, 1993 ). Finally, the increased number of negotiators results in procedural and strategic complexity. A way to deal with these complexities is by installing decision rules that specify how to transform individual judgments into a group judgment. Under unanimity rule, every group member can use their veto power to make sure that their interests are recognized in an agreement. Under majority rule, however, team members whose interests are aligned can form a coalition and neglect the needs of minority members with opposed preferences, which is particularly likely and harmful to the collective outcome when group members pursue their individual goals rather than pursuing a collective goal (Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 ).

Team Negotiation

Team negotiation becomes increasingly complex when team members have different preferences and priorities on some of the conflict issues. Subgroup formation can occur and reduce the groups’ ability to implement beneficial trade-offs, if groups in team negotiations are not unitary teams where all members share the same preferences, but instead some team members have preferences that align better with the preferences of (some members of) the opposing group (Halevy, 2008 ). Subgroup conflict can also have positive effects, as it challenges fixed-pie perceptions and thus increases team members’ motivation to form an accurate understanding of the situation (Halevy, 2008 ).

Motivated Information Processing

Social motives.

Several of the studies mentioned in the section “ Multiparty Negotiations ” relate to one of the strongest determinants of negotiation processes and outcome— social motives (e.g., Beersma & De Dreu, 2002 , De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008 ; Weingart et al., 1993 ). Social motives are preferences for certain distributions of value between oneself and others, which can be rooted in a person’s character (social value orientations; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997 ) or engendered externally. A bonus system based on individual performance, for example, would give rise to individualistic motivation, while a bonus system that rewards the collective performance of a work team would spur more prosocial motivation. Pro-self negotiators aim to maximize their individual outcomes and tend to see negotiations as competitive interactions in which power and individual success are important. Prosocial negotiators, on the other hand, strive for equality and high collective gains, and tend to see negotiation as a cooperative endeavor in which fairness and morality are central (De Dreu et al., 2008 ).

Epistemic Motivation

The Motivated Information-Processing in Groups Model (De Dreu et al., 2008 ) states that win–win agreements are more likely when negotiators are prosocially motivated, because this leads to more trust, information exchange, and problem-solving behavior. Importantly, apart from a prosocial motivation, integrative agreements also require a high epistemic motivation , that is, the desire to form an accurate understanding of the situation. Negotiators with a high epistemic motivation make use of the information they exchange and find options to create value, for example by exchanging mutually beneficial concessions. Negotiators with a low epistemic motivation make suboptimal compromises instead. Epistemic motivation is fostered, for example, when negotiators are process accountable—the need to explain or justify their behavior motivates them to think carefully. Epistemic motivation is reduced, for example, when time pressure makes people prefer rules of thumb and other mental shortcuts over a careful appraisal of the available information.

Time Pressure

Time pressure can be beneficial and detrimental to negotiation performance. On the one hand, time pressure impairs negotiators’ decision-making, because it reduces epistemic motivation and leads to shallow information processing (De Dreu et al., 2008 ). Time pressure may also lead to impasses, when negotiators have insufficient time to craft mutually acceptable or even beneficial agreements. On the other hand, time pressure may also motivate negotiators to reach a deal quickly, increase their willingness to make concessions, help overcome positional bargaining, and increase negotiation efficiency (Moore, 2004 ).

Time pressure can be the result of time costs or of deadlines. Time costs are the costs of delaying an agreement, for example legal costs in a dispute or loss of income before a joint venture is agreed upon. Having higher time costs than one’s opponent (e.g., having a more expensive lawyer than the other party) is a weakness in negotiations, as the party with high time costs is more dependent on settling the conflict quickly, while the party with low time costs can afford to extend the negotiations and wait for the counterpart to concede.

Many negotiators misunderstand the implication of unilateral deadlines on the power balance between negotiators and see deadlines as a weakness, too: negotiators who have a deadline that their opponent is not aware of tend to keep this deadline secret, being afraid that they would otherwise reveal their weakness. Negotiators who learn about a counterpart’s deadline often try and stall the negotiation in an attempt to receive concessions. Unlike time costs, however, the deadline that one party has is a mutual constraint to both parties—if no deal is made before the deadline, both parties fall back on their BATNA. If both negotiators understand that a deadline is a mutual constraint, the time pressure resulting from the deadline can be beneficial, as negotiators need to work efficiently toward a deal (Moore, 2004 ).

Communication Media

As negotiating through e-mail or videoconferencing is becoming more and more common, the question of how communication media, and in particular the richness and synchrony of communication channels, affect negotiation processes and outcomes is key. The communication orientation model (Swaab, Galinsky, Medvec, & Diermeier, 2012 ) posits that the benefit of richer channels (i.e., those that offer sight and sound, as compared to only text, and synchronicity of communication rather than a delayed back-and-forth messaging) depends on the negotiators’ orientation to cooperate or not, such that richer channels increase the achievement of high-quality outcomes for negotiators with a neutral orientation. The richness of channels matters less for negotiators with a cooperative orientation. For negotiators with a non-cooperative orientation richer communication channels can even be detrimental.

An important side note to our knowledge of the effects of communication media in negotiation, however, is that technology has been changing rapidly since 2010 —with the invention of forward-facing cameras on smartphones and applications like Skype, negotiators nowadays are much more familiar with videoconferencing than the participants of earlier studies, on which most of our knowledge is based. It is reasonable to assume that the utility of any communication medium depends on the familiarity and comfort of the user (Parlamis & Geiger, 2015 ).

Conflict Issues

An important moderator of negotiation processes and conflict management is the conflict issue—what the conflict is about. Research on conflict issues generally distinguishes between resource-based conflict and value-based conflict (Druckman, Broome, & Korper, 1988 ; Druckman, Rozelle, & Zechmeister, 1977 ; Harinck & Ellemers, 2014 ; Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000 ; Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). Resource-based conflict concerns conflict about scarce resources such as time, money, or territory. Value-based conflict concerns conflict about norms, values, and personal opinions, such as political preferences or rules of behavioral conduct—what is morally good or bad, and what is (un)acceptable behavior? Although other types of conflict can be distinguished, such as power struggles, status conflict, or informational conflict (who is right concerning a factual issue?), most conflict issue research has focused on the two large categories of resource-based and value-based conflict.

Conflict issue matters for negotiators’ behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and perceptions, and for the outcomes negotiators achieve. For negotiation behaviors and outcomes, it is shown that value-based conflicts are harder to solve via negotiation and often lead to less than optimal agreements than resource-based conflicts (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002 ). While scarce resources can be divided by the give and take of traditional negotiation, people hesitate to give in on one topic in order to gain on another topic when the conflict concerns values. For example, pro-environmentalists are not going to agree on oil drilling in Alaska in exchange for a boycott on oil drilling in a Navajo reserve. Those “taboo trade-offs”—trading off values either against other values, or for money, such as selling a child—raise moral outrage, and are considered unacceptable (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000 ).

In several studies, negotiations between participants assuming the role of attorneys were framed as value-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves justice) or resource-based conflict (determining a penalty that serves the personal position of the attorney). In resource-based conflicts, as compared to value-based conflicts, more trade-offs between topics (logrolling; as described in the section “ Outcomes of Negotiations ”) occurred and led to better negotiation agreements, including win–win agreements (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ). Different types of conflict have been found to affect the degree of negotiators’ satisfaction with integrative agreements. In resource-based conflict, negotiators were more satisfied with win–win agreements obtained by trade-offs than with objectively worse 50–50 compromises. In value conflicts, however, negotiators were more satisfied with the 50–50 compromises than with the win–win agreements that entailed trade-offs. In value-based negotiation, people seem to prefer compromise agreements in which both parties have to give in rather than an objectively better agreement that would include a value trade-off (Stoeckli & Tanner, 2014 ).

The conflict patterns differ between resource- and value-based negotiations as well. In resource-based negotiations, parties often start with a strong fixed-pie perception (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 ) and a concomitant competitive stance. After a while, when they realize that they might need to negotiate with the other party in order to reach any agreement at all, they become more flexible and less competitive and start making concessions. In value-based negotiations on the other hand, people initially expect other people to share their ideas. Once they realize the other party does not, they expect opposition and perceive less common ground than people in resource-based negotiations (Harinck & De Dreu, 2004 ; Harinck et al., 2000 ), which results in a less cooperative approach. It matters whether negotiation situations are framed as resource- or value-based conflicts, because negotiators perceive less common ground between themselves and the other party, and consider agreements less likely in the value-based conflicts compared to the (same-topic) resource conflicts. Moreover, personal involvement and feelings of being threatened are stronger in value-based than resource-based conflicts (Kouzakova, Ellemers, Harinck, & Scheepers, 2012 ; Kouzakova, Harinck, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2014 ).

Current Developments

Research in negotiation and bargaining is thriving not only in (social) psychology, but also in management and communication science and (experimental) economics, and is becoming interdisciplinary. Globalization and digitalization have connected people all over the world more than ever before. In order to handle conflict, solve urgent global problems (like climate change or migration), and create collaboration and business opportunities, our connected world requires an understanding of conflict within and across different cultures.

Interaction among Gender, Power, and Culture

More research into dignity, honor, and face cultures and into the interaction among power, gender, and culture is needed. Commendably, in the 2000s, more and more research investigating the interaction between gender, power, and culture has been conducted. Evidence has accumulated that gender differences can be power differences in disguise (Galinsky, 2018 ), power differences may play out very differently depending on the culture in which the negotiation takes place, and gender roles (including acceptable and unacceptable behaviors) may differ across cultures. There are some studies investigating combinations of power and gender (Hong & Van der Wijst, 2013 ; Nelson, Bronstein, Shacham, & Ben-Ari, 2015 ), power and culture (Kopelman, Hardin, Myers, & Tost, 2016 ), or gender and culture (Elgoibar, Munduate, Medina, & Euwema, 2014 ), but a more elaborate and systematic investigation of these combinations in intra- and intercultural negotiation research is needed in our currently increasingly diversifying societies, in which men and women from all over the world need to work, and thus negotiate, with each other.

Communication Processes

Other emerging topics of research relate to communication processes during conflict and negotiation, including silences (Jared Curhan, Yeri Cho, Teng Zhang, & Yu Yang, in Hart et al., 2019 ), or asking questions in negotiations, in particular the willingness to ask sensitive questions (Einav Hart & Eric VanEpps, in Hart et al., 2019 ) or the effect of deflecting direct questions. Deflecting a direct question that a person does not want to answer (“What did you earn in your latest job?”) with a counter-question (“Would you like to offer me a job then?”) has been found to be better for interpersonal and economic outcomes than refusing to answer the question or giving an evasive answer (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2020 ). The use of humor in negotiations is also under investigation. Humor can decrease the credibility of a person’s statements or disclosures, which has implications as to when a person should or should not use humor in negotiations (Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Ethics and Deception

Ethical questions that arise in negotiation are mostly related to truth-telling and deception (Lewicki et al., 2021 ; Robinson, Lewicki & Donahue, 2000 ). Deception is the topic of a growing body of research. Earlier studies focused on the antecedents of deception and found that negotiators are more likely to deceive when stakes are high (Tenbrunsel, 1998 ), when they know that the other negotiator lacks information (Croson, Boles, & Murnighan, 2003 ), when they aim to maximize their individual rather than the collective gains (O’Connor & Carnevale, 1997 ), when they expect their counterpart to be competitive rather than cooperative (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004 ), or when the counterpart is a stranger rather than a friend (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999 ) or angry rather than happy (Van Dijk et al., 2008 ). Research focus is shifting toward processes and consequences of various types of deception, such as informational or emotional deception, and, depending on whether the deception is detected, its consequences for the deceiver, the target, and third parties (Gaspar, Methasani, & Schweitzer, 2019 ).

Neurobiological Processes

Neurobiological processes are also increasingly becoming a focus of research. Negotiation behavior and outcomes are influenced by hormones such as oxytocin (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2010 ) or cortisol (e.g., Akinola, Fridman, Mor, Morris, & Crum, 2016 ; De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ; Harinck, Kouzakova, Ellemers, & Scheepers, 2018 ). Increased cortisol levels can be beneficial for outcomes in salary negotiation, but only when people experience their higher levels of arousal (due to higher levels of cortisol) as beneficial; otherwise, they are detrimental (Akinola et al., 2016 ). Other research has focused on brain activity (e.g., Weiland, Hewig, Hecht, Mussel, & Miltner, 2012 ) and other physiological activity such as pupil dilatation (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ). Until now, most of this research has been done in relatively content-free experimental game settings (De Dreu & Gross, 2019 ), but gradually similar measurements are getting introduced in more naturalistic negotiation experiments (Akinola et al., 2016 ; Harinck et al., 2018 ).

Personality effects are making a comeback on the research agenda. As experiments have revealed little or no effects of various aspects of personality on negotiation behavior, “many authors have reached the conclusion that simple individual differences offer limited potential for predicting negotiation outcomes” (Bazerman et al., 2000 , p. 281). In 2013 , this widely held irrelevance consensus was challenged by a meta-analysis that revealed that personality traits did predict various negotiation outcome measures (Sharma et al., 2013 ). For example, cognitive ability predicts negotiation outcomes, and extraversion and agreeableness predict subjective outcomes. The effects of personality factors on negotiation behavior and outcomes are stronger in field settings than in laboratory experiments, as in the latter case behavioral options are restricted due to the strong demand characteristics of the situation and a focus on short-term economic outcomes in interactions between unacquainted experimental participants. Personality is more likely to affect behavior in negotiation situations that are not affected by the clearly defined norms common to laboratory studies, suggesting that the irrelevance consensus was a result of limited data (Sharma et al., 2013 ). More research into negotiation in naturalistic settings will help us understand how personality and situational factors interact to predict negotiation and bargaining behavior. Brett’s ( 2000 ) model, presented in Figure 3 , with the terms “culture” replaced by “personality,” could serve as guiding framework for this re-emerging line of research.

Negotiation and bargaining are thriving research areas. The increasing globalization and concomitant societal developments steer research into new directions of culture and gender, while at the same time technological developments enable researchers to investigate negotiation behavior and communication in more advanced and sophisticated ways. The findings and advice that result from this research will help people across the world to deal effectively with their differences and enable them to create solutions and agreements that are profitable for all parties involved.

Further Reading

• Galinsky, A. D. , & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend and foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both . New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
• Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world . New York, NY: Scribner.
• Malhotra, D. (2016). Negotiating the impossible: How to break deadlocks and resolve ugly conflicts (without money or muscle) . Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Aaldering, H. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Why hawks fly higher than doves: Intragroup conflict in representative negotiation . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 15 , 713–724.
• Adair, W. , Brett, J. , Lempereur, A. , Okumura, T. , Shikhirev, P. , Tinsley, C. , & Lytle, A. (2004). Culture and negotiation strategy . Negotiation Journal , 20 , 87–111.
• Akinola, M. , Fridman, I. , Mor, S. , Morris, M. W. , & Crum, A. J. (2016). Adaptive appraisals of anxiety moderate the association between cortisol reactivity and performance in salary negotiations . PLoS ONE , 11 (12), e0167977.
• Allred, K. G. , Mallozzi, J. S. , Matsui, F. , & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 70 , 175–187.
• Amanatullah, E. , & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 256–267.
• Aslani, S. , Ramirez-Marin, J. , Brett, J. , Yao, J. , Semnani-Azad, Z. , Zhang, Z. , & Adair, W. (2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 37 , 1178–1201.
• Ayres, I. , & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review , 85 , 304–321.
• Bazerman, M. H. , Curhan, J. R. , Moore, D. A. , & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation . Annual Review of Psychology , 51 , 279–314.
• Beersma, B. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 227–252.
• Benton, A. A. , & Druckman, D. (1974). Constituent’s bargaining orientation and intergroup negotiations . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 4 , 141–150.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 151 , 73–89.
• Bitterly, T. , & Schweitzer, M. (2020). The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 118 (5), 945–990.
• Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston, TX: Gulf.
• Bowles, H. R. (2012). Psychological perspectives on gender in negotiation . HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP12-046, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, MA.
• Bowles, H. R. , Babcock, L. , & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 , 951–965.
• Brett, J. (2000). Culture and negotiation . International Journal of Psychology , 35 , 97–104.
• Brett, J. (2018). Intercultural challenges in managing workplace conflict: A call for research . Cross Cultural & Strategic Management , 25 , 32–52.
• Brett, J. M. , & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 495–510.
• Campagna, R. L. , Mislin, A. A. , Kong, D. T. , & Bottom, W. P. (2016). Strategic consequences of emotional representation in negotiation: The blowback effect . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 605–624.
• Côté, S. , Hideg, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2013). The consequences of faking anger in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 453–469.
• Croson, R. T. A. , Boles, T. L. , & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 51 , 143–159.
• Curhan, J. , Elfenbein, H. , & Kilduff, G. (2009). Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations . Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 524–534.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Greer, L. L. , Handgraaf, M. J. J. , Shalvi, S. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Baas, M. , . . . Feith, S. W. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans . Science , 328 , 1408–1411.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 42 , E116.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , Nijstad, B. A. , & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision-making . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 , 22–49.
• De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (3), 303–319.
• Derks, B. , Scheepers, D. , Van Laar, C. , & Ellemers, N. (2011). The threat vs. challenge of car parking for women: How self- and group affirmation affect cardiovascular responses . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 178–183.
• Druckman, D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 45 , 519–544.
• Druckman, D. , Broome, B. J. , & Korper, S. H. (1988). Value differences and conflict resolution: Facilitation or delinking? Journal of Conflict Resolution , 32 , 489–510.
• Druckman, D. , & Olekalns, M. (2011). Turning points in negotiation . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 4 , 1–7.
• Druckman, D. , Rozelle, R. , & Zechmeister, K. (1977). Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Two perspectives. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social-psychological perspectives (pp. 105–131). Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Elgoibar, P. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. J. , & Euwema, M. C. (2014). Do women accommodate more than men? Gender differences in perceived social support and negotiation behavior by Spanish and Dutch worker representatives . Sex Roles , 70 , 538–553.
• Fisher, R. , Ury, W. , & Patton, B. (2012). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
• Friedman, R. A. , Brett, J. M. , Anderson, C. , Olekalns, M. , Goates, N. , & Lisco, C. C. (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes . Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 369–376.
• Galinsky, A. (2018). Are gender differences just power differences in disguise? . Ideas and Insights, Columbia Business School, March 13.
• Galinsky, A. D. , & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 657–669.
• Gaspar, J. P. , Mathasani, R. , & Schweitzer, M. (2019). Fifty shades of deception: Characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations . Academy of Management Perspectives , 33 (1), 62–81.
• Gelfand, M. , & Brett, J. (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
• Giebels, E. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 255–272.
• Greer, L. L. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction . Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 1032–1044.
• Gunia, B. C. , Brett, J. M. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2016). The science of culture and negotiation . Current Opinion in Psychology , 8 , 78–83.
• Güth, W. , & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature . Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 108 , 396–409.
• Güth, W. , Schmittberger, R. , & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 3 , 367–388.
• Halevy, N. (2008). Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 1687–1702.
• Harinck, F. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses . European Journal of Social Psychology , 34 , 595–611.
• Harinck, F. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). The impact of conflict issues on fixed-pie perceptions, problem solving, and integrative outcomes in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 81 , 329–358.
• Harinck, F. , & Ellemers, N. (2014). How conflict issues change the nature of the conflict game. In C. K. W. De Dreu (Ed.), Social conflict within and between groups (pp. 19–36). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
• Harinck, F. , Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2018). Coping with conflict: Testosterone and cortisol changes in men dealing with disagreement about values vs. resources . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 11 , 265–277.
• Harinck, F. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations . British Journal of Social Psychology , 51 , 741–752.
• Hart, E. , Chaudhry, S. J. , Curhan, J. R. , Greer, L. L. , Roberts, A. , Cho, Y. , . . . Zhang, T. (2019). Words will never hurt me? Managing conflict through communication . Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2019 (1).
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 2 (1).
• Hong, A. P. C. I. , & Van der Wijst, P. J. (2013). Women in negotiation: Effects of gender and power on negotiation behavior . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 6 , 273–284.
• Imai, L. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 83–98.
• Johns, M. , Schmader, T. , & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle: Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math performance . Psychological Science , 16 , 175–179.
• Keltner, D. , Gruenfeld, D. H. , & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition . Psychological Review , 110 , 265–284.
• Kopelman, S. , Hardin, A. E. , Myers, C. G. , & Tost, L. P. (2016). Cooperation in multicultural negotiations: How the cultures of people with low and high power interact . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 721–730.
• Kopelman, S. , Rosette, A. S. , & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative and neutral emotions in negotiations . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 99 , 81–101.
• Kouzakova, M. , Ellemers, N. , Harinck, F. , & Scheepers, D. (2012). The implications of value conflict: How disagreement on values affects self-involvement and perceived common ground . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 798–807.
• Kouzakova, M. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Scheepers, D. (2014). At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and motivational responses to moral conflicts and resource conflicts . Social Psychological and Personality Science , 5 , 35–42.
• Kray, L. J. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Thompson, L. L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 87 , 386–410.
• Kray, L. J. , Locke, C. C. , & Van Zant, A. B. (2012). Feminine charm an experimental analysis of its costs and benefits in negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1343–1357.
• Kray, L. J. , & Thompson, L. L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research . Research in Organizational Behavior , 26 , 103–182.
• Kray, L. J. , Thompson, L. L. , & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 , 942–958.
• Kulik, C. , & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide . Journal of Management , 38 , 1387–1415.
• Lelieveld, G.-J. , Van Dijk, E. , Van Beest, I. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why anger and disappointment affect other’s bargaining behavior differently: The moderating role of power and the mediating role of reciprocal and complementary emotions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 38 , 1209–1221.
• Leonardelli, G. J. , Gu, J. , McRuer, G. , Medvec, V. H. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 152 , 64–82.
• Leung, A. K. Y. , & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 , 507–526.
• Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2021). Essentials of negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Liu, L. A. , Friedman, R. , Barry, B. , Gelfand, M. J. , & Zhang, Z. X. (2012). The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations . Administrative Science Quarterly , 57 , 269–304.
• Loschelder, D. D. , Trötschel, R. , Swaab, R. I. , Friese, M. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When moving first helps versus hurts negotiators . Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 995–1012.
• Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , Barsness, Z. I. , Tinsley, C. H. , & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior , Vol. 17 (pp. 167–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Magee, J. C. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate and moving first in competitive interactions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 , 200–212.
• Mannix, E. A. , & Neale, M. A. (1993). Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 2 , 119–133.
• Mazei, J. , Hüffmeier, J. , Freund, P. , Stuhlmacher, A. , Bilke, L. , & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators . Psychological Bulletin , 141 , 85–104.
• Moore, D. A. (2004). The unexpected benefits of final deadlines in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 (1), 121–127.
• Nelson, N. , Bronstein, I. , Shacham, R. , & Ben-Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power, gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences . Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 8 , 1–24.
• O’Connor, K. M. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). A nasty but effective negotiation strategy: Misrepresentation of a common-value issue . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , 504–515.
• Olekalns, M. , & Smith, P. L. (2005). Moments in time: Metacognition, trust and outcomes in dyadic negotiations . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 , 1696–1707.
• Overbeck, J. R. , Neale, M. A. , & Govan, C. L. (2010). I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 112 , 126–139.
• Parlamis, J. D. , & Geiger, I. (2015). Mind the medium: A qualitative analysis of email negotiation . Group Decision and Negotiation , 24 , 359–381.
• Pinkley, R. L. , Neale, M. A. , & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 57 (1), 97–116.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
• Ritov, I. , & Moran, S. (2008). Missed opportunity for creating value in negotiations: Reluctance to making integrative gambit offers . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 21 , 337–351.
• Robinson, R. J. , 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 , 649–664.
• Rubin, J. , Pruitt, D. G. , & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Schaerer, M. , Swaab, R. I. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Anchors weigh more than power: Why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes . Psychological Science , 26 , 170–181.
• Schweitzer, M. E. , & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions . International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 225–248.
• Shafa, S. , Harinck, F. , Ellemers, N. , & Beersma, B. (2015). Regulating honor in the face of insults . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 47 , 158–174.
• Sharma, S. , Bottom, W. P. , & Elfenbein, H. A. (2013). On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: A meta-analysis . Organizational Psychology Review , 3 , 293–336.
• Sinaceur, M. , & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why anger expression is effective in negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 42 , 314–322.
• Solnick, S. J. , & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 79 , 199–215.
• Steinel, W. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision-making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86 , 419–434.
• Steinel, W. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , Ouwehand, E. , & Ramirez-Marin, J. Y. (2008). When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 109 , 67–78.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Harinck, F. (2008). Are you talking to me ?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 362–369.
• Steinel, W. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Knippenberg, D. , Hogg, M. A. , Homan, A. C. , & Moffitt, G. (2010). How intragroup dynamics affect behavior in intergroup conflict: The role of group norms, prototypicality, and need to belong . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 13 (6), 779–794.
• Stoeckli, P. L. , & Tanner, C. (2014). Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest- versus value-based issues on negotiator satisfaction . European Journal of Social Psychology , 44 , 202–208.
• Swaab, R. I. , Galinsky, A. D. , Medvec, V. , & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The Communication Orientation Model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiation and group decision-making outcomes . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 16 , 25–53.
• Tarakci, M. , Greer, L. L. , & Groenen, P. J. F. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance? Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 , 415–429.
• Teixeira, C. P. , Demoulin, S. , Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 228–234.
• Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 330–339.
• Tetlock, P. E. , Kristel, O. V. , Elson, B. , Green, M. , & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 853–870.
• Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues . Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 515–532.
• Thompson, L. , & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 47 , 98–123.
• Tinsley, C. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German and American cultures . Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 316–323.
• Tinsley, C. , & Pillutla, M. (1998). Negotiating in the United States and Hong Kong . Journal of Business Studies , 29 , 711–728.
• Torelli, C. J. , & Shavitt, S. (2010). The impact of power on information processing depends on cultural orientation . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 959–967.
• Trötschel, R. , Hüffmeier, J. , Loschelder, D. D. , Schwartz, K. , & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: When putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 101 , 771–790.
• Van Dijk, E. , De Cremer, D. , & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 40 , 697–707.
• Van Dijk, E. , Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 , 600–614.
• Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18 , 184–188.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Longer-term consequences of anger expression in negotiation: Retaliation or spillover? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 753–760.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 , 510–528.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Steinel, W. , Van Knippenberg, D. A. , Hogg, M. , & Moffitt, A. (2007). Group member prototypicality and intergroup negotiation: How one’s standing in the group affects negotiation behaviour . British Journal of Social Psychology , 46 , 129–152.
• Van Kleef, G. A. , Van Dijk, E. , Steinel, W. , Harinck, F. , & Van Beest, I. (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future . Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 13–30.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Joireman, J. A. , Parks, C. D. , & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120 , 125–141.
• Van Lange, P. A. M. , Otten, W. , De Bruin, E. M. N. , & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 , 733–746.
• Van Tol, J. S. , & Steinel, W. (2020). Dictators in the Aloha Beach Club: The effect of asymmetric power dispersion and social motives on group negotiation . Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Wade-Benzoni, K. A. , Hoffman, A. J. , Thompson, L. L. , Moore, D. A. , Gillespie, J. J. , & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions . Academy of Management Review , 27 , 41–57.
• Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Wang, L. , Northcraft, G. B. , & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 119 , 54–63.
• Wei, Q. , & Luo, X. (2012). The impact of power differential and social motivation on negotiation behavior and outcome . Public Personnel Management , 41 , 47–58.
• Weiland, S. , Hewig, J. , Hecht, H. , Mussel, P. , & Miltner, W. H. R. (2012). Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining . Social Neuroscience , 7 , 537–551.
• Weingart, L. R. , Bennett, R. I. , & Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 504–517.
• Wong, R. S. , & Howard, S. (2017). Blinded by power: Untangling mixed results regarding power and efficiency in negotiation . Group Decision Making , 26 , 215–245.
• Zartman, I. W. (1991). Regional conflict resolution. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation (pp. 302–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Related Articles

• Organizational Behavior
• Social Psychology and Language
• Group Decision-Making

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 17 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

LawGlobal Hub

Search a keyword.

Search our legal repository for any term from articles, statutes to cases

• LawGlobal Hub /

Negotiation Dynamics: Understanding the Interplay between Communication, Power, and Influence – Chenna & Manoj

Negotiation Dynamics: Understanding the Interplay between Communication, Power, and Influence

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Background information on negotiation and its importance in business and personal relationships

Introduction.

Negotiation is the process of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement between two or more parties who have competing interests. Negotiation is an essential skill in both personal and business relationships because it enables individuals to resolve conflicts, create mutually beneficial outcomes, and maintain positive relationships. This research paper will discuss the background information on negotiation, its importance in business and personal relationships, and the different negotiation strategies used in different situations.

Background Information: Negotiation has been a part of human interaction since the beginning of time. It is a fundamental part of human nature to negotiate, and it is an essential skill for survival. Negotiation can be defined as a process of communication aimed at reaching a mutually beneficial agreement between two or more parties. Negotiation involves identifying the interests of both parties and finding a way to satisfy those interests in a way that benefits both parties. Negotiation is a complex process that involves several stages.

The first step is preparation, during which each party determines their goals and creates a plan to get there. The second step is the opening, in which each side expresses their standpoint and interests. The third step is the negotiating stage, when the parties exchange information back and forth, to come to an amicable agreement. The fourth stage is the close, in which the parties agree on the agreement’s terms. 1

Importance of Negotiation in Business

Negotiation is an essential skill in business because it enables individuals to create mutually beneficial outcomes, resolve conflicts, and maintain positive relationships. Business negotiations can occur in various forms, such as negotiations between employers and employees, negotiations between companies, and negotiations between suppliers and customers. Negotiation skills are particularly important for entrepreneurs who are starting a new business. They must negotiate with suppliers, customers, investors, and employees to ensure the success of their venture. Negotiation skills also help entrepreneurs to develop partnerships and collaborations that can help them grow their business. In addition, negotiation skills are crucial for managers and executives who need to negotiate contracts, partnerships, and mergers. Negotiation skills are also important in resolving conflicts within the workplace, such as disputes between employees or between employees and management.

Importance of Negotiation in Personal Relationships : Negotiation is not only important in business but also in personal relationships. It is essential to be able to negotiate effectively with friends, family, and romantic partners to maintain positive relationships. Negotiation skills can help individuals to express their needs, listen to the needs of others, and find a way to satisfy both parties’ interests. In romantic relationships, negotiation skills can help individuals to navigate conflicts and disagreements, find common ground, and strengthen their relationship. In family relationships, negotiation skills can help individuals to resolve conflicts, communicate effectively, and maintain positive relationships.

B . Research question or hypothesis

This research paper’s main goal is to evaluate and examine the essential components of successful negotiation and how they apply in diverse contexts. This work specifically aims to respond to the following research question: What are the fundamental negotiation techniques, frameworks, modes of communication, and tactics, and how can they be successfully implemented in various negotiating situations, such as business, politics, and interpersonal relationships? This research article also intends to critically evaluate the current negotiating literature, spot gaps and contradictions, and offer suggestions for future research. This research attempts to offer a thorough and useful guide for negotiators wishing to improve their negotiating abilities through a thorough analysis of the literature, case studies, and expert interviews. 2

C. Purpose of the study

The aim of this research is to examine the factors that impact negotiation outcomes in both personal and business relationships. The study will investigate the effectiveness of different negotiation models, communication styles, and strategies in achieving successful outcomes. Additionally, the research will explore the factors that influence negotiators’ ability to identify and achieve their goals, and the strategies that are most effective in resolving conflicts and breaking deadlocks. The research will use a mixed-methods approach, including in-depth interviews and surveys of negotiators. The study’s findings will provide practical recommendations for negotiators to improve their negotiation skills and achieve better outcomes in both personal and professional contexts. The contribution of this study to the field of negotiation research will be to advance our understanding of the key factors that contribute to successful negotiation outcomes and to provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of various negotiation strategies and tactics.

D. Significance of the study

Negotiation is a critical skill in both personal and professional contexts that can have a significant impact on our relationships and outcomes. However, there is a dearth of research that empirically examines the factors that influence successful negotiation outcomes. This study seeks to address this gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of the various factors that affect successful negotiation outcomes, including negotiation models, communication styles, strategies, and tactics. The research findings will be valuable in developing evidence-based best practices for negotiators and informing the creation of negotiation training programs based on empirical research. The practical implications of this study are broad, as negotiation skills are relevant in diverse settings such as business, law, diplomacy, and interpersonal relationships. Additionally, this study will contribute to the theoretical understanding of negotiation by advancing our knowledge of the factors that influence successful negotiation outcomes. Therefore, the significance of this study lies in its potential to improve our ability to negotiate successfully, enhance our personal and professional relationships, and contribute to the field of negotiation research.

III. Negotiation Skills – Goal setting: Identifying Your Goals, Options and Criteria of Success

A. Definition of goal setting in negotiation:

Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties engage in discussions or meetings to reach a mutually acceptable agreement or solution. During a negotiation, each party has its own set of interests, priorities, and objectives, which may overlap 3 or conflict with those of the other party. Effective negotiation requires each party to identify and communicate its goals clearly and to work collaboratively to achieve outcomes that are mutually beneficial.

Goal setting is a critical component of effective negotiation. It involves identifying specific and measurable objectives that a negotiator seeks to achieve during the negotiation process. Goals may relate to a wide range of factors, including financial outcomes, resource allocation, dispute resolution, relationship-building, and other key aspects of the negotiation. The goals should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) to guide the negotiation process.

There are several benefits to setting goals in negotiation. Firstly, it helps to clarify objectives and establish priorities. This can help each party to focus their efforts on achieving outcomes that are most important to them, and to identify areas where compromises may be possible. Secondly, goal setting can help to build trust and rapport between parties. By setting clear and reasonable goals, negotiators can demonstrate their willingness to engage in a collaborative and transparent negotiation process, which can help to build goodwill and promote effective communication.

Moreover, goal setting can help to improve decision-making during the negotiation process. By establishing specific and measurable goals, each party can evaluate proposals and offers in terms of their potential impact on achieving their objectives. This can help negotiators to make informed and strategic decisions, and to avoid settling for outcomes that may be less favourable or less aligned with their interests.

However, it is important to note that goal setting should not be viewed as a rigid or inflexible process. Negotiations are often dynamic and may require parties to adjust their goals as the negotiation progresses. Therefore, it is essential to remain flexible and open to feedback, and to be willing to revise goals or objectives if necessary.

In summary, goal setting is a critical component of effective negotiation. By identifying specific and measurable objectives, negotiators can clarify priorities, build trust, and promote effective decision-making. However, it is important to remain flexible and adaptable throughout the negotiation process, and to be willing to adjust goals or objectives as necessary to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

B. Importance of goal setting in negotiation

Goal setting is a fundamental component of effective negotiation and can have a significant impact on the outcomes of the negotiation. Here are some of the key reasons why goal setting is so important in the negotiation process:

Clarify objectives: Goal setting helps to clarify the objectives of each party, and to establish priorities. By setting clear and specific goals, negotiators can identify what is most important to them, and work to achieve outcomes that are aligned with their int 4 rests. This can help to avoid misunderstandings or confusion and promote effective communication and collaboration.

Establish benchmarks: Setting goals helps to establish benchmarks and standards for the negotiation process. By setting specific and measurable objectives, each party can evaluate proposals and offers in terms of their potential impact on achieving their goals. This can help to ensure that each party is working towards mutually beneficial outcomes and can help to avoid impasses or disputes.

Promote strategic decision-making : Goal setting promotes strategic decision-making during the negotiation process. By establishing clear objectives, each party can evaluate proposals and offers in terms of their potential impact on achieving their goals. This can help to promote effective decision-making, and to avoid settling for outcomes that may be less favourable or less aligned with their interests.

Build trust and rapport : By setting clear and reasonable goals, negotiators can demonstrate their willingness to engage in a collaborative and transparent negotiation process. This can help to build trust and rapport between parties, and to promote effective communication and problem-solving.

Identify areas for compromise : Goal setting can help to identify areas where compromises may be possible. By setting specific and measurable goals, each party can evaluate proposals and offers in terms of their potential impact on achieving their goals. This can help to identify areas where concessions may be possible, and to promote effective negotiation and compromise.

Facilitate effective communication: Setting clear goals can facilitate effective communication between parties. By establishing specific and measurable objectives, each party can communicate their needs and interests clearly, and work towards outcomes that are mutually beneficial. This can help to promote understanding and cooperation, and to avoid misunderstandings or disputes.

In summary, goal setting is a critical component of effective negotiation, and can have a significant impact on the outcomes of the negotiation. By clarifying objectives, establishing benchmarks, promoting strategic decision-making, building trust and rapport, identifying areas for compromise, and facilitating effective communication, goal setting can help to promote effective negotiation and achieve outcomes that are mutually beneficial.

C. Strategies for effective goal setting

Identify priorities : Before entering a negotiation, it is important to identify the priorities and objectives of each party. This can help to establish a clear understanding of what is most important to each party, and to identify potential areas for compromise.

Set specific and measurable goals: Effective goal setting requires setting specific and measurable objectives. This can help to establish clear benchmarks and standards for the negotiation process, and to evaluate proposals and offers in terms of their potential impact on achieving the desired outcomes.

Consider alternative outcomes : In addition to setting specific goals, it is important to consider alternative outcomes and potential scenarios. This can help to identify potential roadblocks or challenges, and to develop contingency plans if the negotiation does not achieve 5 the desired outcomes.

Focus on mutual benefits : Effective goal setting requires focusing on outcomes that are mutually beneficial to both parties. This can help to promote cooperation and collaboration, and to avoid potential conflicts or disputes.

Maintain flexibility : While it is important to set specific and measurable goals, it is also important to maintain flexibility throughout the negotiation process. This can help to adapt to changing circumstances or unforeseen challenges, and to identify potential opportunities for compromise or creative solutions.

Establish a timeline : Effective goal setting requires establishing a clear timeline for achieving the desired outcomes. This can help to ensure that the negotiation process remains focused and productive, and to avoid unnecessary delays or distractions.

Communicate effectively : Finally, effective goal setting requires effective communication between parties. This includes clearly articulating objectives and priorities, actively listening to the perspectives and concerns of other parties and working collaboratively to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

In summary, effective goal setting requires identifying priorities, setting specific and measurable goals, considering alternative outcomes, focusing on mutual benefits, maintaining flexibility, establishing a timeline, and communicating effectively. By adopting these strategies, negotiators can increase the likelihood of achieving successful outcomes in their negotiations. 6

V. Communication Style in Negotiation

A. definition of communication style.

Communication style refers to the distinct pattern of verbal and nonverbal communication behaviours that an individual uses to express themselves, interact with others, and convey meaning in various social and professional settings. Communication style is an important aspect of interpersonal communication and can have a significant impact on how individuals perceive and respond to messages.

Scholars have identified several dimensions of communication style, including verbal and nonverbal cues, the use of humour, level of assertiveness, and the degree of directness or indirectness in speech. Verbal cues refer to the words and phrases used by an individual when communicating, while nonverbal cues include body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. The use of humour can also be an important aspect of communication style, as it can help to establish rapport and create a positive social atmosphere.

Another important dimension of communication style is assertiveness, which refers to the degree to which an individual expresses their needs, opinions, and feelings. Individuals with a highly assertive communication style tend to be more direct and forceful in their communication, while those with a less assertive communication style may be more passive or indirect in their communication.

Finally, the degree of directness or indirectness in speech is also an important dimension of communication style. Direct communication styles tend to be more straightforward and explicit, while indirect communication styles rely on implicit cues and nonverbal communication to convey meaning.

Communication style can have a significant impact on social and professional interactions, as it can influence how individuals perceive and respond to messages. Understanding one’s own communication style, as well as the communication styles of others, can help to improve communication effectiveness and promote positive social interactions. Additionally, recognizing and adapting to the communication styles of others can help to establish rapport, build trust, and enhance professional relationships. 7

B. Importance of communication style in negotiation

Effective communication is critical to successful negotiations, and an important aspect of effective communication is communication style. Communication style can influence how messages are perceived, interpreted, and responded to by the other party, and can play a key role in establishing rapport, building trust, and achieving successful outcomes.

Here are some ways in which communication style can impact negotiations:

Building rapport : Communication style can help to establish rapport and create a positive social atmosphere during negotiations. For example, using humor or a friendly tone of voice can help to break down barriers and establish a more collaborative and cooperative relationship with the other party.

Conveying information : Communication style can impact how information is conveyed during negotiations. Effective communicators are able to clearly and concisely convey their positions, goals, and objectives, and to provide relevant information in a way that is easily understood by the other party.

Managing conflict : Communication style can also play a critical role in managing conflict during negotiations. For example, individuals with an assertive communication style may be more effective in standing up for their interests and negotiating from a position of strength, while those with a more collaborative communication style may be better equipped to find creative solutions that meet the needs of both parties.

Building trust: Communication style can also impact the level of trust that exists between parties during negotiations. Individuals who are perceived as honest, transparent, and straightforward in their communication style are more likely to be trusted by the other party, which can help to build a more productive and successful negotiating relationship.

Influencing outcomes : 8 Finally, communication style can also influence the outcomes of negotiations. Effective communicators can persuade and influence the other party, and to negotiate effectively towards achieving their desired outcomes.

Effective communication style is critical to successful negotiations. By understanding their own communication style, as well as the communication styles of others, negotiators can build rapport, convey information effectively, manage conflict, build trust, and influence outcomes. Ultimately, effective communication style can help to achieve successful negotiation outcomes that benefit all parties involved.

C. Different communication styles and their impact on negotiation

There are several different communication styles that can impact negotiations in different ways:

Assertive Communication Style : Assertive communicators are confident, direct, and straightforward in their communication style. They express their opinions, needs, and wants in a clear and concise manner. This style can be effective in negotiations as it can help establish the negotiator as a strong and confident individual, which can lead to better outcomes. However, this style can also come across as aggressive or confrontational, which can damage relationships and create conflict.

Collaborative Communication Style: Collaborative communicators are skilled at working together with the other party to find common ground and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. This style is effective in negotiations as it can help build trust and rapport with the other party, which can lead to more successful negotiations. However, this style can also be perceived as weak or indecisive if not managed effectively.

Accommodating Communication Style : Accommodating communicators are focused on meeting the needs of the other party rather than their own needs. This style can be effective in negotiations when building long-term relationships or when negotiating with someone who has more power. However, this style can also result in giving away too much and not achieving desired outcomes.

Avoidant Communication Style : Avoidant communicators tend to avoid conflict and confrontation and may have difficulty expressing their needs and wants. This style can be detrimental to negotiations as it can lead to misunderstandings, lack o 9 f clarity, and missed opportunities.

Competitive Communication Style : Competitive communicators are focused on winning and achieving their desired outcomes, even at the expense of the other party. This style can be effective in negotiations when there is a clear power dynamic or when time is limited. However, this style can also result in damaged relationships and negative long-term consequences.

VI. Breaking Deadlocks in Negotiation

A. definition of deadlocks in negotiation.

Deadlocks in negotiation refer to a situation where the parties involved are unable to reach an agreement or make progress towards a resolution. It is a point in the negotiation process where there is a standstill, and neither party is willing to make further concessions or compromise. Deadlocks can occur for various reasons, including differences in values, goals, or interests, limited resources, power imbalances, or emotional barriers. When a deadlock occurs, negotiations may break down, and the parties may be unable to reach an agreement. Resolving deadlocks requires creative problem-solving and effective communication, as well as a willingness to explore alternative solutions or options. Failure to address deadlocks can result in a breakdown of the negotiation process, damaged relationships, and negative consequences for both parties. Therefore, it is essential to identify and manage deadlocks effectively in negotiations to achieve successful outcomes. 10

B. Causes of deadlocks in negotiation

Deadlocks in negotiation can arise due to various factors, including: Differences in goals: Parties may have different goals or objectives that they are trying to achieve in the negotiation. When these goals are incompatible, it can lead to a deadlock. Differences in values: Parties may have different values that they prioritize in the negotiation. When these values are incompatible, it can be challenging to reach a resolution that satisfies both parties. Limited resources: If the resources being negotiated over are limited, it can be challenging to find a solution that meets the needs of all parties. This can lead to a deadlock. Power imbalances: If one party has significantly more power or leverage in the negotiation, they may be less willing to compromise or make concessions. This can lead to a deadlock if the other party is unable to meet their demands. Emotional barriers: Parties may have emotional barriers, such as mistrust, fear, or resentment, that prevent them from making progress in the negotiation. These emotional barriers can create a deadlock by making it difficult to build rapport or find common ground. Addressing deadlocks in negotiation requires understanding the underlying causes and finding ways to overcome them. This may involve reframing the issues, finding creative solutions, or building trust between the parties. Effective communication and a willingness to explore different options can help to break deadlocks and move the negotiation forward. 11

C. Strategies for breaking deadlocks

Breaking deadlocks in negotiation requires creativity, flexibility, and a willingness to explore alternative solutions. Here are some strategies that can be effective in breaking deadlocks:

Reframing the issues: Sometimes, deadlocks arise because the parties are focusing on the wrong issues or using the wrong criteria for evaluating solutions. By reframing the issues, parties can find new opportunities for compromise and resolution.

Finding common ground: Even when parties have different goals or values, they may have areas of common interest that can be used as a basis for agreement. Finding common ground can help parties to build trust and find a path forward.

Offering trade-offs: Parties may be more willing to make concessions if they feel they are receiving something of value in return. By offering tradeoffs, parties can break deadlocks and find solutions that are mutually beneficial.

Bringing in a mediator: A neutral third party can help parties to break deadlocks by facilitating communication, managing emotions, and finding creative solutions.

Taking a break: Sometimes, deadlocks arise because parties are too entrenched in their positions or emotions are running high. Taking a break can help parties to clear their minds, re-evaluate their priorities, and come back to the negotiation with a fresh perspective. 12

VII. Strategy and Tactics/Games Negotiators Play

A. definition of negotiation strategy and tactics.

Negotiation strategy refers to the overall approach that a party takes to achieve their objectives in a negotiation. It involves setting goals, identifying priorities, and planning a course of action to achieve those goals. Negotiation tactics, on the other hand, refer to the specific techniques that a party uses to achieve their objectives in a negotiation. Tactics may include persuasion, making concessions, using deadlines, or making threats.

Effective negotiation strategies and tactics depend on the situation and the parties involved. A negotiation strategy should consider the interests and needs of all parties and aim to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. Tactics should be used strategically and ethically and should be tailored to the specific context of the negotiation.

Successful negotiation requires both a well-planned strategy and effective tactics. A strong negotiation strategy provides a framework for decision-making and helps parties to stay focused on their goals. Effective negotiation tactics help to build rapport, manage emotions, and create opportunities for compromise and resolution.

Overall, negotiation strategy and tactics are essential components of successful negotiation. Parties who take a strategic and thoughtful approach to negotiation are more likely to achieve their objectives and build strong, productive relationships with their counterparts. 13

B. Different negotiation games and their characteristics

Negotiation games are different types of approaches that negotiators can use to achieve their goals. Here are some common negotiation games and their characteristics:

Distributive negotiation: This type of negotiation game involves two parties competing for a fixed number of resources. The goal is to claim as much of the available resources as possible. Distributive negotiation tends to be more adversarial, with each party trying to gain an advantage over the other.

Integrative negotiation: In this type of negotiation game, the goal is to create value and expand the available resources. Integrative negotiation involves collaboration and problem-solving, with parties working together to find a mutually beneficial solution.

Cooperative negotiation: This type of negotiation game involves parties working together to achieve a common goal. The focus is on building relationships and creating win-win outcomes.

Competitive negotiation: Competitive negotiation is like distributive negotiation, but with higher stakes. The goal is to win at all costs and achieve a dominant position over the other party.

Compromising negotiation: In this type of negotiation game, both parties give up something to reach an agreement. The goal is to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties, even if it doesn’t fully meet either party’s needs.

Distributive, integrative, and mixed-motive games are only a few of the several varieties of negotiation games. Integrative games are ones in which both sides win from the negotiation, whereas distributive games are those in which one party gains at the expense of the other. Games with mixed motivations incorporate aspects of integrative and distributive games. 14

C. Examples of Negotiation Games and Strategies for Success

Negotiation games are commonly used by negotiators to gain an advantage or to achieve their objectives. Some of the most common negotiation games include:

The “Good Cop/Bad Cop” game: In this game, one negotiator acts as the “good cop” who appears friendly and cooperative, while the other negotiator acts as the “bad cop” who appears aggressive and confrontational. The goal of this game is to create a sense of discomfort in the other party, making them more likely to agree to the demands of the “good cop.”

The “Nibble” game: This game involves making small last-minute demands after the other party has already agreed to the main terms of the deal. The goal of this game is to get the other party to agree to the new demands, which may be minor, but can add up over time.

The “Chicken” game: In this game, both parties engage in a high-stakes game of chicken, where each tries to force the other to concede by threatening to walk away from the negotiation. The goal of this game is to pressure the other party into making concessions that they might not have otherwise made.

To succeed in negotiation games, it is important to have a clear understanding of the other party’s interests, as well as your own goals and objectives. Here are some strategies that can help you succeed in negotiation games:

Be aware of the other party’s tactics: By understanding the games that the other party might play; you can be better prepared to counter them or avoid falling into their traps.

Focus on your goals: In negotiation games, it is easy to get distracted by the other party’s tactics and lose sight of your own goals. By staying focused on your objectives, you can avoid being drawn into unproductive games.

Be creative: In some cases, it may be possible to turn a negotiation game to your advantage. By being creative and looking for win-win solutions, you may be able to find a way to satisfy both parties’ interests.

In conclusion, negotiation games can be a powerful tool in achieving your objectives, but they require careful planning and execution. By understanding the different games that can be played, and by developing effective strategies for dealing with them, you can improve your chances of success in any negotiation. 15

VIII. Closing Successfully

A. definition of closing in negotiation.

Closing is the last phase of the negotiation process, where parties finalize the details of their agreement. At this stage, both parties have negotiated and agreed on the terms and are ready to make the deal official. Closing involves making sure that the agreement is understood and agreed upon by both sides, finalizing any unresolved issues, and ensuring that both parties are satisfied with the deal. Successful closing is crucial in creating a positive, long-lasting relationship with the other party, while a poor closing can cause mistrust and damage the relationship. 16

B. Importance of Closing Successfully in Negotiation

Closing is a critical aspect of negotiation that determines the success or failure of the entire process. The ability to close a negotiation successfully is a valuable skill that separates effective negotiators from those who struggle to reach satisfactory outcomes. In addition to sealing the deal, successful closing creates a positive relationship between the parties, increases mutual trust, and lays the foundation for future collaborations.

One of the key benefits of successful closing is that it establishes a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of the agreement. This is important because it reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings and future disputes, which can be costly and time-consuming to resolve. Additionally, successful closing allows both parties to walk away from the negotiation feeling satisfied and respected, which enhances the likelihood of future negotiations and collaborations.

On the other hand, poor execution of the closing phase can lead to mistrust and even the breakdown of the negotiation. For example, if one party feels that they were not treated fairly, or that the terms of the agreement were not clear, they may back out of the deal, leading to wasted time, effort, and resources. In some cases, poor closing can even result in legal disputes and damage to professional relationships.

Therefore, it is essential for negotiators to understand the importance of closing in negotiation and to develop effective strategies for executing this phase of the process. Some of the strategies for successful closing include active listening, clarifying any misunderstandings, ensuring that all parties agree on the terms of the deal, and creating a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Overall, successful closing is a crucial aspect of negotiation that can have a significant impact on the success of the negotiation and the relationship between the parties involved. By understanding the importance of closing and developing effective strategies for executing this phase of the process, negotiators can increase their chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome and building positive, long-lasting relationships with the other party.

Effective closing requires careful planning, execution, and communication skills. There are several strategies that negotiators can use to ensure that they close the deal successfully 17 .

C. Strategies for effective closing

Active Listening: Active listening is a crucial skill for effective negotiation, and it is especially important during the closing phase. Negotiators should listen carefully to the other party’s concerns, priorities, and expectations to ensure that they address them appropriately in the final agreement.

Clarify Any Misunderstandings: It is important to ensure that both parties have a clear understanding of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Any misunderstandings should be clarified before the final agreement is signed to reduce the risk of disputes later.

Ensure Agreement on Terms: Both parties should agree on the terms and conditions of the agreement before closing the deal. This ensures that both parties understand their roles and responsibilities and reduces the risk of future disputes.

Create a Win-Win Situation: Effective closing involves creating a mutually beneficial agreement for both parties. This means that both parties should feel that they have gained something from the negotiation, and that the agreement is fair and equitable.

Build Rapport: Negotiators should use the closing phase to build rapport with the other party. This involves creating a positive relationship and demonstrating respect for the other party’s position.

Follow Up: After the negotiation has been concluded, it is important to follow up with the other party to ensure that both parties are satisfied with the agreement. This helps to build trust and lays the foundation for future negotiations.

By implementing these strategies, negotiators can increase their chances of closing the deal successfully and building positive, long-lasting relationships with the other party. It is important to remember that effective closing requires careful planning, attention to detail, and strong communication skills. By taking the time to develop effective strategies and execute them carefully, negotiators can achieve successful outcomes and build strong, mutually beneficial relationships. 18

IX. Negotiating Integrative Agreements

A. definition of integrative agreements.

Integrative agreements, also known as win-win agreements, are agreements that satisfy the interests and needs of all parties involved in the negotiation. Unlike distributive agreements, where one party gains at the expense of the other, integrative agreements create value for all parties by identifying common interests and finding solutions that meet the needs of everyone involved.

Integrative agreements are based on the principle of mutual gain, which means that all parties should be able to benefit from the agreement in some way. This requires negotiators to move beyond a win-lose mentality and focus on creating value for all parties.

Integrative agreements can be achieved by using a collaborative approach to negotiation. This involves sharing information, exploring options, and seeking creative solutions that meet the needs of all parties. It also involves building trust and establishing a positive relationship between the parties involved.

Integrative agreements can be difficult to achieve, as they require negotiators to look beyond their own interests and focus on the bigger picture. However, the benefits of integrative agreements can be significant, as they can lead to long-lasting relationships, increased trust, and improved outcomes for all parties.

By focusing on the interests and needs of all parties involved, negotiators can create integrative agreements that meet the needs of everyone involved. This requires a collaborative approach to negotiation, a willingness to explore creative solutions, and a commitment to building positive relationships between the parties involved. When done successfully, integrative agreements can create significant value for all parties and lay the foundation for future success in negotiations. 19

B. Importance of Integrative Agreements in Negotiation

Integrative agreements play a crucial role in negotiation, as they offer several benefits for all parties involved. One of the primary benefits of integrative agreements is that they promote cooperation and collaboration between the parties. This can lead to improved relationships and increased trust between the parties, which can be especially valuable in long-term relationships.

Another important benefit of integrative agreements is that they can create value for all parties involved. In contrast to distributive agreements, where one party wins at the expense of the other, integrative agreements are designed to meet the needs and interests of all parties. This can result in improved outcomes and increased satisfaction for everyone involved.

Integrative agreements can also lead to improved creativity and innovation in problem-solving. When parties approach negotiation collaboratively, they are more likely to identify and explore a wider range of options and solutions. This can lead to more creative and effective outcomes that benefit everyone involved.

Moreover, integrative agreements can create more stable and sustainable agreements. Because all parties are satisfied with the outcome, they are more likely to adhere to the terms of the agreement and work together to ensure its success. This can lead to stronger and more stable relationships between the parties, which can be invaluable in achieving long-term success in negotiations.

In conclusion, integrative agreements are essential in negotiation as they promote cooperation, create value for all parties, encourage creativity and innovation, and create stable and sustainable agreements. By focusing on the interests and needs of all parties, negotiators can achieve integrative agreements that meet everyone’s needs and establish a foundation for future success in negotiation. 20

C. Strategies for Negotiating Integrative Agreements

Negotiating integrative agreements can be challenging, as it requires parties to collaborate and work together to identify solutions that meet everyone’s needs. However, there are several strategies that negotiators can use to increase the likelihood of achieving integrative agreements:

Focus on interests, not positions: Negotiators should focus on identifying the underlying interests of all parties rather than simply advocating for their positions. By understanding what each party truly wants, negotiators can identify potential trade-offs and create solutions that meet everyone’s needs.

Collaborate and communicate effectively: Successful integrative agreements require open and effective communication between all parties. Negotiators should work together to share information and ideas, build trust, and maintain a collaborative environment throughout the negotiation process.

Be creative and flexible: Negotiators should be willing to consider a wide range of options and be flexible in their approach to problem-solving. By thinking outside the box and being open to new ideas, negotiators can identify creative solutions that meet everyone’s needs.

Build on areas of agreement: Negotiators should identify areas of agreement and build on them to create solutions that meet everyone’s needs. By focusing on shared interests and goals, negotiators can find common ground and work together to create integrative agreements.

Use objective criteria: Negotiators should use objective criteria to evaluate potential solutions and ensure that they are fair and equitable. By using objective standards, negotiators can avoid biased or arbitrary decisions and ensure that the solution meets everyone’s needs.

Overall, negotiating integrative agreements requires a collaborative and creative approach, focused on understanding the interests and needs of all parties involved. By using these strategies, negotiators can increase the likelihood of achieving integrative agreements that create value for all parties and establish a foundation for future success in negotiations. 21

X. Negotiation Process

A. importance of reviewing negotiation process.

Reviewing the negotiation process is an essential step for improving negotiation skills and outcomes. It allows negotiators to reflect on their performance, identify areas for improvement, and learn from their mistakes. Additionally, reviewing the negotiation process provides an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the negotiation strategy and tactics used, as well as the overall approach to the negotiation.

By reviewing the negotiation process, negotiators can gain valuable insights into their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the other party. This can help negotiators to better understand the dynamics of the negotiation and make more informed decisions in future negotiations. Furthermore, reviewing the negotiation process can help negotiators to develop new strategies and tactics that are better suited to their negotiating style and the specific circumstances of the negotiation.

Moreover, reviewing the negotiation process can help negotiators to identify and address any issues or conflicts that may have arisen during the negotiation. By addressing these issues and conflicts, negotiators can work to build stronger relationships with the other party and establish a foundation for future negotiations.

Overall, reviewing the negotiation process is an important step for improving negotiation skills and outcomes. It provides an opportunity for reflection, learning, and growth, and can help negotiators to build stronger relationships and achieve better outcomes in future negotiations. 22

B. Strategies for reviewing negotiation process.

Strategies for reviewing the negotiation process are an essential component of effective negotiation practice. Through careful analysis and reflection, negotiators can identify areas of strength and weakness, evaluate the effectiveness of their strategy and tactics, and make informed decisions about how to improve their performance in future negotiations.

There are a variety of strategies that can be used to review the negotiation process, including keeping detailed records, conducting post-negotiation analyses, self-assessing, seeking feedback from colleagues or advisors, and benchmarking against industry or market standards. By using these strategies, negotiators can gain a comprehensive understanding of the negotiation process and their own performance, as well as identify opportunities for improvement.

One critical component of the review process is keeping detailed records of the negotiation process. This includes documenting notes on the negotiation strategy, tactics used, and agreements reached. These records can serve as a valuable resource for understanding the negotiation process and identifying areas for improvement.

Another effective strategy for reviewing the negotiation process is conducting a post-negotiation analysis. This involves debriefing with the other party to gain insight into their perspective on the negotiation and identify areas where the negotiator can improve. Self-assessment is another important strategy, as it allows negotiators to reflect on their own performance, identify areas of strength and weakness, and determine how to improve their skills.

Seeking feedback from colleagues or advisors is also a valuable strategy for reviewing the negotiation process. This can provide an external perspective on the negotiation and help negotiators understand how their negotiation approach is perceived by others. Finally, benchmarking against industry or market standards can help negotiators identify areas where they can improve their performance relative to other negotiators. 23

C. Lessons learned from reviewing negotiation process.

Strategies for reviewing negotiation processes are critical to ensure that parties involved in the negotiation can learn from their experiences and make more informed decisions in future negotiations. The review process involves an assessment of the negotiation outcome and the strategies employed in the negotiation process.

To effectively review a negotiation process, it is crucial to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies employed. This involves identifying the underlying assumptions made by the parties, the strategies they employed, and how they affected the negotiation outcome. It is also essential to assess the degree of flexibility and adaptability demonstrated by the parties during the negotiation process.

In addition, reviewing the negotiation process involves evaluating the quality of communication, the level of trust and rapport established between the parties, and the extent to which the parties achieved their goals. A review can help identify the key factors that influenced the negotiation process and the outcome, including the interests and priorities of the parties involved, the level of competition or cooperation, and the impact of external factors.

Furthermore, reviewing negotiation processes can help identify opportunities for improving the negotiation skills of the parties involved. This can include enhancing communication skills, developing new strategies, and building better relationships with stakeholders. The review process can also provide valuable insights into the dynamics of negotiation, including the factors that influence the parties’ behaviour and the strategies that are most effective in achieving positive outcomes.

Overall, reviewing negotiation processes is essential to building knowledge and experience in negotiation and developing effective strategies for achieving favourable outcomes. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the negotiation process, identify strengths and weaknesses, and make informed decisions about how to improve negotiation skills and achieve better results in future negotiations. 24

IV. Models of Negotiation

Models of negotiation refers to the various approaches or frameworks that individuals or groups can use to negotiate effectively. Models help individuals or groups to identify their own interests and goals as well as those of the other party and develop strategies for effectively negotiation a certain situation by providing a systematic and structured way to approach said negotiations, which can increase the likelihood of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. 25

This research paper discusses five models of negotiation, including collaborative or integrative bargaining model, competitive bargaining model, Harvard negotiation model, Game Theory model of bargaining and Cooperative bargaining model.

A. Collaborative Negotiation Process Model

The collaborative negotiation model is a style of negotiation that places an emphasis on collaboration and problem-solving between the parties involved. The collaborative model tries to create value and forge lasting partnerships by identifying and addressing the needs and interests of all parties, in contrast to the competitive model, which prioritizes on personal benefits at the expense of the other party.

The goal of the collaborative negotiating paradigm is to find a compromise that meets the needs of all parties. The essential requirements are open communication, attentive listening, and problem-solving collaboration. The parties to the negotiations exchange information and work to comprehend one another’s viewpoints, priorities, and limitations. They focus locating a solution that benefits all parties and collaborate to identify original solutions that consider everyone’s needs.

Typically, the collaborative negotiation approach has multiple stages. Each party first gets ready for the negotiation by assembling facts, figuring out their interests and concerns, and assessing their bargaining strength.

The parties then engage in small talk, actively listen, and look for areas of commonality to build rapport and trust. The parties then discuss their goals, interests, and concerns to pinpoint areas of agreement and conflict.

The parties then come up with numerous potential solutions that consider the wants and needs of all parties. The options are then assessed by the parties to determine which ones are most likely to satisfy their respective needs. The parties then negotiate the agreement’s final provisions, concentrating on their areas of agreement and working through any remaining issues.

Overall, it’s a collaborative approach that emphasizes cooperation and problem solving and aims to achieve mutual gains for all parties that are involved.

B. Competitive Bargaining Model

The adversarial and competitive nature of the competitive bargaining model makes it a unique negotiation strategy. According to this concept, each party sees the negotiation as a game in which they can only win if the other loses.

According to the competitive bargaining model, negotiation is a zero-sum game where the interests of the parties are in conflict. In the competitive negotiating approach, negotiators are more concerned with accomplishing their own goals than the interests of the opposing party.

To obtain an advantage in the negotiation, they could employ strategies including concealing information, placing unreasonable demands, and threatening action. Generally, the competitive bargaining model promotes winning at all costs in negotiations. While in some situations it could be appropriate, it can also be harmful to the negotiation process and the relationships between the participants and deriving at a mutually beneficial agreement becomes difficult.

Before selecting a negotiation strategy, negotiators should carefully analyse the circumstances and the interests of all parties. They should also be ready to change their strategy as the negotiation proceeds. 

C. Principled Negotiation Process Model

This model was introduced by Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP) by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Patton in 1981. This model is based on the premise that the parties involved in a negotiation can work together to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

This approach is widely accepted model in conflict resolution and is particularly useful when the parties involved have a long-term relationship and want to preserve their working relationship after the negotiation. 26

This model can be developed through four stages:

• Separating people from the problem: It is essential for negotiators to concentrate on the real aspects of negotiation. This principle emphasises the importance of focusing on the issue that is at hand and being negotiated, rather than the people involved in the negotiation. By separating people from the problem, negotiators can avoid any biasness and maintain a constructive respectful negotiation process while focusing deeply on finding a solution that meets the needs of both the parties.
• Focus on interests, not positions: Parties in negotiations distinguish between their own interests and those of the opposing parties. Position refers to a negotiator’s official stance on a matter, whereas interest lies at its core. The real driver behind one party’s position is interest.

To comprehend the goals, expectations, requirements, and views of the other parties, the negotiator must ascertain their interests. Identification of interests gives the parties a chance to create outcomes that will benefit both sides during the negotiating process.

• Invent options for mutual gain: The parties involved must set aside time to thoroughly research all viable possibilities before settling on those that will benefit both of them and keep everyone satisfied. They mist take part in brainstorming meetings to produce fresh concepts that might result in improving agreements.
• Insist on using objective criteria: Finally, the parties have to decide about the criteria of the object according to them and each possible solution needs to be thoroughly evaluated.

Fisher et. al. (1991) introduced BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) in the process of negotiation. It is the alternative choice of action if the proposed agreement is not satisfactory. Each party has the advantage of ascertaining their BATNA and make a guess for the other parties’ BATNA and whoever has a better BATNA has a power over others in the negotiating process.

D. Game Theory Model:

It is a mathematic framework used to study decision making in strategic situations where the outcomes depend on multiple decision makers called “players.” A paradigm for examining negotiations as a strategic interaction between various parties is the game theory model of bargaining.

According to game theory, results of negotiations can be quantified in terms of payoffs, which represent the advantages and disadvantages to each side. Game theory also presupposes that negotiators are self-interested, rational agents, each negotiator is a player trying to get the best possible result for themselves. The choices made by each player, along with the game’s rules and any possible strategies, all affect how the game turns out. 27

One of the most well-known game theory models of bargaining is the Nash bargaining solution 28 , in this model, the players reach an agreement which maximises their payoffs. It is fair and efficient as it maximises joint gains of the players while taking into account the costs of agreement.

There are different types of games that ca be studied within this framework such as Cooperative Games, Non-cooperative games, Simultaneous games etc.

E. Cooperative Bargaining Model

The cooperative bargaining model is a type of negotiation strategy in which the parties collaborate to arrive at a win-win conclusion. It is assumed that all parties have a long-term relationship in mind and that working together rather than competing against one another will help them accomplish their objectives more quickly.

The parties involved in a cooperative bargaining model are more concerned with creating value than with recouping value. They collaborate to identify shared objectives and interests and to come up with original solutions that are advantageous to all concerned. To achieve a win-win outcome, the parties participating in this approach are open and transparent with one another. The negotiating process is viewed as a collaborative problem-solving process under a cooperative bargaining approach.

To discover solutions that satisfy the demands of all parties, the participating parties collaborate to uncover the underlying interests and concerns driving the discussion. The emphasis is on coming up with original solutions that enable everyone to succeed. When there is a continuing interaction between the parties and a desire to find a long-lasting solution, the cooperative bargaining approach is frequently adopted. It is frequently employed in commercial negotiations, labour-management negotiations, and other circumstances where enduring connections are crucial.

In this research paper, we have discussed about various important topics like negotiation skills along with diverse models of negotiations like game theory, collaborative, competitive model of negotiation etc and then the paper progresses with strategies of breaking deadlocks in the negotiation process.

To conclude, negotiation is a strategic discussion between two or more parties aimed at resolving an issue in a way that is acceptable to all parties involved. Negotiation involves give and take, and the process can result in a compromise where each side makes a concession for the benefit of everyone involved. Negotiation skills are essential for success in both personal and professional settings.

Negotiation dynamics are complex and multifaceted, involving a delicate interplay between communication, power, and influence. Understanding the dynamics of power in negotiation is crucial, as powerful negotiators tend to exhibit approach-related behaviours that can impact the outcome of the negotiation.

Power perceptions can drive tactical decisions, which can influence negotiators’ mutual dependence and mediate the relationship. By understanding these dynamics, negotiators can improve their ability to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and build stronger relationships with their counterparts. Additionally, recognizing the importance of maintaining a positive relationship with the other party is essential, as most negotiation situations involve a continuing relationship.

Emotions and cognitive biases can also play a significant role in the negotiation process, and negotiators must be aware of their own biases and emotions, as well as those of the other party. By understanding these various factors and dynamics, negotiators can improve their ability to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and build stronger relationships with their counterparts.

1 (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2015) (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013)

2 (Thompson, 2011), (Bazerman & Neale, 2012)

3 https://www.coursera.org/learn/negotiation-skills .

4 (“The Importance of Setting Goals in a Negotiation” by Heather E. Batterson)

5 https://hbr.org/2019/10/how-to-prepare-for-a-successful-negotiation

6 (“Why Goal Setting is Critical in a Negotiation” by Gregorio Billikopf)

(“The Importance of Setting Clear Objectives in Negotiations” by Michael Melcher)

7 https://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-communication-styles-business-17715.html

8 Huff, A. (2018)

9 (Smith & Johnson, 2021)

10 (Siedel, G. J., 2019)

11 (Bantam Books, 1991)

12 (Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B.,2011)

13 (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P., 1997)

(Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B.,2015)

14 Brett, J. M., & Thompson, L. (2016)

15 (Smith, J., 2021)

16 (Johnson, M.,2021)

17 (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011)

18 (Nelson & Weeks, 2015)

19 (Max H. Bazerman and Margaret A. Neale, 1992)

20 (Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B., 2015)

21 (Kaner, S., & Lind, E. A., 2017)

22 (Kray, L. J., & Haselhuhn, M. P., 2007)

23 (Siddique, C. M.,2021)

24 (Johnson, M., 2019)

25 (Banks, 2006)

26 (Gray, 2011)

27 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

28 (Ken Binmore, 1986)

About Authors

Maanavi Chenna and Alan Manoj are law students at Amity Law School Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Faculty Supervisor – Dr. Abhilasha Raj

Related Posts:

• R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v…
• R (on the application of AM) (AP) v The Director of…
• Joseph Osemwegie Idehen & Ors. Vs George Otutu…
• R (on the application of Smith) (FC) v Secretary of…
• Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Limited and others.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

1. Find a Lawyer

2. publish an article.

LawGlobal Hub is an award-winning legal repository. We help you move forward!

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is the Negotiation Process? 4 Steps

• 04 May 2023

Negotiation is part of daily life—whether buying a car, leasing property, aiming for higher compensation, raising capital for a startup, or making difficult decisions as an organizational leader.

“Enhancing your negotiation skills has an enormous payoff,” says Harvard Business School Professor Michael Wheeler in the online course Negotiation Mastery . “It allows you to reach agreements that might otherwise slip through your fingers. It allows you to expand the pie [and] create value, so you get more benefits from the agreements that you do reach. It also—in some cases—allows you to resolve small differences before they escalate into big conflicts.”

Here's an overview of the negotiation process’s four steps and how to gain the skills you need to negotiate successfully.

Access your free e-book today.

4 Steps of the Negotiation Process

1. Preparation

Before entering a negotiation, you need to prepare. There are several things to define, including your:

• Zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) : The range in which you and other parties can find common ground. To establish the ZOPA, think about your perspective and your counterpart’s. What do you each want and need? Where might you be willing to compromise?
• Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) : Your ideal course of action if an agreement isn’t possible. To determine your BATNA, consider alternatives that provide some of the value you aim to gain from the negotiation. In Negotiation Mastery , Wheeler gives the example that if you can't negotiate down a new car’s price, your BATNA may be to have your old car repaired.
• Walkaway: The line where ending negotiations is better than making a bad deal. Use your BATNA to determine your walkaway. At what point would the BATNA provide more value than a possible negotiated outcome? That’s your walkaway.
• Stretch goal: The best-case scenario for the negotiation’s outcome. It’s critical to give the negotiation a potential ceiling to gauge offers. In Negotiation Mastery, Wheeler recommends choosing a scenario that’s unlikely but not impossible; something that has a 10 percent chance of occurring.

Preparing in advance can improve your confidence, give you clear goals to work toward, and provide a strategy to base your approach on.

2. Bargaining

The second step, bargaining, is what most often comes to mind when thinking about negotiation. Yet, before discussions even begin, there are three levers that determine how the bargaining stage will play out:

• Engaging (the “who”): How do you engage with each other? Is this a friendly conversation, or do you fall into enemy territory?
• Framing (the “what”): How do you define the negotiation? For instance, is it a battle, partnership, or problem to be solved together?
• Norming (the “how”): How do you relate to one another? What behaviors are established that characterize the negotiation?

You typically define these levers in a negotiation’s first few minutes simultaneously. You negotiate the “who,” “what,” and “how” implicitly as the broader negotiation happens explicitly.

How do you and other parties enter the room? Do you greet each other warmly and make small talk, or is there immediate tension? How do you first mention the negotiation? What norms do you imply during the conversation?

Through these levers, you can establish the negotiation’s tone, which is vital as you head into it with someone who may greatly differ from you.

Your counterpart may have different preferences, expectations, risk tolerance, and time horizons. The bargaining stage is about creating value for both you and other parties despite your differences. It requires finding the ZOPA and working within that space to claim the value needed to make the negotiation worthwhile.

“There’s a fundamental tension between creating and claiming value,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “Negotiation isn’t one or the other—it’s both at the same time.”

Related: 7 Negotiation Tactics That Actually Work

The third step in the negotiation process is closing—either coming to an agreement or ending the negotiation without reaching one.

How a negotiation closes depends on each party’s walkaway, BATNA, and ZOPA. It also relies on how you use engaging, framing, and norming to create a relationship with the other parties.

If you can’t reach a solution in the ZOPA, perhaps one or more parties decide to go for their BATNA instead. If you and the other parties create and claim value, you may strike a deal.

4. Learning from Your Experience

The final step of the negotiation process is possible to overlook but critical to your ongoing growth: Reflect on your experience. What went well? What went poorly, and why? How do you feel about the outcome?

No two negotiations are the same. The foundational elements can vary (such as the scenarios and people involved), as well as the finer details (for instance, people’s demeanors, emotions , walkaways, and BATNAs).

Reflecting on the process enables you to get to know yourself better as a negotiator and integrate your learnings into your next negotiation.

What Skills Do You Need for Successful Negotiation?

Even after learning about the negotiation process, negotiations can still feel intimidating. To gain confidence, it can help to understand the skills that great negotiators possess .

The best negotiators are strong communicators with high emotional intelligence . Developing your skills in those areas can help you form connections with counterparts and communicate goals. They can also enable you to craft a strategy and remain agile as a negotiation progresses.

“Great negotiators have keen analytical skills,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “They assess the matter at hand and craft strategy that best fits those particular circumstances. They know that with negotiation strategy, one size doesn’t fit all.”

Finally, you must create value. As Wheeler puts it in the course: You know how to “expand the pie” rather than argue for a bigger slice—creating value for everyone involved while still achieving your goals.

To learn more about the skills needed for successful negotiation, check out the video below and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

How to Become a Better Negotiator

Familiarizing yourself with the negotiation process and what each step entails can demystify it and help you feel more comfortable.

The best way to improve your negotiation skills is through practice. This can take place in real life through interactions like determining a lease’s terms or asking for your desired salary in job interviews.

If you’d prefer to practice in a supportive learning environment, consider enrolling in an online negotiation course featuring virtual simulations.

In Negotiation Mastery , Wheeler leads you through negotiation practice by pairing you with other learners for mock negotiations. He then debriefs each scenario so you can reflect on it and integrate the insights into future negotiations.

Through thoughtful preparation and dedicated practice, you can strengthen your skills and create value in any negotiation.

Do you want to deepen your understanding of negotiation dynamics? Explore our eight-week online course Negotiation Mastery , one of our online leadership and management certificate programs . Not sure which course is right for you? Download our free flowchart .

About the Author

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Business negotiation tactics to use in everyday life

Marielle Segarra

Negotiation skills aren't just for high-stakes situations like job offers and pay raises. They can be used in daily life, like figuring out where you and your friends should go on vacation or what you and your partner should cook for dinner tonight.

They can also help you get what you want and make decisions with more confidence, says Joan Moon , a career coach and the head of negotiation coaching at the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Collaboratory at the Harvard Kennedy School. "They can improve your satisfaction with your situation and give you a sense that you are making intentional choices."

Moon explains four classic negotiation tactics often used in business environments — and how they can be applied in everyday circumstances.

Oops, I messed up! 7 common public speaking issues — and how to fix them

The tactic: benchmarking.

This strategy allows you to gather the information you need to make a fair decision. It's when you compare an offer to market standards and best practices, "then figure out where you lie within that range" to get an optimal deal. People often use benchmarking in salary negotiations to ensure they're being paid equitably, says Moon.

How to use it in everyday life: Use this tactic when making big consumer choices, says Moon — like hiring a contractor to renovate your kitchen or buying a car. "What you're doing is researching good information and an appropriate price point for this purchase" to align your budget and the industry standards.

The tactic: Win-win strategy

This helps different parties find one solution that's in everyone's interest. You might see this in business contracts or labor agreements, for example. Parties won't sign until the terms are mutually beneficial.

How to use it in everyday life: Try this when you want the other party to not just agree with your decision, but feel good about it. Moon shares a recent personal experience. Her phone line was down so she called her phone company to get reconnected — but the customer service agents were unhelpful. She could feel herself getting upset, so she decided to reframe her request using a win-win strategy. She said: "Listen, I've been with this company for ten years and I would like to keep doing so for another ten years. Can we focus on a solution?"

3 common thinking traps and how to avoid them, according to a Yale psychologist

The approach worked, she says. The company didn't want to lose a loyal customer — and Moon wanted her phone fixed.

The tactic: A menu of options

This approach avoids requests that result in a simple yes or no answer. People often use this tactic when negotiating the benefits of a job offer, says Moon. For example, instead of asking for more flexibility at a new job and getting a flat-out no, you might propose a couple of options: working three days remote or a four-day workweek, expanding the possibility of a favorable outcome.

How to use it in everyday life: Offer "a menu of options" to someone if they think only one solution is possible. Let's say you're upset with your roommate for being messy, says Moon. Instead of asking them to clean up (which they haven't been doing), give them choices: hire a housekeeper, change the breakdown of responsibilities at home or adjust the cleaning schedule. "When you present options, it signals to the other person: let's solve this problem together," says Moon.

The rules of improv can make you funnier. They can also make you more confident.

The tactic: best alternative to negotiated agreement.

Negotiators use BATNA to come up with a backup plan when their desired outcome isn't possible. It helps avoid a total win-lose situation and shows the person you're negotiating with that you have a strong alternative, which can increase your leverage in a situation. You might use BATNA when comparing job offers with unfavorable conditions. For example, one job requires you to relocate your family to another state, while the other job pays less but is local. Your BATNA might be to tell both jobs that you will stay at your current gig and unless they can offer something better.

How to use it in everyday life: You can use BATNA for the smallest decisions, like figuring out what to eat for dinner. Let's say your partner wants to stay in and cook tacos but you're not craving it. But never fear, you tell them: you have a backup idea, your BATNA — you'll go out for a burger instead. Yes, you'll have to leave the house, but you won't need to cook or clean up the kitchen.

The digital story was written by Malaka Gharib and edited by Margaret Cirino and Meghan Keane. The visual editor is Beck Harlan. We'd love to hear from you. Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at [email protected].

Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify , and sign up for our newsletter .

• negotiators
• Life Kit: Life Skills
• everyday life

• Subscribe Newsletter
• Track Paper
• Conferences

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

•                              ISSN No. 2454-6186
•                                                                       Strengthening Social Sciences for the Future
• April Issue 2024
• Research Area
• Initial Submission
• Revised Manuscript Submission
• Final Submission
• Review Process
• Paper Format
• Author (s) Declaration
• Registration
• Virtual Library
• Apply as Reviewer
• Join as a Board Member
• Eligibility Details & Benefits
• Board Members

Emotions in Negotiation and Mediation: Strategies for Managing Emotional Dynamics

• Francis Mulu
• Dominic Chungo
• Jun 22, 2023
• Social Science

Francis Mulu, Dominic Chungo Department of Security, Diplomacy and Peace Studies, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.70634

Received: 10 May 2023; Accepted: 22 May 2023; Published: 22 June 2023

Emotions are significant considerations in the negotiating and mediation processes that need to be undertaken in ways that offer effectiveness, through the regulation of emotional dynamics. The objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of strategies for managing emotional dynamics and the impact on mediation and negotiation outcomes. The theories that guided the study included the affective events theory, the appraisal theory and the social identity theory. A web-based survey was used to compile the information with the use of purposive sampling technique in selecting respondents. The findings of the study revealed that feelings have a considerable impact on the process of negotiating or mediating as well as the outcome. Being able to effectively control emotional dynamics is essential to achieving success in negotiation and mediation. In conclusion, the role of empathy and emotional intelligence in productive negotiation and mediation was necessitated. As an implication, the study assists practitioners improve on negotiation and mediation and enhance success in resolving conflicts by providing an overview of the emotional dynamics that are present during the negotiation and mediation processes and presenting practical solutions for controlling those dynamics.

Key Words: Emotions, Negotiations, Mediation, Strategies & Dynamics

INTRODUCTION

The resolution of disputes, the formation of decisions, and the establishment of agreements are all processes that benefit greatly from negotiation and mediation (Väyrynen, 2019). Because the people involved may have contrasting attitudes, interests, and points of view, these procedures are frequently fraught with emotional intensity and can be difficult to manage successfully. As a result of the fact that one’s emotions can have a considerable impact on both the process and the outcome of negotiation or mediation, this aspect of the subject has received a great deal of attention in the fields of psychology and conflict resolution.

Emotions are an essential component of the human experience, and they play an important part in the process of decision-making, as well as in the initiation and maintenance of personal and social relationships (Treffers & Putora, 2020). In the processes of negotiation and mediation, the parties’ feelings can impact their behaviour as well as their attitudes and perceptions, which can either help or impede the process of coming to an agreement. As an illustration, anger might lead to a negotiating style that is more aggressive and confrontational, but fear can lead to a negotiation style that is more cautious and defensive.

It is absolutely essential to successful negotiating and mediation that emotional dynamics be managed. If emotions are not managed properly, they have the potential to cause a breakdown in communication, a rise in tension, and a standstill in the situation.

On the other side, emotions can be used productively to develop rapport, better understand the interests and wants of the parties involved, and come up with innovative solutions if they are first acknowledged and then managed.

It is crucial for practitioners working in the field of conflict resolution to get an awareness of the psychological bases of emotions in negotiation and mediation, as well as the skills necessary to effectively handle emotional dynamics (Nelson, 2021). The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current research on emotions in negotiation and mediation and to offer practical ways for regulating emotional dynamics. In addition, the study will offer some suggestions. This paper has the potential to contribute to the development of conflict resolution procedures that are more successful and effective by increasing the emotional intelligence and negotiation skills of practitioners.

Conflict resolution and agreement making in many different contexts, from business and law to personal relationships, rely heavily on negotiation and mediation according to Omene (2021). But emotions can play a major part in these processes, creating obstacles in communication, decision-making and overall negotiation outcomes. There is a lack of study on successful tactics for controlling emotional dynamics in negotiation and mediation, despite the fact that both processes are widely acknowledged to involve emotional components.

Objective of the Study

To examine the effectiveness of strategies for managing emotional dynamics and the impact on mediation and negotiation outcomes.

Research Question

What are the effective strategies for managing emotional dynamics and their impact on mediation and negotiation outcomes?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The psychological underpinnings of emotions in negotiation and mediation have been widely studied (van Kleef & Lelieveld, 2022). Emotions can be triggered by a variety of factors, including perceived injustice, threats to one’s self-esteem, and a perceived lack of control. Negative emotions, such as anger, fear, and frustration, can lead to more competitive and confrontational negotiation styles, while positive emotions, such as trust and empathy, can foster more collaborative and cooperative approaches.

Several strategies have been proposed for managing emotional dynamics in negotiation and mediation (Fells & Sheer, 2019). One key strategy is to acknowledge and validate emotions. This can involve active listening techniques, such as reflecting back the emotions expressed by the other party, and expressing empathy towards their feelings. Another strategy is to reframe negative emotions into more positive ones. This can involve shifting the focus from the negative emotions to the underlying interests and needs of the parties and finding ways to address those needs.

Emotional intelligence has also been identified as an important factor in effective negotiation and mediation (Bellucci, Venkatraman & Stranieri, 2020). Emotional intelligence involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions and those of others. According to Bellucci, Venkatraman & Stranieri, practitioners with high emotional intelligence may be better equipped to manage emotional dynamics in negotiation and mediation and build rapport with the parties.

Other studies have focused on specific emotional dynamics, such as anger and forgiveness, and their impact on the negotiation and mediation process (Wong, 2020; Salzberg & Amour, 2023). For example, research suggests that expressing anger in a constructive way may lead to more successful negotiations, while failing to forgive can lead to impasse and less satisfactory outcomes.

Relationships between Mediation, Negotiation, Positive Emotions and Emotional Regulation Strategies

According to Chung & Chan (2020), it is evident that individuals have more acceptable and pleasurable experiences when they are feeling positive emotions such as excitement, pleasure, enthusiasm, and thankfulness than when they are feeling negative emotions such as anxiety, fear, anger and sadness. The mind of an individual can experience a sense of relaxation when positive emotions are focused on more frequently than unpleasant ones. However, the existence of this impact does not imply that pleasurable feelings are merely a nice diversion. According to Kim & Kim (2020), the levels of dedication to life as well as a sense of individuality and awareness are reflected in one’s positive emotions.

According to Boamah et. al. (2022), one of the most crucial steps in reaching optimal well-being is striking a balance between the good and negative emotions that an individual experiences. Realizing one’s capacity for pleasant emotions and making efficient use of them can be advantageous in terms of preserving an individual’s mental health and reducing the symptoms of preexisting mental diseases. According to Boamah et. al ., this demonstrates the effect that having pleasant emotions has on establishing adequate emotional regulation. It is well established that pleasant emotions enlarge one’s cognitive capacity and heighten one’s attentiveness.

Cognitively oriented regulation mechanisms, such as reappraisal and adaptive self-reflection, require a wide range of cognitive resources to be effective in achieving emotional control (Kara & Gök, 2020). When positive feelings arise in response to a stressful situation, for instance, they can serve as a form of emotional regulation by encouraging a process of cognitive reappraisal and adaptive self-reflection. Positive emotions can play a role in the control of negative ones and in a study on the impact of positive emotions on the regulation of emotions, people who experienced gratitude, interest, love, and other positive emotions in the midst of the emotional turmoil caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks exhibited fewer depressive symptoms. Based on the results and interpretations of the prior literature, the study concludes that emotion regulation mechanisms are a significant predictor of positive affect in the present investigation.

Relationships between Mediation, Negotiation, Negative Emotions and Emotional Regulation Strategies

Individuals’ mental health can be negatively impacted by a number of psychological issues, including the presence of negative emotions. Unhappiness, discontentment, and other unpleasant experiences are typically accompanied with negative emotions (Sauer-Zavala & Barlow, 2021). This is because negative emotions tend to be followed by unpleasant events. There is evidence shown in the published study suggesting a variety of unpleasant feelings, including rage, hatred, guilt, and fear, are linked to a variety of mental diseases.

McLean & Foa (2017) conducted research for a review in which they looked into the connections that exist between post-traumatic stress disorder, unfavorable feelings, and the methods used to control such feelings. A significant correlation between post-traumatic stress disorder and negative emotions such shame, guilt, rage, and disgust, as well as difficulties in successfully managing these sentiments, has been found. This relationship has been linked to the ineffective regulation of these emotions. It has been discovered that the intensity of post-traumatic stress disorder, which can be caused by a variety of types of trauma, is also connected with the presence of such unpleasant feelings as well as issues with emotional regulation mechanisms.

Another study (Reidy et. al. , 2017) looked at the connection between psychopathic traits, the severity of emotional problems, and coping strategies employed by juvenile offenders. Researchers found a positive and statistically significant relationship between participants’ total psychopathy scores and incompatible emotional control mechanisms. Despite the fact that Garofalo et al. (2020) found a correlation between psychopathic traits and negative emotions like anger, anxiety, and depression, the correlation between overall psychopathy scores and emotional symptoms was not statistically significant.

Evidence from recent studies (Kosson et. al. , 2018; Vitale et. al. , 2018) suggests that difficulties with emotional control skills are linked to mood disorders triggered by negative emotions. These results were reported in 2018 in the works of Kosson et al. and Vitale et al. In conclusion, the current study confirms that negative affect is a crucial element in predicting coping mechanisms for emotional distress. This result is reached on the basis of the research findings and theoretical reasons that have been presented previously.

The Mediator-Negotiator Role in Emotional Regulation

The process of emotional regulation can be guided by systems like information processing, attention allocation, and physiological reactions (Park et. al. , 2009). Mood-altering stimuli of any kind can have an effect on people’s attempts to rein in their emotions. Consequently, a wide variety of techniques for controlling one’s emotions may be required for effective life management as noted by Park et. al. . When the mind is distracted with other issues, it can be difficult to maintain mental control of one’s mood.

According to a research in which cognitive load was used as a stimulant (Mutlu-Bayraktar, Cosgun & Altan, 2019). Participants who attempted to control their emotions without any other cognitive demands were more successful than those that sought to do so while simultaneously remembering a nine-digit number. Participants who were already mentally exhausted shifted into an emotionally negative state. This might be seen as evidence that even with the best intentions, people’s attempts to control their emotions may backfire and cause them to show signs of distress as prior noted by Park et. al.

Chiu et. al. (2020) examined the connection between anxiety and depression among college students and their capacity to control negative emotions and sustain positive ones. Depressive symptoms were observed to be more prevalent among study participants who were less successful at employing techniques to moderate unpleasant emotions. Participants with more severe depression were more likely to display extremes of happy and negative affect. That’s why it’s so important to counteract the negative with the positive. Individuals engage in emotional regulation by making an effort to alter the natural course of their emotions, as stated by Park et. al . The ability to control one’s emotions is crucial to achieving one’s goals in life, whether they are short or long term. Emotional regulation is the process of increasing, decreasing, or maintaining good and negative emotions (Cludius,  Mennin & Ehring, 2020). As a result of the aforementioned study and theoretical reasons, it is hypothesized that emotion control mechanisms may serve as a neutral party between the two extremes of emotion.

Emotions are a communication mechanism that allows us to convey our goals and are connected to many of our basic needs (Gračanin, Bylsma & Vingerhoets, 2018). Humans’ emotional responses are often viewed as an adaptive mechanism that has developed over millennia. Many of a person’s physiological requirements are linked to their emotions as noted by Gračanin, Bylsma & Vingerhoets. Emotions serve as a quick source of stimulation in critical conditions that could endanger a person’s health. Emotions provide insight into whether or not a person’s needs are being addressed, allowing for the identification of both good and negative choices. People’s emotions also get them ready to take action in response to their requirements.

Furthermore, emotions are the primary drivers of human behavior (Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018). Individuals who experience positive emotions have a high level of commitment to life, which is crucial in mediation and negotiation situations marked with stress. It is therefore mentioned that the improvement of mental diseases of persons and the protection of mental health are both aided by the recognition of these pleasant feelings and their effective management as noted by Semaka & Austin (2019). People in the midst of conflicts need to cultivate positive emotions in order to have such enlightening mediation and negotiation breakthroughs.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study was guided by several theoretical perspectives, as there were many different approaches to understanding emotions in negotiation and mediation. One theoretical perspective that was used was the affective events theory (AET) by Weiss & Cropanzano (1996), which suggests that emotions arise in response to specific events or situations, and that these emotions can have important consequences for behaviour and decision-making. AET proposes that emotions are influenced by a variety of factors, including the characteristics of the individual, the nature of the situation, and the social context in which the emotion is experienced.

Another theoretical perspective that was relevant was the appraisal theory by Lazarus (2002), which suggests that emotions arise as a result of how individuals interpret or appraise a given situation. According to appraisal theory, individuals may experience different emotions in response to the same situation depending on how they interpret it.

Finally, social identity theory by Tajfel (1974) was relevant, as it suggests that individuals’ emotions and behaviours are influenced by their group memberships and the social context in which they are negotiating or mediating. Social identity theory proposes that individuals have a need to maintain a positive self-image and those they will seek to enhance their social status and group identity during negotiations and mediations.

METHODOLOGY

A web-based survey was used to compile the information for this investigation. There were a total of 436 willing volunteers in this study; 310 (71.1%) were female and 126 (28.9%) were male. These individuals were chosen using purposive sampling technique, which was considered a suitable sampling approach for such a study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993) as part of an intentional sampling strategy. A survey was considered in the study as it could be used to collect data on a range of variables related to emotions, negotiation strategies, and negotiation outcomes. For example, a survey study asked participants about their emotions and emotional regulation strategies during a recent negotiation or mediation, and then examined how these factors were related to negotiation outcomes.

The Positive-Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) is a commonly used self-report measure of affect, which was used to assess the extent to which individuals experience positive and negative emotions. The PANAS was used to measure emotional states in response to specific events or situations, or as a general measure of mood. Since the study employed mixed methods research design, the use of PANAS was suitable and enabled participants to be asked to complete the measure either before or after a negotiation or mediation session.

The Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) is a self-report measure of emotional regulation, which assesses two strategies: Expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Cognitive reappraisal involves changing the way one thinks about a situation in order to alter emotional responses, while expressive suppression involves inhibiting or hiding one’s emotions in response to a situation. Considering that the study aimed to explore the strategies that individuals use to regulate their emotions during negotiations and mediations, the use of the ERQ was significant combining quantitative data from the PANAS with qualitative data gathered through interviews or observations of participants’ emotional regulation strategies.

Beyond that the study collected data through self-report measures of the PANAS and ERQ.

The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods, and mixed-methods analysis was used to integrate the data from both sources and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the emotional dynamics of negotiation and mediation. The quantitative data from the PANAS and ERQ was used to identify patterns and associations between emotional states and regulation strategies, while the qualitative data from interviews provided a more detailed insight into the experiences and perspectives of the participants.

Analysis for autocorrelation, normality, multicollinearity, descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation, and the path analysis technique to determine the nature of the observed variables’ causal link with one another was conducted. The significance of the path coefficients between the observed variables and whether the goodness of fit indices was in agreement with the data were evaluated to investigate the causal relationship using the path analysis method (Kline, 2015).

The current study additionally included a mediation test. At this juncture, we considered the steps in mediation testing proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Finally, the significance of indirect effects was tested using a bootstrapping technique. Lower and upper limit confidence intervals and a bootstrap coefficient were computed using a sample size of 1000 in the bootstrapping study (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Lower-upper limit confidence intervals that do not cover zero, as suggested by Hayes (2017), can be read as indicating that their indirect impacts are substantial.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Initially, the study looked at the normality, autocorrelation, and multicollinearity of variables assumptions. Bivariate correlation analysis and descriptive statistics were also run. Skewness and kurtosis measurements were analysed to check for normalcy. Both the skewness and kurtosis values were observed to fluctuate between -0.32 and .13 and -0.72 and .32, respectively, in the investigation. According to the normalcy standards established by Tabachnick & Fidell (2019), these values are acceptable.

In addition, the Durbin-Watson test was used to examine the autocorrelation assumption. The Durbin-Watson value was calculated to be 1.82 in the present investigation. This result demonstrated that autocorrelation is not a concern in the present investigation (Field, 2009). Tolerance levels and the variance inflation factor (VIF) were then used to assess the multicollinearity assumption. The investigation established a VIF of 1.01 and a tolerance of .98. Using the VIF and the tolerance settings recommended by Kline (2015), no evidence of a multicollinearity issue in the investigation was found.

Positive and negative affect as well as methods for controlling emotional responses were studied to determine their interconnectedness. The hypothetical model’s standardized path coefficients emerged from the route analysis. Emotional control methods’ potential role as mediators between negative and positive emotions was investigated. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) proposed steps for testing mediation were considered for this purpose. It was discovered that negative affect has a large direct effect on positive affect.

The study found that negotiators’ emotional states were related to the outcomes of the negotiation, such as the level of agreement reached or the satisfaction of the parties involved. For example, negotiators who experience more positive emotions during a negotiation were more likely to reach an agreement and have more positive perceptions of the negotiation process. Negotiators who used specific emotional regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal or suppression, had different negotiation outcomes than those who did not use these strategies. For example, negotiators who used cognitive reappraisal were more successful in reaching an agreement and experienced less negative emotional states during the negotiation process.

The study established that emotional dynamics were different in negotiation versus mediation contexts. For example, negotiators experienced more competitive emotions such as anger or frustration, while mediators experienced more empathetic emotions such as compassion or understanding. The specific emotional management strategies, such as mindfulness or positive visualization, were effective in managing emotional dynamics in negotiation and mediation contexts. For example, negotiators who used mindfulness techniques were better able to regulate their emotions and maintain a more positive emotional state during the negotiation process.

To what extent individuals’ use of emotional regulation mechanisms moderates the connection between their positive and negative affect during conflicts was the focus of the contemporary investigation. Individuals’ tactics for controlling their emotions were found to be significantly and negatively predicted by their levels of negative affect. Positive affect can be predicted with high accuracy by an individual’s usage of emotional management strategies. Furthermore, it was discovered that coping mechanisms played a complete mediator function in the connection between negative and good emotions.

The first conclusion of the study was that individuals’ tactics for controlling their emotions were considerably and negatively predicted by their levels of negative affect. Reviewing the related literature, studies have reported results that are consistent with Chiu et. al . (2020); Vanderlind et. al . (2020) and Yoon et. al . (2020). These results are rationalized as follows: Negative emotional experiences can get in the way of employing helpful and flexible methods of regulating one’s emotions. It’s possible that people have trouble acknowledging their unpleasant emotions, which contributes to the problem. People who lack psychological flexibility are more likely to ignore or resort to inappropriate coping strategies when faced with challenging emotions (Harris, 2019). It’s evident that unpleasant emotions do not lead to pleasurable experiences like positive ones do. It is safe to say that nowadays, many employ denial as a defence mechanism and refuse to acknowledge or cope with bad emotions.

The second major takeaway from this study was that people who make use of techniques to control their emotions were more likely to report feeling good about them. This finding of the contemporary investigation is in agreement with other studies (Ghorbani et. al ., 2020; Lindsey, 2020; Southward & Cheavens, 2020). Positive emotions may be more likely to occur if people utilize effective and adaptive methods to control them, as suggested by these studies. Here are some ways to assess the significance of this finding: Emotional regulation is based on the idea that a person may change potentially harmful emotional experiences into ones that help them better adjust to their environment and thrive. Emotional regulation tools, when used effectively and creatively, can help with this. Those who lack the ability to control their emotions are more likely to suffer from emotional distress, since good emotional regulation strategies can satisfy the desires to increase pleasure and decrease suffering as suggested by Lopez & Denny (2019), it follows that happy feelings will emerge in tandem with pleasurable experiences.

The study concluded that coping mechanisms fully mediate the connection between negative and positive emotions, consistent with previous research by Blalock et. al. (2016); Kobyliska et. al. (2020) and Talaei-Khoei et. al. (2017). The following were meanings for this conclusion from the study: Individuals engage in emotional control when they work toward experiencing positive emotions. Both positive and negative feelings can be amplified or dampened with this method. At this stage, it’s reasonable to assume that emotional self-regulation techniques play a significant role in transforming unhelpful feelings into ones that ultimately serve the individual’s best interests. Therefore, techniques for controlling one’s emotions can be seen as a stabilizing and encouraging component in people’s lives.

The results suggest that acquiring information and skills alone is insufficient, when seen through the lens of education’s larger role in shaping individuals into contributing members of society. This can only be accomplished if the person is confident in themselves and performing to their fullest capacity. Research into ways to safeguard a person’s mental well-being is urgently required. In response to this requirement, the findings of this study lead to the widespread adoption of techniques for controlling negative emotions and the cultivation of more positive ones. The data and conclusions from this study support the idea that education plays a pivotal role in shaping an individual’s development into a contributing member of society.

Protecting people’s mental health is just as crucial as protecting their physical health during and after conflicts. Emotion regulation tactics are now at a level where they can help people keep their happy and negative feelings in check. According to the findings of the study, the connection between negative and positive emotions is fully mediated and negotiated by the use of emotion control mechanisms. Mental health practitioners and potential future researchers can use the study’s results as a roadmap.

In the context of mediation and negotiation, many different methods are utilized to safeguard and improve mental health by controlling both positive and negative emotions. These methods can also differ from person to person and from culture to culture. Some cultures have taboos or condemn the expression of certain emotions, which might lead to people repressing their more positive feelings. This is why there has to be more international research on the topic of controlling emotions. It is believed that future contributions to the literature may be made by undertaking longitudinal studies in which people are frequently assessed at different time periods, as the majority of investigations on this topic, including the contemporary study, have been carried out with a cross-sectional method.

• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Bellucci, E., Venkatraman, S., & Stranieri, A. (2020). Online dispute resolution in mediating EHR disputes: a case study on the impact of emotional intelligence. Behaviour & information technology, 39(10), 1124-1139.
• Blalock, D. V., Kashdan, T. B., & Farmer, A. S. (2016). Trait and daily emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40(3), 416-425.
• Boamah, S. A., Hamadi, H. Y., Havaei, F., Smith, H., & Webb, F. (2022). Striking a balance between work and play: The effects of work–life interference and burnout on faculty turnover intentions and career satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 809.
• Ching, C. L., & Chan, V. L. (2020). Positive emotions, positive feelings and health: A life philosophy. Linguistics and Culture Review, 4(1), 1-14.
• Chiu, H. T., Yee, L. T. S., Kwan, J. L. Y., Cheung, R. Y. M., & Hou, W. K. (2020). Interactive association between negative emotion regulation and savoring is linked to anxiety symptoms among college students. Journal of American College Health, 68(5), 494-501.
• Cludius, B., Mennin, D., & Ehring, T. (2020). Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process. Emotion, 20(1), 37.
• Fehr, E., & Schurtenberger, I. (2018). Normative foundations of human cooperation. Nature human behaviour, 2(7), 458-468.
• Fells, R., & Sheer, N. (2019). Effective negotiation: From research to results. Cambridge University Press.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS:(and sex and drugs and rock’n’roll). Sage.
• Fraenkel J. R, & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (2nd ed.). Singopore: McGraw-Hill.
• Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., & Velotti, P. (2020). Psychopathy and emotion dysregulation: More than meets the eye. Psychiatry Research, 290, 113160.
• Ghorbani, S., Kameneh, A. S., Motahedy, A., & Alipour, Z. (2020). Comparative effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy on emotion regulation, positive and negative affection, aggressive and self-harm behaviors of 13-16-year-old female students. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 7(9), 20-32.
• Gračanin, A., Bylsma, L. M., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2018). Why only humans shed emotional tears: Evolutionary and cultural perspectives. Human Nature, 29, 104-133.
• Harris, J. (2019). ACT made simple: An easy-to-read primer on acceptance and commitment therapy. Canada: Raincoast Books.
• Kara, A., & Gök, A. (2020). Positive and Negative Affect during a Pandemic: Mediating Role of Emotional Regulation Strategies. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(4), 484-497.
• Kim, J., & Kim, M. (2020). Spectator e-sport and well-being through live streaming services. Technology in Society, 63, 101401.
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
• Kobylińska, D., Zajenkowski, M., Lewczuk, K., Jankowski, K. S., & Marchlewska, M. (2020). The mediational role of emotion regulation in the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 1-14.
• Kosson, D. S., McBride, C. K., Miller, S. A., Riser, N. R., & Whitman, L. A. (2018). Attentional bias following frustration in youth with psychopathic traits: Emotional deficit versus negative preception. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 9(2), jep-060116.
• Lazarus, R. S. (2002). Emotion Narratives. The Health Psychology Reader, 107.
• Lindsey, E. (2020). Relationship context and emotion regulation across the life span. Emotion, 20(1), 59-62.
• Lopez, R. B., & Denny, B. T. (2019). Negative affect mediates the relationship between use of emotion regulation strategies and general health in college-aged students. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 1-7.
• McLean, C. P., & Foa, E. B. (2017). Emotions and emotion regulation in posttraumatic stress disorder. Current opinion in psychology, 14, 72-77.
• Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, 103618.
• Nelson, L. L. (2021). Identifying determinants of individual peacefulness: A psychological foundation for peace education. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(2), 109.
• Omene, G. R. (2021). Conflict management strategies as a prerequisite for effective organizational performance: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Business & Law Research 9 (4), 187-199.
• Park, C., Rosenblat, J. D., Lee, Y., Pan, Z., Cao, B., Iacobucci, M., & McIntyre, R. S. (2019). The neural systems of emotion regulation and abnormalities in major depressive disorder. Behavioural Brain Research, 367, 181-188.
• Reidy, D. E., Krusemark, E., Kosson, D. S., Kearns, M. C., Smith-Darden, J., & Kiehl, K. A. (2017). The development of severe and chronic violence among youth: the role of psychopathic traits and reward processing. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48, 967-982.
• Salzberg, S., & Amour, L. K. S. (2023). Building an Organizational Culture of Forgiveness. Communication for Constructive Workplace Conflict, 175.
• Sauer-Zavala, S., & Barlow, D. H. (2021). Neuroticism: A new framework for emotional disorders and their treatment. Guilford Publications.
• Semaka, A., & Austin, J. (2019). Patient perspectives on the process and outcomes of psychiatric genetic counseling: An “Empowering Encounter”. Journal of genetic counseling, 28(4), 856-868.
• Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422- 445.
• Southward, M. W., & Cheavens, J. S. (2020). More (of the right strategies) is better: disaggregating the naturalistic between-and within-person structure and effects of emotion regulation strategies. Cognition and Emotion, 1-8.
• Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social science information, 13(2), 65-93.
• Talaei-Khoei, M., Nemati-Rezvani, H., Fischerauer, S. F., Ring, D., Chen, N., & Vranceanu, A. M. (2017). Emotion regulation strategies mediate the associations of positive and negative affect to upper extremity physical function. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 75, 85-93.
• Treffers, T., & Putora, P. M. (2020). Emotions as social information in shared decision-making in oncology. Oncology, 98(6), 430-437.
• van Kleef, G. A., & Lelieveld, G. J. (2022). Moving the self and others to do good: the emotional underpinnings of prosocial behavior. Current opinion in psychology, 44, 80-88.
• Vanderlind, W. M., Millgram, Y., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Clark, M. S., & Joormann, J. (2020). Understanding positive emotion deficits in depression: From emotion preferences to emotion regulation. Clinical Psychology Review, 76,1-11.
• Väyrynen, R. (2019). From conflict resolution to conflict transformation: a critical review. The new agenda for peace research, 135-160.
• Vitale, J., Kosson, D. S., Resch, Z., & Newman, J. P. (2018). Speed-accuracy tradeoffs on an affective lexical decision task: Implications for the affect regulation theory of psychopathy. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 412-418.
• Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in organizational behavior, 18(1), 1-74.
• Wong, S. S. (2020). Mapping the repertoire of emotions and their communicative functions in face-to-face diplomacy. International Studies Review, 22(1), 77-97.
• Yoon, S., & Rottenberg, J. (2020). Why do people with depression use faulty emotion regulation strategies?. Emotion Review, 12(2), 118-128.

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

PDF Downloads

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

Email Address * Subscribe

Track Your Paper

Enter the following details to get the information about your paper

IOE - Faculty of Education and Society

• Departments and centres
• Innovation and enterprise
• Teacher Education College

Sociogenomic aspects and social dynamics in sleep behaviours and night shift work

29 May 2024, 1:00 pm–2:00 pm

Join this event to hear Evelina Akimova discuss whether genetic propensity for eveningness protects night workers against sleep penalties.

This event is free.

Event Information

Availability.

Night shift employees represent up to one-quarter of working populations, and increasing evidence shows that night shift work is a risk factor for various health conditions.

Prolonged circadian disruption is one mechanism driving adverse effects. Individual differences in chronotypes, however, introduce differences in their abilities to adapt and tolerate shift schedules.

Using data from the UK Biobank and multiple genetic, self-reported and accelerometer measures, Evelina will discuss evidence of the protective effect of a genetic propensity for eveningness, strongest for those working longer night shifts.

The seminar will also cover how social and environmental factors interact with night shift work that impacts sleep health by applying the stress process model as a theoretical framework.

This event will be particularly useful for those interested in molecular genetics, social science genomics, and health inequalities.

Please note this is a hybrid event and can be joined either in-person or online.

Related links

• Centre for Longitudinal Studies  (CLS)
• Quantitative Social Science  (QSS)
• QSS and CLS Seminar series
• UCL Social Research Institute

About the Speaker

Dr evelina akimova.

Evelina Akimova is an incoming Assistant Professor in Sociology at Purdue University, a Postdoctoral Researcher in Biosocial Research at the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science and a Non-Stipendiary Research Fellow at Nuffield College.

Her main research areas are health inequalities, chronotype, and wellbeing, where she uses methods from computational social science and statistical genetics. Her current research focuses on the use of molecular genetics, survey, and accelerometer data to understand the complex interplay between chronotype and labor market decisions, trajectories, and experiences.

Related News

Related events, related case studies, related research projects, press and media enquiries.

UCL Media Relations +44 (0)7747 565 056

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training and Custom Programs
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

A Case Study of Conflict Management and Negotiation

There is a lot to be learned from this case study of conflict management and negotiation..

By PON Staff — on January 22nd, 2024 / Conflict Resolution

Group negotiations are a fact of managerial life, yet the outcomes of teamwork are highly unpredictable. Sometimes, groups cohere, reaching novel solutions to nagging problems, and sometimes infighting causes them to collapse. This is where you may find a case study of conflict management helpful.

How can you predict when the conflict will emerge in groups, and what can you do to stop it?

The following is drawn from a case study of conflict management and negotiation involving multi-party negotiation scenarios. Dora Lau of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Keith Murnighan of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University have examined group conflict in terms of fault lines the cracks that result when groups split into homogenous subgroups according to demographic characteristics.

For instance, in a four-person group made up of two white males in their forties and two African American females in their twenties, a very strong fault line would exist, one clearly defined by age, gender, and race. In a group consisting of one white male, one Asian male, one Hispanic female, and one African American female, all in their thirties, fault lines would be less evident.

Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management

In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.

A Case Study of Conflict Management – Divisions in Group Negotiation

Recently Katerina Bezrukova of Rutgers University and her colleagues compared the effects of fault lines based on social categories (e.g., age, race, or gender) with those based on information (e.g., education or work experience). Their negotiation research found that groups with strong information-based fault lines perform better than groups with strong demographic-based fault lines.

While the latter create dysfunctional conflict within the group, information-based fault lines provide the diversity of information needed for effective performance – in other words, they provide functional conflict .

These studies provide useful hints on how diversity can be effectively managed. Specifically, when forming teams, avoid obvious demographic fault lines that would allow group members to split into categories. When broader diversity exists, fault lines can simply disappear.

Related Conflict Resolution Article:  Conflict Management and Negotiation: Personality and Individual Differences That Matter – How much do personality differences matter in negotiations? Negotiation research has found that negotiators perform similarly from one negotiation to another negotiation and that performance was only slightly impacted by other variables at the bargaining table like personality traits. Unchanging traits, like gender, ethnicity, and level of physical attractiveness, were not tied to negotiation performance. Some traits did affect negotiating performance, however, and in this study, those factors identified by the latest negotiation research are outlined and discussed. How can your beliefs about negotiation impact your ability to negotiate? Read more for negotiation skills and negotiation techniques a negotiator can do to mitigate the impact of these variables on her negotiating performance.

What is your favorite case study of conflict management? Let us know in the comments.

Originally published in 2012.

Related Posts

• Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It
• Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts: Hostage Negotiation Tips for Business Negotiators
• Negotiating the Good Friday Agreement
• Communication and Conflict Management: Responding to Tough Questions
• How to Maintain Your Power While Engaging in Conflict Resolution

No Responses to “A Case Study of Conflict Management and Negotiation”

One response to “a case study of conflict management and negotiation”.

I would love to consider the details of the research that suggests that “demographic fault lines” produce dysfunction in groups. The conclusion has a very subtle bias that could benefit from further investigation. Is it at all possible that the information and proposals are considered differently by people operating in different social contexts and that by “avoiding obvious demographic fault line” the management practice is to simply allow the internal power dynamics – which often have differential impacts along certain demographic fault lines – to play out unimpeded?

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
• The Process of Business Negotiation
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• M&A Negotiation Strategy: Missed Opportunities in Musk’s Twitter Deal
• How to Negotiate in Good Faith
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• Crisis Negotiation Skills: The Hostage Negotiator’s Drill
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
• How to Deal with Difficult Customers
• Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
• Understanding Exclusive Negotiation Periods in Business Negotiations
• Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
• What is Alternative Dispute Resolution?
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Examples: Restorative Justice
• Choose the Right Dispute Resolution Process
• Union Strikes and Dispute Resolution Strategies
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
• The Pros and Cons of Back-Channel Negotiations
• Managing Cultural Differences in Negotiation
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Servant Leadership and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• Negotiations and Logrolling: Discover Opportunities to Generate Mutual Gains
• Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
• Influence Tactics in Negotiation
• What Is Distributive Negotiation?
• Negotiation Team Strategy
• Negotiation Techniques To Get New Business Partnerships Off on the Right Foot
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
• Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• New Simulation: International Business Acquisition Negotiated Online
• Teach Your Students to Take Their Mediation Skills to the Next Level
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation
• Labor Negotiation Strategies

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.