Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.

Negotiators' social motives (cooperative vs. individualistic) influence their strategic behaviors. In this study, the authors used multilevel modeling and analyses of strategy sequences to test hypotheses regarding how negotiators' social motives and the composition of the group influence group members' negotiation strategies. Four-person groups negotiating a 5-issue mixed-motive decision-making task were videotaped, and the tapes were transcribed and coded. Group composition included 2 homogeneous conditions (all cooperators and all individualists) and 3 heterogeneous conditions (3 cooperators and 1 individualist, 2 cooperators and 2 individualists, 1 cooperator and 3 individualists). Results showed that cooperative negotiators adjusted their use of integrative and distributive strategies in response to the social-motive composition of the group, but individualistic negotiators did not. Results from analyses of strategy sequences showed that cooperators responded more systematically to others' behaviors than did individualists. They also redirected the negotiation depending on group composition.

Moments in time: metacognition, trust, and outcomes in dyadic negotiations.

This research tested the relationships between turning points, cognitive and affective trust, and negotiation outcomes. After completing a simulated negotiation, participants identified turning points from videotape. Turning points were then classified as substantive (interest, offer), characterization (positive, negative), or procedural (positive, negative). Prenegotiation affective trust predicted subsequent turning points, whereas prenegotiation cognitive trust did not, suggesting that different cues influence the two types of trust. Postnegotiation cognitive trust was increased by the occurrence of interest, positive characterization, and positive procedural turning points and decreased by negative characterization turning points. Affective trust was increased by positive procedural turning points. Finally, interest turning points resulted in higher joint outcomes, whereas negative characterization turning points resulted in lower joint outcomes. We conclude that there are two paths to building trust and increasing joint gain, one through insight and one through signaling good faith intentions.

The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes.

Scholars have argued that anger expressed by participants in mediation is counterproductive; yet, there is also reason to believe that expressions of anger can be productive. The authors tested these competing theories of emotion by using data from online mediation. Results show that expression of anger lowers the resolution rate in mediation and that this effect occurs in part because expressing anger generates an angry response by the other party. However, when respondents are especially vulnerable, expressions of anger by the filer do not hinder settlement. The authors also examined precursors to anger, such as value of dispute and reputation, and the degree to which a focus on dispute resolution is reciprocated.