An Examination of Naive and Experienced Negotiators

Leigh Thompson*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

129 Scopus citations


A total of 20 Ss engaged in 7 different, 2-party negotiation tasks to examine the effects of experience on judgment accuracy, behavior, and outcomes in negotiation. Negotiators bargained with naive negotiators who had either no experience or just a single previous experience; the total amount of experience in each bargaining pair was controlled for. Joint outcomes could be increased by trading off pairs of issues (logrolling) and by identifying issues for which both people had compatible interests. Logrolling improved as negotiators gained experience, but negotiators' ability to identify compatible issues did not. Negotiators were more successful in logrolling issues when the naive person had a single previous bargaining experience as opposed to no experience. Highly experienced bargainers claimed a larger share of the joint resources at the expense of their naive opponents. High aspirations, small concessions, and proposing several different offers predicted superior performance. The accuracy of negotiators' judgments about their opponent paralleled their performance, suggesting judgment accuracy is a key ingredient for reaching integrative agreement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)82-90
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of personality and social psychology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jul 1990

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science


Dive into the research topics of 'An Examination of Naive and Experienced Negotiators'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this