Getting the floor: Motive-consistent strategy and individual outcomes in multi-party negotiations

Mary C. Kern*, Jeanne M. Brett, Laurie R. Weingart

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations


Social motives influence negotiators' actions and reactions. In this study we proposed that social motives moderate the relationship between persistence in the use of integrative or distributive negotiation strategy and individual outcomes in 33 four-person mixed-motive negotiations. Cooperative negotiators who persisted in using integrative strategy achieved higher outcomes than those who did not persist. Persistence in the use of integrative strategy did not pay off for individualistic negotiators in this multi-party setting. We theorized that this pattern of results was due to cooperative and individualistic negotiators using strategy differently. We found that cooperative negotiators used more motive-consistent integrative strategy and less motive-inconsistent distributive strategy than individualistic negotiators, whose pattern of strategy use was consistent with their self-interested motives, providing evidence for our motive consistency theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)21-41
Number of pages21
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2005


  • Individual outcome
  • Multi-party negotiation
  • Negotiation
  • Social motives

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation


Dive into the research topics of 'Getting the floor: Motive-consistent strategy and individual outcomes in multi-party negotiations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this