TY - JOUR
T1 - It's a bet! A problem-solving approach promotes the construction of contingent agreements
AU - Kray, Laura J.
AU - Thompson, Leigh
AU - Lind, E. Allan
PY - 2005/8
Y1 - 2005/8
N2 - Negotiators often have different expectations about the future. A contingent agreement, or a bet that makes the ultimate outcome dependent on some future event, builds on negotiators' differences. The authors argue that a problem-solving approach, in which negotiators thorougly explore options to build on their differences, is most likely to construct contingent agreements. The authors explore two factors expected to influence this problem-solving approach, namely, negotiators' relational and accountability concerns. The authors argue when these considerations are imbalanced, negotiators are less likely to adopt a problem-solving style and construct a contingent agreement. To test this hypothesis, negotiators' relationships and accountability pressures were manipulated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in an integrative negotiation, allowing the authors to examine whether a contingent agreement was constructed and joint gain. Experiment 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 using a scenario study. Results across the two experiments support the authors' hypotheses.
AB - Negotiators often have different expectations about the future. A contingent agreement, or a bet that makes the ultimate outcome dependent on some future event, builds on negotiators' differences. The authors argue that a problem-solving approach, in which negotiators thorougly explore options to build on their differences, is most likely to construct contingent agreements. The authors explore two factors expected to influence this problem-solving approach, namely, negotiators' relational and accountability concerns. The authors argue when these considerations are imbalanced, negotiators are less likely to adopt a problem-solving style and construct a contingent agreement. To test this hypothesis, negotiators' relationships and accountability pressures were manipulated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in an integrative negotiation, allowing the authors to examine whether a contingent agreement was constructed and joint gain. Experiment 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 using a scenario study. Results across the two experiments support the authors' hypotheses.
KW - Accountability
KW - Contingent agreements
KW - Expectations
KW - Integrative negotiations
KW - Joint gain
KW - Relationships
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23444440280&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23444440280&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0146167204274099
DO - 10.1177/0146167204274099
M3 - Review article
C2 - 16000266
AN - SCOPUS:23444440280
SN - 0146-1672
VL - 31
SP - 1039
EP - 1051
JO - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
IS - 8
ER -