IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v109y2009i1p67-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Steinel, Wolfgang
  • De Dreu, Carsten K.W.
  • Ouwehand, Elsje
  • Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y.

Abstract

Although constituencies often consist of opposing factions, we know little about the way such opposing factions influence the representative's negotiation strategy. This study addressed this issue: Representatives negotiated as sellers on behalf of a group consisting of hawkish (competitive) and dovish (cooperative) factions. Experiments 1-3 showed that a minority of hawks was sufficient to influence the representatives to acting in a competitive way; only when all constituents unanimously advocated a cooperative strategy were representatives more conciliatory towards their negotiation partner. These tendencies did not differ as a function of the representatives' pro-social versus pro-self value orientation, or the unanimity versus majority rule putatively used in the constituency to accept of reject the representative's negotiated agreement. We conclude that hawkish minorities are persuasive and influential because representatives accord more weight to hawkish than to dovish messages.

Suggested Citation

  • Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:1:p:67-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(08)00128-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, James H., 1992. "Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples 1950-1990," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 3-38, June.
    2. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Boles, Terry L., 1998. "Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All?: The Influence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 253-276, December.
    3. Beersma, Bianca & De Dreu, Carsten 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, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 227-252, March.
    4. O'Connor, Kathleen M., 1997. "Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 384-407, December.
    5. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ingmar Geiger, 2020. "From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 207-250, April.
    2. Hillie Aaldering & Shirli Kopelman, 2022. "Dovish and Hawkish Influence in Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: The Role of (A)symmetry in Constituencies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 111-136, February.
    3. Julia Bogacki & Peter Letmathe, 2021. "Representatives of future generations as promoters of sustainability in corporate decision processes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 237-251, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shay S. Tzafrir & Rudolph Joseph Sanchez & Keren Tirosh-Unger, 2012. "Social Motives and Trust: Implications for Joint Gains in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 839-862, November.
    2. Leeuwen, Jerry van & Heijden, Hans van der & Kronsteiner, Reinhard, 2003. "Group Decision Support for Resource Allocation Decisions in Three-Person Groups," Serie Research Memoranda 0025, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    3. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    4. Beuk, Frederik & Rubin, Eran, 2021. "Data-based negotiator allocation management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 537-552.
    5. Mara Olekalns & Philip L. Smith, 2018. "A Satisfied Mind: Motivational Orientation, Feedback and the Subjective Value of Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 179-196, April.
    6. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    7. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    8. Brodt, Susan E. & Tuchinsky, Marla, 2000. "Working Together but in Opposition: An Examination of the "Good-Cop/Bad-Cop" Negotiating Team Tactic," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 155-177, March.
    9. Baethge, Caroline, 2016. "Performance in the beauty contest: How strategic discussion enhances team reasoning," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-17-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    10. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    11. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    12. Anca Maria CLIPA, 2018. "Employment Contract Negotiations For Romanian It Employees And Their Willingness For Future (Re)Negotiations," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 18, pages 307-312, December.
    13. Kopelman, Shirli & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby & Thompson, Leigh, 2006. "The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 81-101, January.
    14. Jessica Bregant & Alex Shaw & Katherine D. Kinzler, 2016. "Intuitive Jurisprudence: Early Reasoning About the Functions of Punishment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 693-717, December.
    15. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2007. "Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 225-238, December.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    17. Sickar, Michael J. & Highhouse, Scott, 1998. "Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 75-91, July.
    18. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Max Albert & Andreas Hildenbrand, 2012. "Industrial organization in the laboratory," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201205, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    20. Gelfand, Michele J. & Christakopoulou, Sophia, 1999. "Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 248-269, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:1:p:67-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.