IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v115y2011i1p55-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Mislin, Alexandra A.
  • Campagna, Rachel L.
  • Bottom, William P.

Abstract

The success of a negotiated agreement depends on implementation and implications for future exchange between the parties. This paper examines structural, affective and contractual factors that influence implementation behavior. Predictions derived from contract theory and recent negotiation theories were tested in two laboratory studies involving the negotiation of an employment contract. In Experiment 1 trust formation facilitated by so-called "cheap" talk and the provision of a sufficient contingent contract promoted vigorous contract implementation. Positive affect induced in the employer prior to negotiation had no discernable effect on subsequent implementation. In Experiment 2 induced employee positive affect did motivate implementation behavior but the effect hinged on the form of the contract. Small talk before contracting increased employee's willingness to be financially vulnerable in subsequent exchange with the employer. Implications for general negotiation theory are considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Mislin, Alexandra A. & Campagna, Rachel L. & Bottom, William P., 2011. "After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 55-68, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:115:y:2011:i:1:p:55-68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(11)00004-5
    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. Patrick Bolton & Mathias Dewatripont, 2005. "Contract Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262025760, April.
    2. Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Isen, Alice M., 1986. "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    6. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Bottom, William P. & Studt, Amy, 1993. "Framing Effects and the Distributive Aspect of Integrative Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 459-474, December.
    8. Ross, Stephen A, 1973. "The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 134-139, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Thompson, Leigh & Gentner, Dedre & Loewenstein, Jeffrey, 2000. "Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 60-75, May.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    13. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1991. "Adaptive and sophisticated learning in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 82-100, February.
    14. de Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Emans, Ben J. M. & van de Vliert, Evert, 1994. "Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 90-107, October.
    15. Barry, Bruce & Oliver, Richard L., 1996. "Affect in Dyadic Negotiation: A Model and Propositions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 127-143, August.
    16. Isen, Alice M. & Geva, Nehemia, 1987. "The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: The person with a large canoe has a large worry," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 145-154, April.
    17. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. Hayward, Mathew & Hunt, Richard & Miller, Danny, 2022. "How vulnerability enriches family firm relationships: A social exchange perspective," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1).
    2. Chua, Roy Y.J. & Morris, Michael W. & Mor, Shira, 2012. "Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 116-131.
    3. Andrew B. Whitford & William P. Bottom & Gary J. Miller, 2013. "The (Negligible) Benefit of Moving First: Efficiency and Equity in Principal-Agent Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 499-518, May.
    4. Livia Levine, 2019. "Digital Trust and Cooperation with an Integrative Digital Social Contract," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 393-407, December.
    5. Nguyen, Yen, 2019. "Emotions and strategic interactions," Other publications TiSEM 3358deab-10bb-4b50-a147-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: The economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Bhatia, Nazlı & Gunia, Brian C., 2018. "“I was going to offer $10,000 but…”: The effects of phantom anchors in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 70-86.
    8. Jingjing Yao & Martin Storme, 2021. "Trust Building via Negotiation: Immediate versus Lingering Effects of General Trust and Negotiator Satisfaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 507-528, June.
    9. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.

    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. Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    3. Rhode, Alexander & Schönbohm, Avo & van Vliet, Jacobus, 2014. "The tactical utilization of cognitive biases in negotiations," Working Papers 80, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute of Management Berlin (IMB).
    4. Peter J. Carnevale, 2008. "Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 51-63, January.
    5. Bendoly, Elliot & van Wezel, Wout & Bachrach, Daniel G. (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management: Social and Psychological Dynamics in Production and Service Settings," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199357222.
    6. 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.
    7. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    8. Dufwenberg, Martin & Servátka, Maroš & Vadovič, Radovan, 2017. "Honesty and informal agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 269-285.
    9. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2010. "Alternative characterizations of the proportional solution for nonconvex bargaining problems with claims," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 229-232, August.
    10. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    11. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    12. Andrew B. Whitford & William P. Bottom & Gary J. Miller, 2013. "The (Negligible) Benefit of Moving First: Efficiency and Equity in Principal-Agent Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 499-518, May.
    13. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.
    14. Marlies Ahlert & Katharina Friederike Sträter, 2016. "Refining Raiffa – Aspiration Adaptation within the Zone of Possible Agreements," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 298-315, August.
    15. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    16. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    17. Charness, Gary & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Promises & Partnership," Research Papers in Economics 2003:3, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    18. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    19. Dunne, Timothy C. & Clark, Brent B. & Berns, John P. & McDowell, William C., 2019. "The technology bias in entrepreneur-investor negotiations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 258-269.
    20. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.

    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:115:y:2011:i:1:p:55-68. 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.