IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v141y2017icp16-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Alice J.
  • Ames, Daniel R.

Abstract

Past research paints a mixed picture of rationales in negotiations: Some findings suggest rationales might help, whereas others suggest they may have little effect or backfire. Here, we distinguish between two kinds of rationales buyers commonly employ – constraint rationales (referring to one’s own limited resources) and disparagement rationales (involving critiques of the negotiated object) – and demonstrate their divergent effects. Across four studies, we examined spontaneous rationales and manipulated rationale content, finding that constraint rationales have more positive effects on instrumental (e.g., counteroffers) and relational (e.g., trust) outcomes than disparagement rationales. Mediation analyses suggest constraint, but not disparagement, rationales are taken by sellers as signaling a buyer's limit. We also demonstrate a role for information, showing that the divergence between these rationales’ effects is attenuated when the seller has little information about their object’s value. Overall, our results show how and why rationales can help or hurt negotiators.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:16-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781630259X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    2. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, 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. Martha Jeong & Julia Minson & Michael Yeomans & Francesca Gino, 2019. "Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5813-5837, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.

    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. Hussain, Hadia & Murtaza, Murtaza & Ajmal, Areeb & Ahmed, Afreen & Khan, Muhammad Ovais Khalid, 2020. "A study on the effects of social media advertisement on consumer’s attitude and customer response," MPRA Paper 104675, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. A. G. Fatullayev & Nizami A. Gasilov & Şahin Emrah Amrahov, 2019. "Numerical solution of linear inhomogeneous fuzzy delay differential equations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-326, September.
    3. Arun Advani & William Elming & Jonathan Shaw, 2023. "The Dynamic Effects of Tax Audits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(3), pages 545-561, May.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Matthieu Lequien & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2017. "Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning," CEP Discussion Papers dp1516, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Chuangen Gao & Shuyang Gu & Jiguo Yu & Hai Du & Weili Wu, 2022. "Adaptive seeding for profit maximization in social networks," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 413-432, February.
    7. Koessler, Frederic & Laclau, Marie & Renault, Jérôme & Tomala, Tristan, 2022. "Long information design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(2), May.
    8. Annette Alstadsæter & Wojciech Kopczuk & Kjetil Telle, 2019. "Social networks and tax avoidance: evidence from a well-defined Norwegian tax shelter," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(6), pages 1291-1328, December.
    9. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    10. Sebastian Kaumanns, 2019. "“Some fuzzy math”: relational information on debt value adjustments by managers and the financial press," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 755-794, December.
    11. Samuel J Gershman, 2015. "A Unifying Probabilistic View of Associative Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Arun Advani, 2022. "Who does and doesn't pay taxes?," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 5-22, March.
    13. Steve Fortin & Ahmad Hammami & Michel Magnan, 2021. "Re‐exploring Fair Value Accounting and Value Relevance: An Examination of Underlying Securities," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 220-250, June.
    14. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    15. Jacobs, Mattis & Kurtz, Christian & Simon, Judith & Böhmann, Tilo, 2021. "Value Sensitive Design and power in socio-technical ecosystems," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26.
    16. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    17. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    18. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Peretzke, Julia & Sandhaus, Gregor, 2017. "Einsatzpotentiale von Cognitive Computing zur Unterstützung der Entscheidungsfindung im Supply Chain Management," ild Schriftenreihe 53, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    20. Németh Tamás, 2019. "How to back up Modules with blended learning The e-Learning platform of FAME," Prosperitas, Budapest Business University, vol. 6(1), pages 102-112.

    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:141:y:2017:i:c:p:16-28. 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.