IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v153y2019icp1-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Anyi
  • Yang, Yu
  • Savani, Krishna

Abstract

Negotiators often elicit concessions from their counterparts by using ultimatums. The present research asks: Why do some negotiators either concede to ultimatums or leave the bargaining table, whereas others simply ignore ultimatums and continue negotiating? Six studies examined the role of a choice mindset. Negotiators who recalled their past choices perceived greater negotiation room than negotiators who recalled past no-choice actions (Study 1). Negotiators who thought about their counterpart’s choices (rather than constraints) were more willing to persist (Study 2), and this relationship was mediated by greater perceived negotiation room (Studies 3 and 4). A choice mindset also helped negotiators achieve better outcomes (Study 5). Finally, Study 6 compared the relative strengths of thinking about different types of choices (e.g., one’s own choices vs. one’s counterpart’s choices both within and outside the negotiation). The findings identify the choice mindset as a novel intervention to enhance persistence and improve negotiation outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:153:y:2019:i:c:p:1-12
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597817307197
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.003?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. Naquin, Charles E., 2003. "The agony of opportunity in negotiation: Number of negotiable issues, counterfactual thinking, and feelings of satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 97-107, May.
    2. 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.
    3. David Dubois & Ena Inesi & Simona Botti & Derek D. Rucker & Adam D. Galinsky, 2011. "Power and Choice: Their Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal Control," Post-Print hal-00696608, HAL.
    4. Margaret A. Neale & Max H. Bazerman, 1983. "The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 36(3), pages 378-388, April.
    5. Pinkley, Robin L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Bennett, Rebecca J., 1994. "The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 97-116, January.
    6. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    7. Ma, Anyi & Kay, Aaron C., 2017. "Compensatory control and ambiguity intolerance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 46-61.
    8. Brooks, Alison Wood & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2011. "Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 43-54, May.
    9. Savani, Krishna & King, Dan, 2015. "Perceiving outcomes as determined by external forces: The role of event construal in attenuating the outcome bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 136-146.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brady, Garrett L. & Inesi, M. Ena & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2021. "The power of lost alternatives in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 59-80.
    2. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    3. 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.
    4. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    5. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    6. Schaerer, Michael & Loschelder, David D. & Swaab, Roderick I., 2016. "Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 156-171.
    7. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    8. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Nguyen, Bach & Tran, Hai-Anh & Stephan, Ute & Van, Ha Nguyen & Anh, Pham Thi Hoang, 2024. "“I can't get it out of my mind” - Why, how, and when crisis rumination leads entrepreneurs to act and pivot during crises," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(4).
    11. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    12. Zheyin (Jane) Gu & Giri K. Tayi, 2023. "Consumer self‐design and brand competition," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(8), pages 2420-2437, August.
    13. Greenacre, Luke & Martin, James & Patrick, Sarah & Jaeger, Victoria, 2016. "Boundaries of the centrality effect during product choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-38.
    14. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Kerim Peren Arin & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos & Deni Mazrekaj & Marcel Thum, 2021. "Misperceptions and Fake News during the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 9066, CESifo.
    16. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    17. Pinkley, Robin L. & Conlon, Donald E. & Sawyer, John E. & Sleesman, Dustin J. & Vandewalle, Don & Kuenzi, Maribeth, 2019. "The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: How what could be haunts what is," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 34-48.
    18. I-Jun Chen & Yu Wu & Bing-Si Wei, 2017. "Effects of anxious emotions on the behavioral problems of Chinese children with learning difficulties," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1147-1165, May.
    19. Blut, Markus & Chowdhry, Nivriti & Mittal, Vikas & Brock, Christian, 2015. "E-Service Quality: A Meta-Analytic Review," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 679-700.
    20. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.

    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:153:y:2019:i:c:p:1-12. 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.