IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v65y2019i12p5813-5837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive

Author

Listed:
  • Martha Jeong

    (Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Julia Minson

    (Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Michael Yeomans

    (Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Francesca Gino

    (Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

When entering into a negotiation, individuals have the choice to enact a variety of communication styles. We test the differential impact of being “warm and friendly” versus “tough and firm” in a distributive negotiation when first offers are held constant and concession patterns are tracked. We train a natural language processing algorithm to precisely quantify the difference between how people enact warm and friendly versus tough and firm communication styles. We find that the two styles differ primarily in length and their expressions of politeness (Study 1). Negotiators with a tough and firm communication style achieved better economic outcomes than negotiators with a warm and friendly communication style in both a field experiment (Study 2) and a laboratory experiment (Study 3). This was driven by the fact that offers delivered in tough and firm language elicited more favorable counteroffers. We further find that the counterparts of warm and friendly versus tough and firm negotiators did not report different levels of satisfaction or enjoyment of their interactions (Study 3). Finally, we document that individuals’ lay beliefs are in direct opposition to our findings: participants believe that authors of warmly worded negotiation offers will be better liked and will achieve better economic outcomes (Study 4).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:65:y:2019:i:12:p:5813-5837
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3199
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3199?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
    5. Allred, Keith G. & Mallozzi, John S. & Matsui, Fusako & Raia, Christopher P., 1997. "The Influence of Anger and Compassion on Negotiation Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 175-187, June.
    6. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    7. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    8. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    9. Tinsley, Catherine H. & O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Sullivan, Brandon A., 2002. "Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 621-642, July.
    10. David A. Morand, 1996. "Dominance, Deference, and Egalitarianism in Organizational Interaction: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Power and Politeness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 544-556, October.
    11. Pillutla, Madan M. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1996. "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-224, December.
    12. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    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.
    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. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Desai, Sreedhari D. & Gunia, Brian C., 2023. "The interplay of gender and perceived sexual orientation at the bargaining table: A social dominance and intersectionalist perspective," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Krause, Jan S. & Brandt, Gerrit & Schmidt, Ulrich & Schunk, Daniel, 2023. "Don’t sweat it: Ambient temperature does not affect social behavior and perception," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Lutz Kaufmann & Moritz Schreiner & Felix Reimann, 2023. "Narratives in supplier negotiations—The interplay of narrative design elements, structural power, and outcomes," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 59(1), pages 66-94, January.
    5. SimanTov-Nachlieli, Ilanit & Har-Vardi, Liron & Moran, Simone, 2020. "When negotiators with honest reputations are less (and more) likely to be deceived," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 68-84.
    6. Jan S. Krause & Gerrit Nanninga & Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt & Daniel Schunk, 2020. "The Influence of Ambient Temperature on Social Perception and Social Behavior," Working Papers 2013, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    7. Minson, Julia A. & Bendersky, Corinne & de Dreu, Carsten & Halperin, Eran & Schroeder, Juliana, 2023. "Experimental studies of conflict: Challenges, solutions, and advice to junior scholars," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Blaufus, Kay & Lorenz, Daniela & Milde, Michael & Peuthert, Benjamin & Schwäbe, Alexander N., 2022. "Negotiating with the tax auditor: Determinants of tax auditors' negotiation strategy choice and the effect on firms’ tax adjustments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Borchert, Philipp & Coussement, Kristof & De Weerdt, Jochen & De Caigny, Arno, 2024. "Industry-sensitive language modeling for business," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(2), pages 691-702.
    10. Hart, Einav & VanEpps, Eric M. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2021. "The (better than expected) consequences of asking sensitive questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-154.
    11. Yili Hong & Jing Peng & Gordon Burtch & Ni Huang, 2021. "Just DM Me (Politely): Direct Messaging, Politeness, and Hiring Outcomes in Online Labor Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 786-800, September.

    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. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    2. Masters-Waage, Theodore C. & Nai, Jared & Reb, Jochen & Sim, Samantha & Narayanan, Jayanth & Tan, Noriko, 2021. "Going far together by being here now: Mindfulness increases cooperation in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 189-205.
    3. Shirli Kopelman & Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, 2008. "Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions in negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 65-77, January.
    4. Michele Griessmair & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2009. "Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 213-234, May.
    5. Ting Zhang & Francesca Gino & Michael I. Norton, 2017. "The Surprising Effectiveness of Hostile Mediators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1972-1992, June.
    6. Sriram Venkiteswaran & Rangaraja P. Sundarraj, 2021. "How Angry are You? Anger Intensity, Demand and Subjective Value in Multi-round Distributive Electronic Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 143-170, February.
    7. Rothman, Naomi B. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2015. "Unlocking integrative potential: Expressed emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 65-76.
    8. Peter J. Carnevale, 2008. "Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 51-63, January.
    9. Michael Filzmoser & Patrick Hippmann & Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1169-1188, November.
    10. Bruce Barry, 2008. "Negotiator affect: the state of the art (and the science)," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 97-105, January.
    11. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    12. Bennedsen, Morten & Feldmann, Sven E., 2006. "Informational lobbying and political contributions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 631-656, May.
    13. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2019. "Lies and consequences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1203-1240, December.
    14. Dmitry Lubensky, 2017. "A model of recommended retail prices," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(2), pages 358-386, May.
    15. Caleb A. Cox & Brock Stoddard, 2021. "Common-Value Public Goods and Informational Social Dilemmas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 343-369, May.
    16. Luca Anderlini & Dino Gerardi & Roger Lagunoff, 2012. "Communication and Learning," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(2), pages 419-450.
    17. Jennifer D. Parlamis & Ingmar Geiger, 2015. "Mind the Medium: A Qualitative Analysis of Email Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 359-381, March.
    18. Pastwa, Anna M. & Shrestha, Prabal & Thewissen, James & Torsin, Wouter, 2021. "Unpacking the black box of ICO white papers: a topic modeling approach," LIDAM Discussion Papers LFIN 2021018, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    19. Renault, Jérôme & Solan, Eilon & Vieille, Nicolas, 2013. "Dynamic sender–receiver games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 502-534.
    20. Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2019. "Strategic communication with reporting costs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 341-363, October.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:65:y:2019:i:12:p:5813-5837. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.