IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v16y2007i6d10.1007_s10726-006-9070-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of reciprocation wariness on negotiation behavior and outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Zhi-Xue Zhang

    (Peking University)

  • Yu-Lan Han

    (Peking University)

Abstract

This study examined the influence of reciprocation wariness, a general fear of exploitation in interpersonal relationships, on negotiators’ motivational orientation, direct information sharing and negotiation outcomes. We predicted that low-wary negotiators are more likely to be prosocial and to engage in direct information sharing, and low-wary negotiators will perceive their opponents more positively after the negotiation. We asked 150 graduate students of business administration to formed 75 dyads to participate in a simulated business negotiation, each taking the role of a buyer or a seller. The results showed that reciprocation wariness had a significant effect on negotiators’ motivational orientation and the amount of information sharing. Negotiating dyads with low–low reciprocation wariness got higher joint gains than those with high–high reciprocation wariness, and information sharing fully mediated the relationship. After the negotiation, low-wary negotiators evaluated the other party more positively and were more willing to interact with their opponents in the future. Contributions and limitations are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhi-Xue Zhang & Yu-Lan Han, 2007. "The effects of reciprocation wariness on negotiation behavior and outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 507-525, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:16:y:2007:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9070-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-006-9070-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-006-9070-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-006-9070-6?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. Olekalns, Mara & Smith, Philip L. & Walsh, Therese, 1996. "The Process of Negotiating: Strategy and Timing as Predictors of Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 68-77, October.
    2. John L. Graham & Alma T. Mintu & Waymond Rodgers, 1994. "Explorations of Negotiation Behaviors in Ten Foreign Cultures Using a Model Developed in the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 72-95, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Svenn Lindskold & Brian Betz & Pamela S. Walters, 1986. "Transforming Competitive or Cooperative Climates," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(1), pages 99-114, 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. Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Liu, Leigh Anne & Ma, Li, 2021. "Negotiation beliefs: Comparing Americans and the Chinese," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).

    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. Wilken, Robert & Jacob, Frank & Prime, Nathalie, 2013. "The ambiguous role of cultural moderators in intercultural business negotiations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 736-753.
    2. Ahammad, Mohammad Faisal & Tarba, Shlomo Y. & Liu, Yipeng & Glaister, Keith W. & Cooper, Cary L., 2016. "Exploring the factors influencing the negotiation process in cross-border M&A," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 445-457.
    3. Dinkevych, Elena & Wilken, Robert & Aykac, Tayfun & Jacob, Frank & Prime, Nathalie, 2017. "Can outnumbered negotiators succeed? The case of intercultural business negotiations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 592-603.
    4. Raphael Schoen, 2021. "Lacking pluralism? A critical review of the use of cultural dimensions in negotiation research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 393-432, April.
    5. Yu-Te Tu, 2012. "A Comparison on Business Negotiation Styles with Education," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 4(6), pages 317-331.
    6. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    7. Shi, Xinping & Wright, Philip C., 2003. "The potential impacts of national feelings on international business negotiations: a study in the China context," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 311-328, June.
    8. Michele Griessmair & Daniel Druckman, 2018. "To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-83, February.
    9. Ogliastri, Enrique & Quintanilla, Carlos & Benetti, Sara, 2023. "International negotiation prototypes: The impact of culture," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    10. Vivi Nastase & Sabine Koeszegi & Stan Szpakowicz, 2007. "Content Analysis Through the Machine Learning Mill," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 335-346, July.
    11. Berea Cristi, 2018. "Negotiation Analysis. The Context," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 284-288, July.
    12. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    13. Saorín-Iborra, M. Carmen, 2008. "Time pressure in acquisition negotiations: Its determinants and effects on parties' negotiation behaviour choice," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 285-309, June.
    14. Nordman, Emilia Rovira & Tolstoy, Daniel, 2014. "Does relationship psychic distance matter for the learning processes of internationalizing SMEs?," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 30-37.
    15. Yates, J. Frank & de Oliveira, Stephanie, 2016. "Culture and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-118.
    16. Taras, Vas & Baack, Daniel & Caprar, Dan & Dow, Douglas & Froese, Fabian & Jimenez, Alfredo & Magnusson, Peter, 2019. "Diverse effects of diversity: Disaggregating effects of diversity in global virtual teams," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4).
    17. De Dreu, Carsten K. W., 2003. "Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 280-295, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Yu-Te Tu, 2012. "Negotiation Style Comparisons by Gender among Greater China," Journal of Social and Development Sciences, AMH International, vol. 3(4), pages 123-134.
    20. Kern, Mary C. & Brett, Jeanne M. & Weingart, Laurie R. & Eck, Chase S., 2020. "The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 143-158.

    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:spr:grdene:v:16:y:2007:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9070-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.