IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v21y2012i6d10.1007_s10726-011-9252-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Motives and Trust: Implications for Joint Gains in Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Shay S. Tzafrir

    (University of Haifa)

  • Rudolph Joseph Sanchez

    (California State University)

  • Keren Tirosh-Unger

    (Israel Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This study examined the role of trust via contingency model in a multi-issue multi-party negotiation setting and how it relates to outcomes. Results of a laboratory experiment with 288 undergraduate students confirmed both a main effect of Social Value Orientations (SVO), such that cooperative negotiators achieved higher joint gains than pro-self negotiators, and a main effect of Motivational Orientations (MO), such that pro-social negotiators attained higher joint gains than egoistic-oriented negotiators. Furthermore, the predicted interaction effect between SVO and MO, such that negotiators with a pro-self SVO attained higher joint gains in a pro-social, in contrast to an egoistic MO, condition was confirmed. This effect was fully mediated by trust. The dimension of trust that explained the SVO and MO interaction was that of concern for fellow negotiators as rated by oneself, as well as by an objective third-party observer. Implications for the strategic use of social motives and trust on effective information exchange and negotiated outcomes are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Shay S. Tzafrir & Rudolph Joseph Sanchez & Keren Tirosh-Unger, 2012. "Social Motives and Trust: Implications for Joint Gains in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 839-862, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:21:y:2012:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9252-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9252-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9252-8
    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/s10726-011-9252-8?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. 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. Beersma, Bianca & De Dreu, Carsten K. W., 2002. "Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 227-252, March.
    3. Mary C. Kern & Jeanne M. Brett & Laurie R. Weingart, 2005. "Getting the Floor: Motive-Consistent Strategy and Individual Outcomes in Multi-Party Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 21-41, January.
    4. Craig D. Parks & Robert F. Henager & Shawn D. Scamahorn, 1996. "Trust and Reactions to Messages of Intent in Social Dilemmas," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 134-151, March.
    5. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    6. Mara Olekalns & Feyona Lau & Philip L. Smith, 2007. "Resolving the empty core: trust as a determinant of outcomes in three-party negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 527-538, November.
    7. Peter J.D. Carnevale & Edward J. Lawler, 1986. "Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 636-659, December.
    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. Mann, Michel & Warsitzka, Marco & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Trötschel, Roman, 2024. "Mindset-orientierte Verhandlungstrainings für Gewerkschaften: Entwicklung und Evaluierung der HANSE- und UNITED-Modelle," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 298850, March.
    2. Aaron C. Elkins & Douglas C. Derrick, 2013. "The Sound of Trust: Voice as a Measurement of Trust During Interactions with Embodied Conversational Agents," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 897-913, September.
    3. Hillie Aaldering & Shirli Kopelman, 2022. "Dovish and Hawkish Influence in Distributive and Integrative Negotiations: The Role of (A)symmetry in Constituencies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 111-136, February.
    4. Mara Olekalns & Philip L. Smith, 2018. "A Satisfied Mind: Motivational Orientation, Feedback and the Subjective Value of Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 179-196, April.

    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. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    2. Mara Olekalns & Philip L. Smith, 2018. "A Satisfied Mind: Motivational Orientation, Feedback and the Subjective Value of Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 179-196, April.
    3. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    4. Beuk, Frederik & Rubin, Eran, 2021. "Data-based negotiator allocation management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 537-552.
    5. Leeuwen, Jerry van & Heijden, Hans van der & Kronsteiner, Reinhard, 2003. "Group Decision Support for Resource Allocation Decisions in Three-Person Groups," Serie Research Memoranda 0025, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    6. 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.
    7. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Grant Savage & Michele Bunn & Barbara Gray & Qian Xiao & Sijun Wang & Elizabeth Wilson & Eric Williams, 2010. "Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 21-26, August.
    10. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    11. Yuan Sun & Shuyue Fang & Yujong Hwang, 2019. "Investigating Privacy and Information Disclosure Behavior in Social Electronic Commerce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-27, June.
    12. Anca Maria CLIPA, 2018. "Employment Contract Negotiations For Romanian It Employees And Their Willingness For Future (Re)Negotiations," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 18, pages 307-312, December.
    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.
    14. Jessica Bregant & Alex Shaw & Katherine D. Kinzler, 2016. "Intuitive Jurisprudence: Early Reasoning About the Functions of Punishment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 693-717, December.
    15. Joanna Różycka-Tran & Guido Alessandri & Paweł Jurek & Michał Olech, 2018. "A test of construct isomorphism of the Belief in a Zero-Sum Game scale: A multilevel 43-nation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Karine Lamiraud & Julien Patris & Radu Vranceanu, 2023. "Experimental evidence on the value of time and structure in market negotiations," Working Papers hal-03989514, HAL.
    18. 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.
    19. Thomas, Rodney W. & Esper, Terry L. & Stank, Theodore P., 2010. "Testing the Negative Effects of Time Pressure in Retail Supply Chain Relationships," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(4), pages 386-400.
    20. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.

    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:21:y:2012:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9252-8. 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.