IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v27y2018i1d10.1007_s10726-017-9550-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Griessmair

    (Victoria University
    University of Vienna)

  • Daniel Druckman

    (George Mason University
    Macquarie University
    University of Queensland)

Abstract

This study examines the impacts of process frames and salience of a turning point on negotiators’ responses to a departure during the negotiation process. Results show that individuals negotiating within an integrative-cooperative (as opposed to a distributive-competitive frame) are more likely to interpret the departure as a turning point and match the other’s offer. Similarly, results show that making the departure salient by clearly articulating the intent, content, and function of the turning point offer increases negotiators’ propensity to embrace the mutually beneficial turning point offer. The findings are discussed in light of negotiators’ awareness of events during the negotiation process, their (mis)matching of favorable offers, and relational order theory.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:27:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9550-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-017-9550-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-017-9550-x
    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/s10726-017-9550-x?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. Keysar, Boaz & Ginzel, Linda E. & Bazerman, Max H., 1995. "States of Affairs and States of Mind: The Effect of Knowledge of Beliefs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 283-293, December.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    3. Daniel Druckman, 2001. "Turning Points in International Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(4), pages 519-544, August.
    4. Davide Pietroni & Gerben A. Kleef & Carsten K. W. Dreu, 2008. "Response modes in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    5. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    6. de Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Emans, Ben J. M. & van de Vliert, Evert, 1994. "Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 90-107, October.
    7. 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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2019. "Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 147-163.
    3. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    4. Basteck, Christian & Klaus, Bettina & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "How lotteries in school choice help to level the playing field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 198-237.
    5. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    6. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    7. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    8. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    9. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sandra Ludwig & Julia Nafziger, 2011. "Beliefs about overconfidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 475-500, April.
    11. Simeon Schudy & Verena Utikal, 2015. "Does imperfect data privacy stop people from collecting personal health data?," TWI Research Paper Series 98, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    12. Xu, Xue & Potters, Jan, 2018. "An experiment on cooperation in ongoing organizations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 28-40.
    13. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Patricio S Dalton & Victor H Gonzalez Jimenez & Charles N Noussair, 2017. "Exposure to Poverty and Productivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2022. "Measuring “group cohesion” to reveal the power of social relationships in team production," Discussion Papers 2022-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    17. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    18. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. Menusch Khadjavi, 2018. "Deterrence works for criminals," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 165-178, August.
    20. Leanne Roncolato & Alex Roomets, 2020. "Who will change the “baby?” Examining the power of gender in an experimental setting," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 823-852, September.

    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:27:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-017-9550-x. 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.