IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v162y2021icp59-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The power of lost alternatives in negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Brady, Garrett L.
  • Inesi, M. Ena
  • Mussweiler, Thomas

Abstract

Having attractive alternatives is often seen as a sine qua non for negotiator success. Given that alternatives are not set in stone and are thus inherently probabilistic in nature, what happens if an alternative is lost? Across seven experiments (N = 2538), we demonstrate that losing an attractive alternative carries advantages compared to never having had this alternative. Specifically, negotiators who lose an attractive alternative set more aggressive aspirations, first offers, and obtain better outcomes. These advantages appear to result from negotiators anchoring their aspirations and first offers on the lost alternative. At the same time, because the attractive alternative is used as a reference point to evaluate the outcome, negotiators who lost an attractive alternative are less satisfied with the better outcome they obtain. The present research highlights the powerful influence lost alternatives have on how negotiators prepare, behave, feel, and perform in a negotiation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:162:y:2021:i:c:p:59-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597820303964
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.010?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. Anderson, Cameron & Thompson, Leigh L., 2004. "Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals' positive affect shapes negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 125-139, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Lee, Alice J. & Loschelder, David D. & Schweinsberg, Martin & Mason, Malia F. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2018. "Too precise to pursue: How precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiations and markets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 87-100.
    6. Whyte, Glen & Sebenius, James K., 1997. "The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 74-85, January.
    7. Oliver, Richard L. & Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar) & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 252-275, November.
    8. Overbeck, Jennifer R. & Neale, Margaret A. & Govan, Cassandra L., 2010. "I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 126-139, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Inesi, M. Ena, 2010. "Power and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 58-69, May.
    11. Curhan, Jared R. & Neale, Margaret A. & Ross, Lee & Rosencranz-Engelmann, Jesse, 2008. "Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 192-205, November.
    12. Peng, Ann C. & Dunn, Jennifer & Conlon, Donald E., 2015. "When vigilance prevails: The effect of regulatory focus and accountability on integrative negotiation outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 77-87.
    13. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Yuk Yee, 2000. "Is 7300 m Equal to 7.3 km? Same Semantics but Different Anchoring Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 314-333, July.
    14. To, Christopher & Leslie, Lisa M. & Torelli, Carlos J. & Stoner, Jennifer L., 2020. "Culture and social hierarchy: Collectivism as a driver of the relationship between power and status," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 159-176.
    15. Waytz, Adam & Chou, Eileen Y. & Magee, Joe C. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2015. "Not so lonely at the top: The relationship between power and loneliness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 69-78.
    16. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    17. White, Sally Blount & Neale, Margaret A., 1994. "The Role of Negotiator Aspirations and Settlement Expectancies in Bargaining Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 303-317, February.
    18. Wolf, Elizabeth Baily & Lee, Jooa Julia & Sah, Sunita & Brooks, Alison Wood, 2016. "Managing perceptions of distress at work: Reframing emotion as passion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.
    20. 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.
    21. Mussweiler, Thomas & Strack, Fritz, 2001. "The Semantics of Anchoring," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 234-255, November.
    22. O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Arnold, Josh A., 2001. "Distributive Spirals: Negotiation Impasses and the Moderating Role of Disputant Self-Efficacy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 148-176, January.
    23. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    24. Sivanathan, Niro & Pillutla, Madan M. & Keith Murnighan, J., 2008. "Power gained, power lost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 135-146, March.
    25. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Yap, Andy J. & Thau, Stefan, 2018. "Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 73-96.
    26. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    27. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: The economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    4. Tey, Kian Siong & Schaerer, Michael & Madan, Nikhil & Swaab, Roderick I., 2021. "The Impact of Concession Patterns on Negotiations: When and Why Decreasing Concessions Lead to a Distributive Disadvantage," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 153-166.
    5. 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.
    6. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    7. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    8. Adam J. L. Harris & Maarten Speekenbrink, 2016. "Semantic cross-scale numerical anchoring," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(6), pages 572-581, November.
    9. Wiltermuth, Scott S. & Raj, Medha & Wood, Adam, 2018. "How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 14-30.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:572-581 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Backhaus, & Pesch,, 2018. "Verhandlungen – Spiegeln die Lehrbücher den Stand der Forschung wider?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 72(1), pages 3-26.
    12. Yossi Maaravi & Aharon Levy, 2017. "When your anchor sinks your boat: Information asymmetry in distributive negotiations and the disadvantage of making the first offer," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 420-429, September.
    13. Wolfram E. Lipp & Remigiusz Smolinski & Peter Kesting, 2023. "Beyond the First Offer: Decoding Negotiation Openings and Their Impact on Economic and Subjective Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 395-433, April.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:420-429 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    16. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda & Lai, Lei, 2004. "Do You a Favor? Social Implications of High Aspirations in Negotiation," Working Paper Series rwp04-033, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    18. Andrzej Kozina, 2017. "Negotiation Competences of an Entrepreneur," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(65), pages 209-225.
    19. Štěpán Bahník, 2021. "Anchoring without scale distortion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 131-141, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    22. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "Determinants of buyers' aspiration and reservation price," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 487-503, 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:eee:jobhdp:v:162:y:2021:i:c:p:59-80. 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.