IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v57y2013i6p966-990.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivational Primes, Trust, and Negotiators’ Reaction to a Crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Druckman
  • Mara Olekalns

Abstract

Using a simulated bilateral negotiation over several security issues, the authors explore how variations in the negotiation context influence reactions to a negotiating crisis. Negotiators were primed to focus on one of three aspects of the context: transaction costs, dependence, or shared identity. They were asked to respond to the crisis with a decision to reach an immediate agreement, continue negotiating, or reframe the issues. The results showed that mutual dependence (unattractive alternatives) led to reframing (turning points) whereas high transaction costs led to a preference for continuing the negotiation. Shared identity did not affect negotiators preference across alternative courses of action. Affective trust amplified the impact of dependence and transaction costs: the decision to reframe was made more often by negotiators who reported low affective trust, whereas the decision to reach immediate agreement was made more often by negotiators who reported high affective trust. High cognitive trust encouraged negotiators to continue the negotiation if they had a shared identity or if transaction costs were high. Applications were made to real-world cases and implications were developed for Relational Order theory and for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Druckman & Mara Olekalns, 2013. "Motivational Primes, Trust, and Negotiators’ Reaction to a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 57(6), pages 966-990, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:57:y:2013:i:6:p:966-990
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002712453707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002712453707
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002712453707?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. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2009. "Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 347-365, 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. Lenka Mynaříková & Vít Pošta, 2023. "The Effect of Consumer Confidence and Subjective Well-being on Consumers’ Spending Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 429-453, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pollack, Jeffrey M. & Bosse, Douglas A., 2014. "When do investors forgive entrepreneurs for lying?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 741-754.
    5. Steinel, Wolfgang & Utz, Sonja & Koning, Lukas, 2010. "The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 85-96, November.
    6. Rogers, Todd & Zeckhauser, Richard & Gino, Francesco & Schweitzer, Maurice & Norton, Mike, 2014. "Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others," Working Paper Series rwp14-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    8. Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2016. "Mad and misleading: Incidental anger promotes deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 207-217.
    9. Claude Alavoine, 2014. "Unethical Practices in Negotiations. The Confrontation between Internal and External Factors," Working Papers 2014-223, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    10. Todd W. Moss & Donald O. Neubaum & Moriah Meyskens, 2015. "The Effect of Virtuous and Entrepreneurial Orientations on Microfinance Lending and Repayment: A Signaling Theory Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(1), pages 27-52, January.
    11. Kevin Tasa & Chris M. Bell, 2017. "Effects of Implicit Negotiation Beliefs and Moral Disengagement on Negotiator Attitudes and Deceptive Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 169-183, April.
    12. Ricky S. Wong & Susan Howard, 2017. "Blinded by Power: Untangling Mixed Results Regarding Power and Efficiency in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 215-245, March.
    13. Filipe Sobral & Gazi Islam, 2013. "Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 281-296, October.
    14. Minson, Julia A. & VanEpps, Eric M. & Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-93.
    15. Mara Olekalns & Christopher Horan & Philip Smith, 2014. "Maybe It’s Right, Maybe It’s Wrong: Structural and Social Determinants of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 89-102, June.
    16. Yu Yang & David De Cremer & Chao Wang, 2017. "How Ethically Would Americans and Chinese Negotiate? The Effect of Intra-cultural Versus Inter-cultural Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 659-670, October.
    17. Yao, Jingjing & Brett, Jeanne M. & Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Ramirez-Marin, Jimena, 2021. "Multi-issue offers strategy and joint gains in negotiations: How low-trust negotiators get things done," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 9-23.
    18. Moshe Banai & Abraham Stefanidis & Ana Shetach & Mehmet Özbek, 2014. "Attitudes Toward Ethically Questionable Negotiation Tactics: A Two-Country Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 123(4), pages 669-685, September.
    19. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Martin C. Schleper & Constantin Blome & David A. Wuttke, 2017. "The Dark Side of Buyer Power: Supplier Exploitation and the Role of Ethical Climates," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 97-114, January.

    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:sae:jocore:v:57:y:2013:i:6:p:966-990. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.