IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp04-033.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do You a Favor? Social Implications of High Aspirations in Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Bowles, Hannah Riley

    (Harvard U)

  • Babcock, Linda

    (Carnegie Mellon U)

  • Lai, Lei

Abstract

Study explores implications of high aspirations for potential future cooperation with one’s negotiating counterpart. Participants were 134 undergraduate students acting as buyers or sellers in a price negotiation. Buyers were assigned more or less ambitious aspirations. Buyers with more ambitious aspirations negotiated a greater percentage of the surplus. Sellers paired with buyers with more ambitious aspirations were less satisfied with the negotiation outcome, found their negotiating counterparts to be less likeable, expressed less willingness to work with or do a favor for their negotiating counterparts, and were less generous toward their counterparts when allocating money in a post-negotiation decision exercise. Likeability of the buyer mediated the effect of buyer aspiration level on sellers’ satisfaction and willingness to cooperate in future.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp04-033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=133
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    2. 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.
    3. Tinsley, Catherine H. & O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Sullivan, Brandon A., 2002. "Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 621-642, July.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Barry, Bruce & Oliver, Richard L., 1996. "Affect in Dyadic Negotiation: A Model and Propositions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 127-143, August.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2010. "The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 809-816, August.
    4. Oza, Shweta S. & Srivastava, Joydeep & Koukova, Nevena T., 2010. "How suspicion mitigates the effect of influence tactics," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 1-10, May.
    5. Yossi Maaravi & Asya Pazy & Yoav Ganzach, 2014. "Winning a battle but losing the war: On the drawbacks of using the anchoring tactic in distributive negotiations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 548-557, November.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:548-557 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Novemsky, Nathan & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2004. "What makes negotiators happy? The differential effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 186-197, November.
    8. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2012. "Negotiating when outnumbered: Agenda strategies for bargaining with buying teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 280-291.
    9. 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).
    10. Michele Griessmair & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2009. "Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 213-234, May.
    11. Sascha Alavi & Johannes Habel & Marco Schwenke & Christian Schmitz, 2020. "Price negotiating for services: elucidating the ambivalent effects on customers’ negotiation aspirations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 165-185, March.
    12. Jaime Ramirez-Fernandez & Jimena Y. Ramirez-Marin & Lourdes Munduate, 2018. "I Expected More from You: The Influence of Close Relationships and Perspective Taking on Negotiation Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 85-105, February.
    13. Curhan, Jared R. & Elfenbein, Hillary Anger & Xu, Heng, 2005. "What do People Value when they Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation," Working papers 18234, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    14. Susan A. Brown & Viswanath Venkatesh & Sandeep Goyal, 2012. "Expectation Confirmation in Technology Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 474-487, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda, 2008. "Relational Accounts: An Answer for Women to the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma," Working Paper Series rwp08-066, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Pope, Devin G. & Pope, Jaren C. & Sydnor, Justin R., 2015. "Focal points and bargaining in housing markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 89-107.
    18. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    20. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    21. Daniel Agness & Travis Baseler & Sylvain Chassang & Pascaline Dupas & Erik Snowberg, 2022. "Valuing the Time of the Self-Employed," Working Papers 2022-2, Princeton University. Economics Department..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecl:harjfk:rwp04-033. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.