IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation

Listed author(s):
  • Steinel, Wolfgang
  • De Dreu, Carsten K.W.
  • Ouwehand, Elsje
  • Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y.

Although constituencies often consist of opposing factions, we know little about the way such opposing factions influence the representative's negotiation strategy. This study addressed this issue: Representatives negotiated as sellers on behalf of a group consisting of hawkish (competitive) and dovish (cooperative) factions. Experiments 1-3 showed that a minority of hawks was sufficient to influence the representatives to acting in a competitive way; only when all constituents unanimously advocated a cooperative strategy were representatives more conciliatory towards their negotiation partner. These tendencies did not differ as a function of the representatives' pro-social versus pro-self value orientation, or the unanimity versus majority rule putatively used in the constituency to accept of reject the representative's negotiated agreement. We conclude that hawkish minorities are persuasive and influential because representatives accord more weight to hawkish than to dovish messages.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

Volume (Year): 109 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
Pages: 67-78

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:1:p:67-78
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Davis, James H., 1992. "Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples 1950-1990," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 3-38, June.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. O'Connor, Kathleen M., 1997. "Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 384-407, December.
  5. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
  6. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:109:y:2009:i:1:p:67-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.