How suspicion mitigates the effect of influence tactics
This research examines the role of suspicion in moderating the effect of psychological factors on satisfaction with bargaining outcomes. A suspicious mindset is induced by activating persuasion knowledge or the extent to which bargainers have knowledge about a psychological factor and recognize its potential persuasive influence. The results of four studies suggest that while time taken by an opponent to respond (Studies 1A and 1B), opponent providing a reference price that frames the outcome as a gain (Study 2), and opponent expressing unhappiness with an outcome (Study 3) increase satisfaction with bargaining outcome when bargainers' persuasion knowledge is not activated, these factors are rendered ineffective in increasing satisfaction when persuasion knowledge is activated. This research activates persuasion knowledge in three different ways (through priming, altering opponent's description, and providing an opportunity for gaming) and demonstrates that it is sufficient to induce a suspicious mindset that allows the associated defense mechanisms and coping strategies to guard against influence tactics.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 112 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
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.:
- Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "The Effects of Anchor Points and Reference Points on Negotiation Process and Outcome," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 85-94, July.
- Joydeep Srivastava & Dipankar Chakravarti & Amnon Rapoport, 2000. "Price and Margin Negotiations in Marketing Channels: An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining Under One-sided Uncertainty and Opportunity Cost of Delay," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 163-184, October.
- 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.
- 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.
- Joydeep Srivastava & Shweta Oza, 2006. "Effect of Response Time on Perceptions of Bargaining Outcomes," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 266-272, 07.
- 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.
- Srivastava, Joydeep, 2001. "The Role of Inferences in Sequential Bargaining with One-Sided Incomplete Information: Some Experimental Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 166-187, May.
- Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
- Kopelman, Shirli & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby & Thompson, Leigh, 2006. "The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 81-101, January.
- Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. " The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
- 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.
- Eduardo B. Andrade & Teck-Hua Ho, 2009. "Gaming Emotions in Social Interactions," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(4), pages 539-552, December.
- White, Sally Blount & Valley, Kathleen L. & Bazerman, Max H. & Neale, Margaret A. & Peck, Sharon R., 1994. "Alternative Models of Price Behavior in Dyadic Negotiations: Market Prices, Reservation Prices, and Negotiator Aspirations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-447, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:112:y:2010:i:1:p:1-10. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.