IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i5d10.1007_s10726-021-09749-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integration Through Redefinition: Revisiting the Role of Negotiators’ Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Daisung Jang

    (University of Queensland)

  • Hyeran Choi

    (Columbus State University)

  • Jeffrey Loewenstein

    (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

Effective negotiation rests in part on generating integrative agreements, or agreements advancing parties’ interests through generating joint gains. Theorists have outlined multiple possibilities to achieve integrative agreements (Pruitt in Negotiation behaviour, Academic Press, New York, 1981; Carnevale in: Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus (eds) Handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2006), but negotiation research relies disproportionately on studies of one method of integration—making efficient tradeoffs on existing issues. The current studies examine integration through redefinition—modifying the issues under discussion. Doing so encourages revisiting the role goals play in negotiation. Study 1 found that positive and negative bargaining zones are not just indicators of agreement rates, but also cues to consider redefining issues. Specifically, negative bargaining zones spurred attempts to create value that positive bargaining zones did not. Study 2 found that focusing on interests was useful for redefining issues, whereas focusing on ambitious targets was no better than focusing on reservation points. Implications for negotiation theory are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Daisung Jang & Hyeran Choi & Jeffrey Loewenstein, 2021. "Integration Through Redefinition: Revisiting the Role of Negotiators’ Goals," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1113-1131, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09749-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-021-09749-8?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. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Sebenius, James K., 1983. "Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 281-316, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sabina Ramona Trif & Petru Lucian Curșeu & Oana Cătălina Fodor, 2023. "Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 209-232, February.

    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. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    5. Sleesman, Dustin J., 2019. "Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 83-96.
    6. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    7. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Bernard Hoekman, 2014. "The Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement and Rulemaking in the WTO: Milestone, Mistake or Mirage?," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/102, European University Institute.
    10. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro & Igor Cersosimo & Carmen Marchiori, 2002. "Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage between R&D and Climate Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 688, CESifo.
    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. Jos Timmermans, 2008. "Punctuated equilibrium in a non-linear system of action," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 350-375, December.
    13. Conconi, Paola & Perroni, Carlo, 2002. "Issue linkage and issue tie-in in multilateral negotiations," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 423-447, August.
    14. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    15. Mouzas, Stefanos & Ford, David, 2006. "Managing relationships in showery weather: The role of umbrella agreements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 1248-1256, November.
    16. Nuno Limão, 2018. "Trade policy, cross-border externalities and lobbies: do linked agreements enforce more cooperative outcomes?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 9, pages 257-281, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Rufo, M.J. & Martín, J. & Pérez, C.J., 2016. "A Bayesian negotiation model for quality and price in a multi-consumer context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 132-141.
    18. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Bernard Hoekman, 2014. "Sustaining multilateral trade cooperation in a multipolar world economy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 241-260, June.
    20. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.

    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:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09749-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.