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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ogliastri, Enrique & Quintanilla, Carlos & Benetti, Sara, 2023. "International negotiation prototypes: The impact of culture," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.
    13. Ray R. Hashemi & Louis A. Le Blanc, 2000. "Resource Allocation through Negotiation and Compromise: A Database Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 325-345, July.
    14. Tshering Chonzom, 2008. "Chinese Preconditions and Tibetan Initiatives," China Report, , vol. 44(2), pages 185-193, May.
    15. Tora Skodvin & Steinar Andresen, 2009. "An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies? Presidential ambitions and congressional powers," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 263-280, August.
    16. Rudolf Vetschera & D. Kilgour, 2014. "Fair division of indivisible items between two players: design parameters for Contested Pile methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 547-572, April.
    17. Ruud Gerards & Joan Muysken & Riccardo Welters, 2014. "Active Labour Market Policy by a Profit-Maximizing Firm," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 136-157, March.
    18. Heiskanen, Pirja, 1999. "Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 578-590, September.
    19. Rasmusen, E., 1994. "A Model of Negotiation, not Bargainig," Papers 94-007, Indiana - Center for Econometric Model Research.
    20. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2018. "Endogenous Climate Coalitions and Free Trade - Building the Missing Link," Chemnitz Economic Papers 018, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology.

    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.