The subjective value inventory (original) (raw)
Related papers
What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006
Four studies support the development and validation of a framework for understanding the range of social psychological outcomes valued subjectively as consequences of negotiations. Study 1 inductively elicited and coded elements of subjective value among students, community members, and practitioners, revealing 20 categories that theorists in Study 2 sorted into 4 underlying subconstructs: Feelings About the Instrumental Outcome, Feelings About the Self, Feelings About the Negotiation Process, and Feelings About the Relationship. Study 3 proposed a new Subjective Value Inventory (SVI) and confirmed its 4-factor structure. Study 4 presents convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity data for the SVI. Indeed, subjective value was a better predictor than economic outcomes of future negotiation decisions. Results suggest the SVI is a promising tool to systematize and encourage research on subjective outcomes of negotiation.
The Objective Value of Subjective Value: A Multi-Round Negotiation Study
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010
A 2-round negotiation study provided evidence that positive feelings resulting from one negotiation can be economically rewarding in a second negotiation. Negotiators experiencing greater subjective value (SV)-that is, social, perceptual, and emotional outcomes from a negotiation-in Round 1 achieved greater individual and joint objective negotiation performance in Round 2, even with Round 1 economic outcomes controlled. Moreover, Round 1 SV predicted the desire to negotiate again with the same counterpart, whereas objective negotiation performance had no such association. Taken together, the results suggest that positive feelings, not just positive outcomes, can evoke future economic success.j asp_593 690..709 Conventional wisdom holds that a favorable economic outcome is the sine qua non of successful negotiation performance. By contrast, how one feels afterward is considered a fleeting emotion, subject to heuristics and biases. Behavioral science researchers have traditionally portrayed negotiation as an economically motivated, one-shot interaction best practiced by rational, unemotional actors. However, an increasing number of recent studies have challenged this rationalist assumption, incorporating social psychological factors into the study of negotiation (for a review, see Bazerman, Curhan, & Moore, 2001). Extending this work, we ask the following provocative question: Is a positive subjective experience itself economically rewarding over time? 1 Preparation of this article was supported by National Science Foundation Award 0620207 to Jared Curhan. The authors thank Max Bazerman for his helpful comments on the project.
The Four-Type Negotiation Matrix: A Model for Assessing Negotiation Processes
British Journal of Education, 2020
A model of the negotiation process is developed and applied to a sample of negotiation cases through qualitative meta-analysis. Key findings revealed a two-dimensional matrix comprising the entire negotiation process, and suggest that value creation strategies should be used for both parties in such transactions to achieve mutual benefits. This article is intended to provide scholars with a new perspective and taxonomy on the negotiation dimensions, and implications of these findings for managerial practice are discussed.
Development of a Conceptual Model and Questionnaire of Principled Negotiation
Business Communication Research and Practice, 2018
Objectives: Principled negotiation, proposed by Fisher and Ury, is a tool used in many disputes, but it has received some criticism, especially for its lack of empirical evidence. In this paper, we use an empirical method to study the principled negotiation model and develop a questionnaire of principled negotiation. Methods: Firstly, we build a conceptual model of principled negotiation and propose the hypothesis that the principled negotiation model is constituted of four dimensions-the adult-ego people, harmonious interest, creative options, and fair criteria. Secondly, we develop a questionnaire of principled negotiation with the procedures and principles of scientific scale development. Lastly, through a survey of Chinese college students in China and data analysis, we confirm our hypothesis by using item analysis, reliability analysis, and validity analysis. Results: The results of our exploratory research of the principled negotiation model are ideal, and the obtained four-factor model can reasonably fit the data. The validity of this questionnaire is found to be good, and the questionnaire of principled negotiation passes the tests of reliability and validity. Conclusions: The main variables of the questionnaire of principled negotiation were identified by applying a logical approach. The four dimensions (people, interests, options, and criteria) were obtained from the literature and an in-depth quantitative assessment. This questionnaire of principled negotiation can provide a practical guide for negotiators and researchers who wish to use a scientific measuring tool.
Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes
Group Decision and Negotiation, 2016
Negotiation processes involve a substantive, a communication, and an emotional dimension. These dimensions have been analyzed mainly in isolation of each other. We introduce an approach to consider all three dimensions and present an empirical study on the relations between these dimensions. Results indicate a strong linkage between communication behavior and emotions, while connections to the substantive dimension of the negotiation process are weaker.
New Directions in Negotiation Research
Annals of the International Communication Association, 1983
We have internal, we have uh, elected representatives of the people who are willing to listen to the problems of the employees and to make appropriate judgments because they have been entrusted with that uh, that duty by the, by the community. Union: It's like the victim of the robbery, making the decision as to whether the thief is guilty or innocent and how much....
Social Sciences, 2017
The proposed values-based negotiation model (VBM) agrees with and extends principled negotiation's recognition of personal values and emotions as important negotiation elements. First, building upon Martin Buber's existentialist treatment of religion and secularism, VBM centers on religion as one of many possible sources of personal values that informs respectful and mutually beneficial interactions without needing one to necessarily be religious. Just as one need not be a Buddhist or a Hindu to practice yoga, negotiators of any theological outlook can profit from a model grounded in broad, common tenets drawn from a range of organized religions. Second, VBM distinguishes feelings from emotions because the long-lasting and intrinsically stimulated effects of feelings have greater implications on the perception of negotiated outcomes. VBM negotiators view negotiations as a constitutive prosocial process whereby parties consider the outcome important enough to invest time and energy. Negotiators who use VBM appeal to the goodness of their counterparts by doing good first so that both parties avoid a win-lose outcome. This counterintuitive move contradicts the self-centered but understandably normal human behavior of prioritizing one's own interests before others' interests. However, when one appeals to the goodness of one's Buberian Thou counterparts, he or she stimulates positive emotions that promote understanding. Third, VBM provides a framework that draws upon an individual's personal values (religious or otherwise) and reconfigures the distributive-bargaining-and-integrative-negotiation distinction so that negotiators can freely apply distributive tactics to claim maximum intangible and tangible outcomes without compromising on their personal values or valuable relationships.