Silence is golden: Extended silence, deliberative mindset, and value creation in negotiation (original) (raw)
2021, Journal of Applied Psychology
We examine the previously unstudied effects of silent pauses in bilateral negotiations. Two theoretical perspectives are tested—(1) an internal reflection perspective, whereby silence leads to a deliberative mindset, which in turn prompts value creation, and (2) a social perception perspective, whereby silence leads to intimidation and value claiming. Study 1 reveals a direct correlation between naturally-occurring silent pauses lasting at least 3 seconds (extended silence) and value creation behaviors and outcomes. Study 2 shows that instructing one or both parties to use extended silence leads to value creation. Additional studies establish a mechanism for this effect, whereby negotiators who use extended silence show evidence of greater deliberative mindset (Study 3) and a reduction in fixed-pie perceptions (Study 4), both of which are associated with value creation. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the internal reflection perspective, whereby extended silence increases value creation by interrupting default, fixed-pie thinking and fostering a more deliberative mindset. Findings of Study 3 also suggest a boundary condition whereby when status differences are salient, the use of silence by higher-status parties leads to value creation, whereas the use of silence by lower-status parties does not. Finally, Study 4 shows that instructing negotiators to use silence is more effective for value creation than instructing them to problem-solve. Challenging the social perception perspective that silence is a form of intimidation, we find no evidence for any associations between extended silence and the proportion of value claimed or subjective value of the counterpart.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010
This paper introduces a distinction between suspicion and distrust. While distrust (trust) involves having negative (positive) expectations about another's motives, suspicion is defined as the state in which perceivers experience ambiguity about another's motives. Four experiments supported this distinction and showed that suspicion can present greater benefits than trust for generating information search and attaining integrative agreements in negotiation. In Experiment 1a, suspicious perceivers were characterized by consciously attributing more motives to a target compared to both distrusting and trusting perceivers. In Experiment 1b, suspicious perceivers were more willing to seek information. In Experiment 2a, Suspicious-Trusting dyads achieved greater joint outcomes in face-to-face negotiation than did Trusting-Trusting or Suspicious-Suspicious dyads. Experiment 2b showed that the suspicious participants' ability to seek information in Suspicious-Trusting dyads mediated the superior performance of Suspicious-Trusting dyads over Trusting-Trusting dyads in attaining integrative agreements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011
Previous negotiation research predominant ly focused on psychologica l factors that lead to suboptimal compromises as opposed to integrative agreements. Few studies systematically analyzed factors that impact the emergence of hurtful partial impasses (i.e., nonagreements on part of the issues). The present research investigates negotiators' egoistic motivation as a determinant for the emergence of partial impasses. In addition, the authors seek to demonstrate that perspective taking serves as a powelful tool to avoid impasses and to overcome egoistic impediments. Specitically, it was predicted that within an integrative context perspective-takers succeed to exchange concessions on low-versus high-preference issues (i.e., logroll), thereby increasi ng their individual profits without inflicting hurtful losses upon their cou nterparts. Three studies were conducted to test these predictions. Study I reveals that whereas negotiators' egoistic motivation increases the risk of pm1ial impasses, perspective taking alleviates this risk. Study 2 demonstrates that this beneficial effect of a perspective-taking mindset is limited to integrative negotiations and does not emerge in a distributive context, in which negotiators are constrained to achieve selfish goals by inflicting hurtful losses on their counterparts. Study 3 confirms the assumption that in an integrative context egoistic perspective-takers overcome the risk of impasses by means of logrolling. The findings of the present studies are discussed with respect to their contribution to research on negotiations, social motivation, and perspective taking.
When Do People Initiate a Negotiation? The Role of Discrepancy, Satisfaction, and Ability Beliefs
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2017
Negotiation research increasingly pays attention to the beginning of negotiations. Building on a theory of the initiation of negotiation we investigated when and why people consider initiating negotiations. Results from one field study and two scenario experiments show that a negative discrepancy between an actual state and a desired state increased the intention to initiate a negotiation and promoted real initiation behavior. This effect was mediated by the subjective perception of this discrepancy and feelings of dissatisfaction. Expectancy considerations in the form of ability to initiate negotiations and implicit beliefs about negotiation ability moderated this serial mediation effect: high initiation ability and incremental negotiation beliefs facilitated the decision to negotiate whereas low initiation ability and entity negotiation beliefs inhibited negotiation initiations. In the present work, we offer a first empirical test of the theory of initiation of negotiation. Some elements of the ideas described in this article were presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Boston, USA. The research further draws on a dissertation completed by Julia A. M. Reif at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen. We thank Barbara Mehner for her assistance in data collection for Study 1.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
A demurral is a verbal or physical display of shock, disgust, or disbelief made immediately in response to an opening offer. This study investigated the impact of immediately demurring in response to a counterpart's opening offer in an integrative bargaining task. The results indicate that negotiators who demurred claimed significantly more value than negotiators who did not demur. Surprisingly, demurring did not affect the impasse rate or the value created in negotiations. Negotiators in receipt of a demurral, however, perceived their outcomes as less favorable than negotiators who did not receive a demurral. Furthermore, demurring appeared to negatively affect the recipient's perception of the bargaining relationship. Mediation analyses revealed that the aforementioned effects of the demurral tactic are fully mediated by the recipients' perceptions of the demurring negotiators' behaviors. Mediation analyses did not support the hypothesis that the effects of the demurral tactic would be mediated by the recipients' perception of the demurring negotiators' anger. Implications of this research for negotiation theory and practice, and directions for future research, are discussed.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.