Regulatory Focus at the Bargaining Table: Promoting Distributive and Integrative Success

University of Cologne, Köln, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Impact Factor: 2.52). 09/2005; 31(8):1087-98. DOI: 10.1177/0146167205276429
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors demonstrate that in dyadic negotiations, negotiators with a promotion regulatory focus achieve superior outcomes than negotiators with prevention regulatory focus in two ways. First, a promotion focus leads negotiators to claim more resources at the bargaining table. In the first two studies, promotion-focused negotiators paid more attention to their target prices(i.e., their ideal outcomes) and achieved more advantageous distributive outcomes than did prevention-focused negotiators. The second study also reveals an important mediating process: Negotiators with a promotion focus made more extreme opening offers in their favor. Second, a promotion focus leads negotiators to create more resources at the bargaining table that benefit both parties. A third study demonstrated that in a multi-issue negotiation, a promotion focus increased the likelihood that a dyad achieved a jointly optimal or Pareto efficient outcome compared to prevention-focused dyads. The discussion focuses on the role of regulatory focus in social interaction and introduces the notion of interaction fit.

Download full-text


Available from: Geoffrey J Leonardelli, Sep 26, 2015
30 Reads
  • Source
    • "The authors also found that promotionfocused negotiation dyads achieved pareto optimal agreements more often than prevention-focused dyads. However, these studies focused exclusively on situations whereby individuals negotiate without accountabilities to others (e.g., role playing a job candidate who negotiates for their own employment, Galinsky et al., 2005; Study 1). Based on regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000, 2005), we posit that accountability may be an important situational feature that shapes the effect of individual regulatory focus on negotiation outcomes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Negotiators often bargain on behalf of constituents to whom they feel accountable. We argue that prior evidence for the superior outcomes of promotion-focused (vs. prevention-focused) negotiators may not hold when negotiators perceive high accountability to a third party. In two studies, we found that prevention-focused dyads achieved better joint financial outcomes than promotion-focused dyads in situations where high performance was expected and evaluated by a supervisor (i.e., high accountability condition). In Study 2, we found that prevention-focused individuals perceived a better regulatory fit in the high accountability condition and that the regulatory fit of both parties in a dyad was related to more integrative solutions.
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 01/2015; 126:77-87. DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.008 · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "reasons of internal validity , negotiators ' regulatory focus was experimentally induced rather than assessed in terms of self - report measures . Although previous research has shown that regulatory focus assessed as dispositional traits or induced through contextual features ( e . g . , experimental manipulations ) produce very similar effects ( Galinsky et al . , 2005 ) , future re - search may also take a closer look on how parties ' chronic regulatory focus affects the conceptualization of assigned goals located in the upper or lower range of the ZOPA . Moreover , many negotiations do not only revolve around a single issue ( e . g . , a price negotiation ) but instead include mul - tiple issues tha"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While promotion-focused individuals conceptualize goals as ideals and opportunities, prevention-focused individuals conceptualize goals as obligations and necessities. Due to these different goal conceptualizations, prevention-focused parties are expected to set the framework for agreements in distributive business-negotiations among parties with different regulatory foci: Specifically, we predict that prevention-focused negotiators reveal a high resistance to concede until their goals are met, but are willing to concede once their goals are fulfilled. In contrast, promotion-focused parties should adjust their concession making to the best attainable outcomes, irrespective of their negotiation goals. Two studies supported these theoretical assumptions: Prevention-focused parties with goals located in the upper range (i.e., high goals) of the ‘zone of possible agreements’ (ZOPA; e.g., Sebenius, 1992) revealed a high resistance to concede. Hence, they outperformed promotion-focused counterparts—irrespective of whether the latter held low (Study 1) or equally high (Study 2) goals. Conversely, prevention-focused parties with goals located in the lower range of the ZOPA (i.e., low goals) revealed a lower resistance to concede. Hence, they were outperformed by their promotion-focused counterparts—irrespective of whether the latter held equally low (Study 1) or high (Study 2) goals. The findings are discussed with respect to the role of self-regulation and goal conceptualization in the context of negotiations.
    Journal of Economic Psychology 10/2013; 38:26–39. DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.006 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In the prevention focus condition, participants were asked to describe the duties and obligations that they had to fulfill in their life. Similar writing tasks have been previously used to prime promotion versus prevention focus (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2005; Gino & Margolis, 2011). Lastly, in the neutral condition, participants were asked to describe their commute to campus that day. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We propose that the psychological states individuals bring into newly formed groups can produce meaningful differences in status attainment. Three experiments explored whether experimentally created approach-oriented mindsets affected status attainment in groups, both immediately and over time. We predicted that approach-oriented states would lead to greater status attainment by increasing proactive behavior. Furthermore, we hypothesized that these status gains would persist longitudinally, days after the original mindsets had dissipated, due to the self-reinforcing behavioral cycles the approach-oriented states initiated. In Experiment 1, individuals primed with a promotion focus achieved higher status in their newly formed groups, and this was mediated by proactive behavior as rated by themselves and their teammates. Experiment 2 was a longitudinal experiment and revealed that individuals primed with power achieved higher status, both immediately following the prime and when the groups were reassembled 2 days later to work on new tasks. These effects were mediated by independent coders' ratings of proactive behavior during the first few minutes of group interaction. Experiment 3 was another longitudinal experiment and revealed that priming happiness led to greater status as well as greater acquisition of material resources. Importantly, these immediate and longitudinal effects were independent of the effects of a number of stable dispositional traits. Our results establish that approach-oriented psychological states affect status attainment, over and above the more stable characteristics emphasized in prior research, and provide the most direct test yet of the self-reinforcing nature of status hierarchies. These findings depict a dynamic view of status organization in which the same group may organize itself differently depending on members' incoming psychological states. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 07/2013; 105(5). DOI:10.1037/a0033667 · 5.08 Impact Factor
Show more