ArticlePublisher preview available

Trust Building via Negotiation: Immediate versus Lingering Effects of General Trust and Negotiator Satisfaction

  • IÉSEG School of Management
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.


Building long-term trustful relationships with counterparts is a crucial objective for many negotiators. Despite numerous “snapshot” trust studies, little is known about the dynamics of trust change as the outcome in the negotiation context. In this study, we examined how negotiators’ general trust and different types of satisfaction affect their trust change toward counterparts immediately as well as lingeringly. We conducted a negotiation simulation with 260 participants, measuring their trust one week before, immediately after, and one week after the negotiation. We found that negotiators’ general trust and outcome satisfaction were positively associated with their trust change immediately after the negotiation. In addition, negotiators’ relationship satisfaction was positively associated with their trust change over the following week. The research findings achieve a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of trust building in negotiations.
Group Decision and Negotiation (2021) 30:507–528
1 3
Trust Building viaNegotiation: Immediate versusLingering
Effects ofGeneral Trust andNegotiator Satisfaction
JingjingYao1 · MartinStorme1
Accepted: 24 December 2020 / Published online: 3 January 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021
Building long-term trustful relationships with counterparts is a crucial objective
for many negotiators. Despite numerous “snapshot” trust studies, little is known
about the dynamics of trust change as the outcome in the negotiation context. In this
study, we examined how negotiators’ general trust and different types of satisfac-
tion affect their trust change toward counterparts immediately as well as lingeringly.
We conducted a negotiation simulation with 260 participants, measuring their trust
one week before, immediately after, and one week after the negotiation. We found
that negotiators’ general trust and outcome satisfaction were positively associated
with their trust change immediately after the negotiation. In addition, negotiators’
relationship satisfaction was positively associated with their trust change over the
following week. The research findings achieve a comprehensive and dynamic under-
standing of trust building in negotiations.
Keywords Trust· Trust building· Negotiation· Negotiator satisfaction
1 Introduction
Negotiators often attempt to build trustful relationships with counterparts through
the negotiation, because trust can help them implement the agreement terms (Cam-
pagna etal. 2016), reduce transaction costs (Connelly etal. 2018), and strengthen
future cooperation (Krishnan etal. 2006). Famed investor Warren Buffett once said:
“we only want to link up with people who we like, admire, and trust” (Cunning-
ham and Buffett 2013, p. 408) because “we have never succeeded in making a good
deal with a bad person” (Cunningham and Buffett 2013, p. 348). Despite the well-
acknowledged importance of trust building in negotiations, the empirical studies on
* Jingjing Yao
Martin Storme
1 IESEG School ofManagement, 3 Rue de la Digue, 59800Lille, France
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
... Moreover, we test whether information reprocessability as a core feature of CMC can reduce the perceived risk in negotiations (e.g., Breuer et al., 2016;Gefen et al., 2008) and might even lead to advantages of online as compared to face-to-face settings. Finally, the current research contributes to the small but important literature on trust emergence and trust development in negotiations Lu et al., 2017;Yao & Storme, 2021), and provides insights on social-emotional negotiation outcomes, which are far less investigated than economic negotiation outcomes in computer-mediated negotiations (Geiger, 2020). ...
... Importantly, however, trust is often an important negotiation outcome itself. As many negotiations take place in long-term relationships, in business as well as in other contexts, previously built trust can facilitate future interactions serving as currency Lewicki & Stevenson, 1997;Yao & Storme, 2021). ...
Full-text available
Despite growing prevalence of digital communication, computer-mediated negotiations have a negative reputation in scientific research. However, extant studies focused predominantly on lean communication technologies (e.g., email). We examined effects of communication media on trust and negotiation outcomes considering current-state technologies with rich information transmission (i.e., videoconferencing). Based on communication and trust theories, we expected that video-based as compared to face-to-face negotiations lead to lower trust due to perceptions of lower social presence, higher psychological distance and higher risk in video conferences. However, we expected information reprocessability as technological feature to reduce risk perceptions and thereby the negative effect of communication medium. In a preregistered experimental study (n = 320), dyads negotiated a work contract. Communication medium (face-to-face – video conference) and information reprocessability (not videotaped – videotaped) were manipulated in a between-subject design with time (pre-negotiation – post-negotiation) as additional within-subject factor. Perceived risk, psychological distance, and social presence were measured as mediating processes. Consistent with our hypotheses, communication medium affected trust indirectly via social presence. However, the overall differences between communication media regarding trust, economic outcomes and negotiation time were not significant. Together, the findings suggest that face-to-face and computer-mediated negotiations can yield quite similar results when using rich communication media.
... Gerçek yaşamda insan odaklı oylaşma süreçlerinde temel unsur, güvenin sağlanmasıdır [13]. Bu durum, yeni doğan bir çocuğun dünyayı öğrenmesinde ailesinin verdiği bilgilere güvenmesi ve biraz daha büyüdüğünde, sosyal dünyasını güven duyduğu unsurlarla şekillendirmesine benzetilebilir. ...
Full-text available
Güncel yönetişim paradigmaları oylaşmacı süreçler ve temsili kurumlar arasındaki entegrasyonu geliştirmeye odaklanmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar çoğunlukla, açık ve saydam iletişim mekanizmalarının yanı sıra doğrudan katılımı sağlayan süreçlerin geliştirilmesine ve güven mekanizmalarının artırılmasına yönelik gereksinimler etrafında şekillenmektedir. Benzer gereksinimlerden yola çıkarak çalışmamızda, katılımcı ve oylaşmacı süreçlerin takibi ve korunmasını güvence altına alan, sosyal medya etkili yeni bir yönetişim modeli önerilmiştir. Model, etiket yapısı üzerine inşa edilmiş ve iletişimin temel mekanizmaları olan bağlam, değişmezlik, güvenilirlik ve tutarlılık gibi unsurlar etrafında şekillendirilmiştir. Bu modelin geliştirilmesinde, güncel ve değişmezliğin kontrolünü sağlayan bir teknoloji olması nedeniyle öbek zincirinin özetleme mekanizmasından yararlanılmıştır. Ancak öbek zinciri değişebilir veri, bağlam, güvenilirlik ve tutarlılık gibi mekanizmaların modellenmesi için uygun değildir. Bu nedenle, öbek zincirinin veri yapısında söz konusu mekanizmaların desteklenmesi için bazı değişiklikler yapılmış ve sonucunda da geliştirdiğimiz model ile öbek zinciri teknolojisi, zaman ve alan karmaşıklığı açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Karşılaştırma sonucunda, geliştirdiğimiz modelin temelini oluşturan etiket yapısının, öbek zincirinin veri yapısına göre daha yüksek başarım ortaya koyduğu tespit edilmiştir. Önerimizin, topluluk yönetimlerinde güvenilir bir sosyal medya ortamı oluşturarak oylaşma süreçlerinin geliştirilmesine katkı sunması beklenmektedir.
This study aimed to model a trust decision-making of Indonesian small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) groups in the adoption of Industry 4.0 namely, ergonomic, machinery, and e-commerce technology. The data on trust and its constraints were collected through a questionnaire, and formulated in a Kansei fitness function. The trust was modeled by Swarm Modeling (SM) to extract critical constraints. Traveling salesman problem-based Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) was used to determine the optimum decision-making path. The simulation indicated that the perception of technology benefit limited the adoption of Industry 4.0. The three optimal trust decision-making paths were generated on Java, Sumatera and Nusa Tenggara groups.
Full-text available
Existing trust research has disproportionately focused on what makes people more or less trusting, and has largely ignored the question of what makes people more or less trustworthy. In this investigation, we deepen our understanding of trustworthiness. Across six studies using economic games that measure trustworthy behavior and survey items that measure trustworthy intentions, we explore the personality traits that predict trustworthiness. We demonstrate that guilt-proneness predicts trustworthiness better than a variety of other personality measures, and we identify sense of interpersonal responsibility as the underlying mechanism by both measuring it and manipulating it directly. People who are high in guilt-proneness are more likely to be trustworthy than are individuals who are low in guilt-proneness, but they are not universally more generous. We demonstrate that people high in guilt-proneness are more likely to behave in interpersonally sensitive ways when they are more responsible for others’ outcomes. We also explore potential interventions to increase trustworthiness. Our findings fill a significant gap in the trust literature by building a foundation for investigating trustworthiness, by identifying a trait predictor of trustworthy intentions and behavior, and by providing practical advice for deciding in whom we should place our trust.
Full-text available
Although negotiation research has systematically investigated the factors that contribute to negotiators’ satisfaction with economic outcomes, relatively less attention has been given to the factors that influence their satisfaction with social outcomes. In this research, we used a computer-based task to present pairs of outcomes (own outcome, other’s outcome) to participants and asked them to rate their satisfaction with their own outcomes, their self-image and an opponent’s perceived willingness to negotiate in the future. Because satisfaction is context-sensitive, we tested how two factors influenced these ratings: motivational orientation, whether negotiators held cooperative or individualistic goals, and feedback, whether negotiators received feedback only about an opponent’s economic outcome or received feedback about both an opponent’s economic outcome and satisfaction with the outcome. Our analysis showed informative parallels between the satisfaction ratings of participants who were cooperatively-oriented or received feedback about an opponent’s satisfaction with outcomes, and between those who were individualistically-oriented or received outcome-only feedback. Whereas participants’ satisfaction changed most rapidly with increasing joint gain when they were cooperatively-oriented or received outcome satisfaction feedback, participants’ satisfaction changed most rapidly with increasing outcome differences when they were individualistically-oriented or received outcome-only feedback. Several three-way interactions showed that the most rapid changes in negotiators’ satisfaction occur when interdependence is highlighted, that is, when cooperatively-motivated negotiators receive information about an opponent’s outcome satisfaction.
Full-text available
Organizational scholars have systematically studied the negotiation process to guide the development of general descriptive and prescriptive theory. Descriptive research conducted by scholars from anthropology, law, and international relations converge on the features required for a general theory. This includes a multiphase process comprising planning, bargaining, and implementation, as well as multiparty process between actors organized within a multilevel structure. We examine to what extent negotiation scholars in management have incorporated such complexities into their empirical work. In a survey of empirical studies, we observe concentrated efforts to model and measure dyadic interactions in just one phase—bargaining—and the near exclusive use of experimental methods. By contrast, we survey prescriptive theory generated by specialized experts from various negotiation contexts and find that they place greater focus on the preparation and implementation phases. From this review, we recommend that scholars (a) theorize and measure negotiation as a multiphase process with possibilities for recursion, (b) incorporate a multiparty and multilevel structure in which actors beyond negotiating parties can influence the process, and (c) consider agreements as action commitments separate from actually realizing outcomes. In doing so, we discuss the value of integrating analogous work to furnish negotiation theory. We also provide recommendations for novel empirical approaches that move beyond experimental designs of multi-issue bargaining.
Full-text available
Scholars who study negotiation increasingly recognize the importance of social context, seeing negotiations not merely as 1-shot interactions but as influenced by what came before. Under this longitudinal conceptualization of negotiation, a number of recent studies demonstrate that social psychological outcomes from prior negotiations are positively related to economic performance in subsequent negotiations when negotiating repeatedly with the same counterpart. In this report, we investigate a counterexample in the context of "sequential negotiations," which we define as multiple negotiation sessions that occur within a short time frame but facing different counterparts in each session. We theorize, in sequential negotiations, that subjective value from 1 negotiation should be negatively related to objective outcomes in a subsequent negotiation because of spillover effects of incidental anger and pride. We test this model in 2 studies: a multiround lab study with a student sample and a longitudinal field study with employees negotiating as part of their jobs. Results from both studies support the hypothesized negative relationship between subjective value from an initial negotiation and the objective outcome from a subsequent negotiation with a different counterpart. The mediating role of pride is supported partially in Study 1 and fully in Study 2, whereas the mediating role of anger is not supported in either study. We discuss implications for negotiation theory and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record
Negotiation scholars generally model agreement as the terminal “endpoint” of the process. From this perspective, parties instantaneously realize their outcomes when agreement is reached. Although this conception may also reflect the understanding of some negotiators (those with what we call a “fixed agreement” mindset), we argue that others actually envision agreement as one step in an ongoing process (what we call a “fluid agreement” mindset). To spur research on this topic, we report initial progress on development of a new measure of agreement fluidity. Basic psychometric properties for this measure were established using six correlational samples that demonstrate aspects of both discriminant and convergent validity. Fixed agreement mindset appears to predict important behaviors during and after the negotiation process.
Prior research has identified benefits from certain emotion tactics in negotiation, particularly expressing anger to achieve short‐term gains. We demonstrate that such tactics can be strategically problematic due to their impact on an actor's emotions and felt trust. Through five studies, we find that negotiators' use of anger tactics during a negotiation increased their feelings of guilt and reduced the extent to which they felt trusted by their counterpart following the negotiation. We found this guilt to be the result of their aggressive tone and how they treated their counterpart. The guilt and diminished felt trust in turn motivated negotiators to engage in greater cooperative behaviors during the deal implementation process that benefited their counterpart, even if doing so was costly to the negotiator. Our results demonstrate that negotiator guilt and felt trust resulting from anger tactics influence the dynamic relationship between negotiators and their counterparts. This in turn has strategic implications for negotiators, who attempt to mitigate these negative feelings during the crucial implementation phase of a negotiated agreement.
Trust plays a crucial role throughout the entire negotiation process, and culture adds more complexity to the meaning, functions, and dynamics of trust in negotiations. We take a modest step to provide some insights on trust and culture in the context of negotiations and envision what opportunities are ahead of us in this area. Specifically, we provide a “cognitive map” based on the collective wisdom in the extant negotiation literature and focus on raising important questions about six key culture-related issues that warrant future research: (1) the meaning of trust, (2) the effects of trust, (3) trust development, (4) trust and distrust, (5) trust repair, and (6) trust in virtual negotiations.
Negotiation scholars know relatively little about how negotiators can overcome adverse circumstances and end negotiations with an enhanced sense of satisfaction. Using a series of two negotiations simulations, we tested whether cognitive reappraisal influences negotiators' responses to adverse experiences. After completing a negotiation in which they either did – or did not – encounter difficulties, participants identified a challenging moment and wrote about either the benefits or harms they associated with that moment. They then completed a second negotiation and reported their post‐negotiation satisfaction using the Subjective Value Inventory. Compared to negotiators who did not encounter adversity, those negotiators who did encounter challenges and engaged in benefit finding reported higher levels of process and relationship satisfaction than those who engaged in harm finding. We also found that negotiators reported greater process and relationship satisfaction under adverse circumstances (hard negotiation or harm‐finding appraisal) when their partners used inclusive language (we, ours, us) in the second negotiation.
The negotiation process can harm post-agreement motivation. For example, a homeowner might negotiate with a landscaper, but through the process of negotiating harm the landscaper’s motivation to deliver high quality service. In contrast to prior work that has assumed that negotiated agreements represent the full economic value of negotiated outcomes, we demonstrate that the act of engaging in a negotiation can itself influence post-agreement behavior in ways that change the economic value of an agreement. Across six studies, we demonstrate that negotiations can harm post-agreement motivation and productivity on both effortful and creative tasks. Specifically, we find that wage negotiations can harm post-agreement performance, even when the negotiation has integrative potential or is conducted face-to-face. The negotiation process can increase perceptions of relational conflict, and these conflict perceptions mediate the relationship between negotiation and performance. Compared to not negotiating, individuals who negotiate may secure favorable deal terms, but risk incurring affective, relational, and economic costs after the agreement. Our investigation fills a critical gap in our understanding of post-agreement behavior, and has particular relevance for negotiations that involve services. Our findings suggest that individuals should enter negotiations with caution, and we call for future work to explore not only what happens prior to an agreement, but also what happens after an agreement has been reached.