Druckman, Olekalns - Emotions in negotiation.pdf - Psychologia - koni86

Group Decis Negot (2008) 17:1–11

DOI 10.1007/s10726-007-9091-9

Emotions in negotiation

Daniel Druckman

Mara Olekalns

Published online: 4 July 2007

Abstract In this article, we discuss the ways in which emotions inﬂuence the course of

negotiation. Emotions play a role in the development of relationships among negotiators; they

also facilitate or hinder coordination of strategic exchanges. These functions highlight an

interplay between information-processing and emotional expressions: intentions are inferred

from statements made and nonverbal gestures sent. They are understood as part of an expres-

sion game that emphasizes interaction dynamics. They are also understood in terms of the

organizational contexts surrounding negotiation. These are some of the themes that surface

in the articles contributed to this special issue. An overview of the articles calls attention to

key points but also expands on the themes suggested by the authors. The work reported in

this issue provides a basis for a continuing research agenda on emotions in negotiation.

Keywords Emotions · Experimentation · Expression games · Information-processing ·

Intentions

Negotiation

)

George Mason University,

Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

e-mail: ddruckma@gmu.edu

D. Druckman

University of Queensland,

Brisbane, Australia

e-mail: d.druckman@uq.edu.au

M. Olekalns

Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne,

Melbourne, Australia

e-mail: m.olekalns@mbs.edu

123

D. Druckman (

D. Druckman, M. Olekalns

Introduction

An increasingly popular topic in current research is the way that emotional expressions

inﬂuence the course of negotiation and related interactions. Negotiation is a form of social

exchange that pits the opposing motives of cooperating and competing against one another.

Most negotiators seek to reach an agreement with the other; they also strive for an agreement

that serves their own goals. This dual concern is reﬂected in a process that consists of both

bargaining and problem solving. A good deal of the research and practice literatures con-

centrates on ways to perform these activities effectively. In earlier writing, emotions were

viewed largely as factors that impede performance, preventing successful coordination from

occurring. More recently we have learned that emotions can both help and hinder progress.

Expressions may convey useful information about preferences; they can also signal dislike

or malevolent intentions. Whether emotions move a negotiation forward or backward—or

improve/threaten a relationship—depends on a variety of process and context variables. A

number of these variables are explored in the articles to follow. In this article we provide

background on the topic and introduce each of the articles to follow.

The role of emotions in negotiation

The study of emotions has been neglected in a literature that emphasizes strategy and informa-

tion-processing. This emphasis is prominent in several dominant paradigms that have guided

much of the research, including game and decision theory, behavioral approaches, cognitive

framing/prospect theory, and the dual concern model. Concepts that would seem to have

substantial emotional content have been described mostly in terms of strategy. Examples are

motives, trust, and identity. Motives have been construed in terms of relative and absolute

or joint gains ( De Dreu et al. 2000; Hopmann 1995 ). Trust has been deﬁned as calculus,

knowledge and identiﬁcation-based ( Irmer 2003; Lewicki and Stevenson 1997 ). And, iden-

tity has been treated as constituent-based representative role obligations ( Druckman 1994;

Wall 1975; Bartunek et al. 1975 ). Because of these emphases progress in developing theories

or frameworks for understanding the role of emotions in negotiation has been slow. However,

a rash of recent studies bodes well for development of this topic. Some of the progress is

reﬂected in the articles selected for publication in this issue.

Several earlier studies on negotiation have called attention to the importance of such

emotional expressions as happiness and anger. Both these emotions can be socially-induced,

leading to reciprocated expressions ( McIntosh 1996 ). Good feelings have been shown to have

beneﬁcial effects on bargaining. Even when the feelings are induced in the simplest ways,

negotiators indicate that they have increased conﬁdence in their judgments, more creative

approaches to solving problems, expect more favorable outcomes, and offer more concessions

( Baron 1990; Carnevale and Isen 1986; Kopelman et al. 2006 ). However when positive emo-

tion is induced as ﬂattery, negotiators may become wary of the ﬂatterer’s intentions. When

ﬂattery is viewed as being manipulative or ingratiating it can backﬁre ( Baron 1990 ). Similarly

anger can have positive or negative effects on negotiation. Displays of anger can be beneﬁcial

if used to signal how strongly one feels about an issue, about the fairness of proposed distribu-

tions or procedures, or about possible consequences of continuing intransigence. The key is to

distinguish between anger directed at the task and at the other person ( Daly 1991; Jehn 1994 ).

For example, a negotiator can direct attention to some possible unfair distributions implied

by a proposal (the task) or to the other’s intention to be exploitative or self-serving (the per-

son). The former communication is likely to elicit reciprocated anger and delay settlement

123

Emotions in negotiation

( Brett et al. 2007; Friedman et al. 2004 ). Anger has received attention in the more recent

studies reviewed by Van Kleef and colleagues in this issue.

Emotional expression serves important social functions and assists in the coordination

of social action. For individuals, emotional expression facilitates survival; for groups, it

facilitates social bonding and collaboration ( Keltner et al. 2006; Shiota et al. 2004; Mor-

ris and Keltner 2000 ). Emotional expression is thus likely to play a role in the develop-

ment of relationships between bargainers. Improved relationships have been shown to re-

sult from cooperative processes and mutually-beneﬁcial outcomes (e.g., Druckman 1998;

Olekalns and Smith 2005 ). Importantly, the expression of positive emotion is identiﬁed as

critical to forming and maintaining social bonds ( Shiota et al. 2004 ). Dunn and Schweit-

zer (2005) point to the relationship between positive emotions and perceived trustworthi-

ness. Furthermore, negotiators who displayed positive emotion in an interactive dispute

simulation were more likely to include in their agreements provisions for future business

relationships that increase joint outcomes (Kopelman et al. 2006). While—on this basis—

it is easy to conclude that positive emotions should facilitate collaboration, the impact of

emotional expression appears to be context sensitive. For example, recent research shows

that power and affect interact to shape negotiators’ outcomes ( Anderson and Thompson

2004 ) and behaviors ( Anderson and Galinsky 2006; Olekalns and Smith 2007; Van Kleef

et al. 2006 ).

Tiedens and Linton (2001) found that emotions associated with certainty, such as happiness

and anger, can be differentiated from those associated with uncertainty, such as surprise

and worry. A possible consequence is that these differently valenced emotions (positive vs.

negative) create certain, optimistic expectations when negotiators are happy. They create

certain, pessimistic expectations when negotiators are angry. As a result, happy negotiators

anticipate that the other party is skilled and that a settlement is likely to occur. The authors

conclude that cooperation is an appropriate strategy. Conversely, angry negotiators anticipate

a difﬁcult, competitive negotiation, triggering disinterest and withdrawal from the process

(Forgas 1998; Knapp and Miller 1985; Van Kleef et al. 2004).

Gender stereotypes inﬂuence expectations about the expression of emotion. Consistent

with the stereotype of a female negotiating style as more emotional ( Kray and Thompson

2005 ), women are expected to both experience and express a greater range of emotions than

men. The two exceptions to this general expectation relate to expressions of anger and pride,

both of which are seen as more typical of men than women. When emotional expression

is ambiguous, individuals attribute gender-congruent emotions to others ( Plant et al. 2000 ).

The idea that there are gender-based expectations about emotional expression is interesting,

in light of work on expectancy violation and emotion in negotiation: negotiators who switch

strategies and thereby violate the expectations of the other negotiator affect the other party’s

mood (Barry and Oliver 1996; Olekalns et al. 2005 ). What happens when men and women

violate gender-based expectations about emotional expression? Will women who violate

such expectations encounter the same relational backlash that is evident in other social and

organizational relationships ( Rudman and Glick 1999 ).

Emotions and Intentions

Negotiation researchers continue to concentrate their work primarily on two emotions, hap-

piness and anger. A few studies have examined impacts of surprise on bargaining moves

(e.g., Druckman et al. 1986 ) and on the arousal of guilt when outcomes clearly favor oneself

( Hegtvedt and Killian 1999 ). These and other emotional states have been studied in psy-

123

D. Druckman, M. Olekalns

chology. Starting with Darwin’s (1872) account of the processes of emotional expression

in animals and humans, investigators have searched for the way in which different emo-

tions are conveyed through speech and nonverbal behavior, particularly facial expressions.

Woodworth’s (1938) listing of primary emotions was the basis for studies designed to isolate

expressions corresponding to each state (see Ekman and Friesen 1975 ). These emotions are:

happiness, surprise, fear, sadness, anger, disgust/contempt, and interest. A question asked

in many of these studies is whether these are universal emotions or cultural-speciﬁc states

( Ekman 1972 ). For negotiation researchers, an important question concerns the connection

between emotions and intentions.

Emotions inﬂuence information processing (e.g., Clore et al. 2001). The search for in-

formation during bargaining depends for its effectiveness on skilled problem solving and

judgments of authenticity. Problem solving is a cognitive activity that improves with prac-

tice (Kressel et al. 1994). Judgments of authenticity involve interpretations about the other’s

intentions, which are likely to be inﬂuenced by emotional expressions (Baron 1990). Both

skills, known as decoding – diagnosing the other’s intentions – and encoding – conveying

impressions – improve with experience (Thompson 1990).

Research on nonverbal indicators of deception has explored this connection ( Ekman and

Friesen 1974; DePaulo et al. 1980 ). Honest and deceptive intentions have been shown to be

associated with such emotional states as conﬁdence, stress, and interest

( Druckman et al. 1982 ). Each of these states has been found to be indicated by particular

facial (and other bodily) expressions. For example, deceivers indicate conﬁdence in defend-

ing positions through increased head shaking, rocking movements, and crossed hands; an

attempt to evade an issue is accompanied by feelings of stress and indicated by frequent gazes

away from the other person; an intention to be honest is accompanied by feelings of interest

or involvement and indicated by frequent leg movements and increased speaking frequency.

These correlational ﬁndings point to a connection between emotional states and particu-

lar intentions. They also highlight the possibilities for diagnosis (decoding) and impression

management (encoding) in negotiation and related types of social exchange. Connections

between the emotional expression of both negative and positive emotions and opportunities

to deceive in negotiation are made in several recent studies (e.g., O’Connor and Carnevale

1997; Olekalns and Smith 2007; Steinel and De Dreu 2004 ).

Expression games

The relation between decoding and encoding in social exchange is captured in Goffman’s

(1969) perspective on strategic interaction. Referred to as an expression game, he focuses on

interactive dynamics between the roles of subject (making an offer or demand) and observer

(receiving an offer or demand). This idea is a departure from the way research on negotia-

tion (and on emotions) has been done. These roles are separated in much of the research: the

focus of analysis is usually on the person receiving information from another or on the person

sending information to another as in buyer–seller concession making. Less attention is paid

to the interaction process where observer–subject interactions consist of alternating moves,

the one attempting to infer intent from the subject’s expressions, while the other attempts to

convey certain expressions. In this process, each person is in easy reach of both the observer

and subject roles. Reversed roles are a feature of the interaction that occurs as a result of

mutual attempts to inﬂuence the other; the participant’s sense of being more the subject or

more the observer depends on whether he or she is persuading or analyzing during a partic-

123

Emotions in negotiation

ular episode in the process (see also Argyle et al. 1968; Pruitt 1995 ). Interchangeable roles

require that bargainers use both skills in the course of negotiation. And, both skills are essen-

tial for conveying and reading verbal and nonverbal emotional expressions in negotiation.

Whether improved sensitivity to the meaning of expressions increases tactical proﬁciency in

conveying intentions remains a research issue.

This approach assumes that the dyad or group is the unit of analysis. This assumption

departs from a good deal of the laboratory research where half the interaction is controlled

by the experimenter: messages are often sent from computers or confederates as is done in the

Pietroni et al., Carnevale, and Chen Yifeng et al. studies reported in this issue. An advantage

of the laboratory controls is that the direction of inﬂuence—from the computer/actor to the

subject—is clear. Causal inferences can be made with conﬁdence. A disadvantage is that

interactive dynamics are ignored. The result is a loss in relevance to real-world negotiations.

This trade off, favoring internal over external validity, is a feature of much of the research

to date. A better balance between the two validities will materialize when researchers take

on the challenge of ﬁeld research. The interaction dynamics described by ﬁeld researchers

would complement the causal patterns inferred from the laboratory studies. Add to this the

challenges of studying a phenomenon that is ﬂeeting—as in changing moods during the

course of an interaction—and vaguely deﬁned—as when multiple meanings are inferred

from expressions—and there is little wonder that the research to date has progressed slowly.

Emotions are not easy to investigate. But, there is little doubt that it is important to study

them.

Missing also from many laboratory studies is the way that emotional expressions are

shaped by the contexts in which they are displayed. A contextualized view of emotions

would complement the process view preferred by most of the investigators in this issue. One

context of interest is the organization. Directions for research on emotions in organizations

is made by Fineman and his contributors. He asks: “In what ways do decisions unfold over

time as a function of the way people feel, and change their feelings—about themselves, their

projects and signiﬁcant others? How, for example does anxiety, suspicion, love, and hate

take decision making through various paths towards particular outcomes?” (1993, p. 217).

These questions are also at the heart of research on negotiation. Stretching back to Walton and

McKersie’s (1965) intra-organizational model of labor negotiation, researchers have explored

the way that negotiation occurs within and between organizations—particularly with regard

to boundary roles ( Adams 1976; Burke and Biggert 1997 ). The research has, however, been

more concerned with strategies than with emotional expressions. The article in this issue

by Chen Yifeng and her colleagues places emotional communications in an organizational

context. Further research along these lines would proﬁt from asking about how emotions are

shaped by the organization and, in turn, how their display inﬂuences organizational life.

The articles in this issue

As we note above, progress has been made in the study of emotions in negotiation. Much

of the progress made to date, particularly on anger, is reviewed in the lead article by Van

Kleef and his colleagues. The papers that follow are empirical studies designed to address a

sampling of issues on the topic. Each article is summarized in turn. A concluding article by

Barry looks forward by asking about what we have learned to date and what remains to be

explored on the role of emotions in negotiation.

The article by Van Kleef and his colleagues reviews the research on anger in conﬂict.

A key ﬁnding is that angry feelings promote competition or aggression across conﬂict set-

123

Druckman, Olekalns - Emotions in negotiation.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: