MOTIVES AND COGNITIONS IN NEGOTIATION: A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION AND AN EMPIRICAL TEST

Abstract

Negotiators gain valuable insight into the other party's true interests and reach mutually beneficial agreements by discussing their priorities and preferences among issues. This study investigated how motives are related to information exchange, and how this, in turn, affects perceptual accuracy and outcomes. The analyses revealed that cooperatively‐motivated dyads followed an information exchange route to settlement, whereas individualistic dyads shared little information. Moreover, while information exchange was related to perceptual accuracy for cooperative dyads, this was not the case for individualistic negotiators. The effectiveness of this settlement route varied when different kinds of issues—integrative and common‐value (compatible) issues—were considered While integrative issues were likely to be settled through information exchange, common‐value issue outcomes were determined in large part by negotiators' first offers. These findings suggest that the scope of the information‐accuracy hypothesis should be modified to account for differences among motives and issues.

Citation

O'Connor, K.M. (1997), "MOTIVES AND COGNITIONS IN NEGOTIATION: A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION AND AN EMPIRICAL TEST", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 114-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022792