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.
When vigilance prevails: The effect of regulatory focus and accountability on integrative negotiation outcomes
2015
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Englisch
Unlocking integrative potential: Expressed emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes
Online Contents | 2015
|Online Contents | 2000
Online Contents | 2011
Focus Area - Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power
Online Contents | 2008
|GIBRALTAR - English Admiralty law still prevails
Online Contents | 1999