Process Framing in Negotiations

Unresolved negotiations and ongoing conflicts involve a significant amount of time, energy, and money for the involved parties. Nevertheless, the parties often appear unable to turn the situation around despite being aware of the destructive consequences. Consequently, research has devoted considerable effort into investigating the dynamics bringing negotiators closer or farther away from an agreement. The aim of this proposal is to contribute to this research by addressing the following research question: How does language choice frame offers and counteroffers in negotiations, affect perceptions and behavior of the counterpart, and, as a consequence, bring negotiators closer or farther away from reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement? As communication is at the heart of negotiations, a negotiators language use is especially crucial. The proposed project will investigate the effects of integrative and distributive language framing in negotiations. Framing effects occur when the presentation of an issue or the different formulation of equivalent information influences individuals choices and decision making. We propose that by employing different linguistic variations and highlighting different qualities, distributive and integrative strategies frame identical substantive content and factual offers differently and, in consequence, evoke different perceptions and behavioral reactions by the counterpart. Whereas for a rational negotiator the wording of offers and counteroffers should not make any difference, we expect that language framing influences negotiators evaluation of the outcome, the process, and the counterpart (e.g., satisfaction, fairness, quality of communication) and results in different counteroffers in terms of proposed payoffs and concessions. Furthermore, the frame induced by the integrative and distributive language should also result in frame adoption by the negotiators. Whereas previous research considered the behavioral implications of integrative strategies and tactics and considered framing as mental schemata negotiators have prior to entering the negotiation. The present research extents this literature by integrating negotiation process research with psychological framing theory in order to identify linguistic variations and their potential consequences. Based on the results practical advice how to employ language to steer the negotiation into a positive direction can be given to negotiators. The research question will be investigated by means of controlled experiments in which the substantive content is kept constant while varying the way it is communicated.

Communication & Emotions in Negotiations and Conflict Resolution Unresolved negotiations and ongoing conflicts involve a significant amount of time, energy, and money for the involved parties. Nevertheless, the parties often appear unable to turn the situation around despite being aware of the destructive consequences. Consequently, research has devoted considerable effort into investigating the dynamics bringing negotiators closer or farther away from an agreement. As communication is at the "heart" of negotiations, a negotiator's language use is especially crucial. The choice of words frames equivalent information and identical substantive content differently, influencing the negotiation partner's perception, decisions, and behavior. Embedding identical offers and concessions in integrative as opposed to distributive language improves the counterpart's perceived quality of communication and quality of relationship. It also leads to higher outcome satisfaction and an increased likelihood of long-term business deals, even though the outcome of the negotiation is the same. Using a softline bargaining strategy-making moderate initial offers and frequent and substantive concessions-commonly results in inferior outcomes compared to employing a hardline strategy. However, combining it with integrative language alleviates the drawbacks of softline bargaining while at the same time improving subjective negotiation outcomes. Finally, establishing a cooperative climate using integrative language also facilitates the realization of turning points-critical moments during the negotiation that have the potential to direct the negotiation towards positive grounds after periods of no progress. In a similar manner, also expressed emotions affect the counterpart's perceptions, behavior, and counteroffers. Counterintuitively, negative emotions are not necessarily detrimental in negotiations and conflict resolution. Expressing negative goal-oriented emotions such as anger induce the counterpart to make concessions, fairer offers, and aid in directing negotiations prone to a stalemate towards positive grounds. However, it is crucial to employ mixed-emotional signals and pair the negative goal- and problem-oriented emotions with positive relationship-oriented emotions. Using mixed social signals, negotiators compensate the potential drawbacks of expressing negative emotions by simultaneously conveying affiliative intent. Thereby, they signal dissatisfaction with the current progress of the negotiation and initiate change at the substantive level but at the same time signal commitment for maintaining a favorable relationship.