Article presentation. THE IMPACT OF MESSAGE FRAME ON. NEGOTIATORS' IMPRESSIONS,. EMOTIONS, AND . BEHAVIORS. Mara . Olekalns. University of Melbourne. Christopher Robert. University of Missouri-Columbia. ID: 492633
Download Note - The PPT/PDF document "Conflict Management PowerPoint Presentat..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Article presentationTHE IMPACT OF MESSAGE FRAME ONNEGOTIATORS' IMPRESSIONS,EMOTIONS, AND BEHAVIORSMara OlekalnsUniversity of MelbourneChristopher RobertUniversity of Missouri-Columbia^ , Tahira ProbstWashington State UniversityPhilip L SmithUniversity of MelbournePeter CarnevaleNew York University
This experiment examined the impact of negotiators' cooperative and
competitive expectations on the interpretation of ambiguous messages.
In a simulated bilateral negotiation, participants received an initial set
of cooperative, competitive or ambiguous messages, followed by a set of
ambiguous messages. Negotiators who received
cooperative of competitive
messages weighed communality more heavily than power
their assessment of ambiguous messages, whereas
received two sets of ambiguous messages weighed power more heavily
. A cooperative-ambiguous message sequence resulted
in less positive emotions whereas a competitive-ambiguous message
sequence increased cooperation and resulted in more positive emotions.
The baseline condition of six ambiguous messages cued increased competition
and also resulted in less positive emotionsSlide3
What's most important to you in this negotiation
How should the
other party interpret this
interpretation is that this is an
facilitate problem-solving by trying to understand the other party's
and interests, implying a cooperative approach. An alternative
interpretation is that
the negotiator is trying to gain information that can be used for
, implying a more competitive
the other party is behaving cooperatively or competitively?Slide4
, like other social actors, engage in a process of uncertainty
reduction by attempting
to clarify the other party's underlying goals and
negotiators' communications vary in the degree to which they clearly signal underlying strategic intent. At any point in a negotiation, negotiators are likely to interpret ambiguous communications from the other party within the context created by earlier messages that more clearly conveyed their opponent's strategic intent.Slide5
The focus is on three types of responses: impressions, behaviors and emotions.
To investigate how strategies that clearly convey the intentions of the other party shape negotiators' responses when they subsequently encounter more ambiguous strategies, we establish or 'frame' the context by sending three unambiguously cooperative or competitive messages to negotiators. then consider how negotiators who have been framed in a cooperative or competitive way respond to more ambiguous messages.Slide6
two competing models of the relationship: differ in that one implies stability in reactions (Response lag) whereas the other implies change in reactions (Response adaptation).
Response Lag Model—predicts that
negotiators' early experiences with the other party create a frame that shapes negotiators‘ interpretations of and reactions to subsequent messages would be interpreted as conveying cooperative intent if it occurred after a sequence of clearly cooperative statements, and as conveying competitive intent if it occurred after a sequence of clearly competitive statements.Slide7
the Response Lag model suggests that a negotiator's initial impressions of the other party, established by cooperative or competitive messages, will either remain unchanged or show minimal change when these messages are replaced by more ambiguous ones.
Response Adaptation Model—predicts that negotiators
recognize and respond rapidly to behavioral shifts by the other party. This model inches that a contrast effect will operate to influence the interpretation of ambiguous messages. When an ambiguous message follows a series of clearly cooperative or competitive messages, it breaks with a pattern of consistent behavior. As a result, it is likely to attract attention and to be interpreted as signaling a strategic shiftSlide8
the Response Adaptation model implies that initial impressions established by cooperative or competitive messages will shift quickly in response to a shift toward ambiguity by one's opponent, and that a negotiator's behaviors and emotions will follow suit
Two dimensions-power and communality
In negotiation, these dimensions find parallels in descriptions of competitive negotiations, thought to emphasize power and control, and cooperative negotiations, thought to emphasize relationship—building, communality and trustSlide9
The question is how the initial impressions formed when negotiators encounter a series of clearly cooperative or competitive strategies are affected by a move to strategies that are more ambiguous in their intent.
Indirect evidence for such a framing effect comes from Prisoner's Dilemma Game research.
This research demonstrates that cooperatively—motivated individuals weight a morality (communality) dimension more heavily than a might (power) dimension when forming impressions of other people whereas competitively-motivated individuals weight a might dimension more heavily than a morality dimension in the impression formation process, the
Negative Shift in Impressions
Hypothesis la: Cooperatively-framed negotiators will weigh communality
more heavily than power in their assessment of both cooperative and ambiguous messages.
: Competitively-framed negotiators will weigh power more
heavily than communality in their assessment of both competitive and ambiguous messages.Slide11
Theory and research suggests that a move from cooperation to ambiguity is likely to be interpreted negatively and decrease trust
negotiators will interpret ambiguous messages as competitive and revise their impressions of the other party, that is, they will weigh power more heavily than communality in their interpretation of ambiguous messagesSlide12
Positive Shift in Impressions
Hypothesis 2a: Cooperatively framed negotiators will show a negative shift
in their impressions of ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 2b: Competitively framed negotiators will show a positive shift in t
heir impressions of ambiguous messages.
identifies two approaches to negotiation, cooperative and
, associated with distinct sets of behaviors. A cooperative approach has
the goal of meeting
needs and interests of both parties; that is, of maximizing
joint gain. This approach is linked to the use of cooperative and problem-solving
strategies such as information exchange, concessions and process
Conversely, a competitive approach
the goal of meeting one party's
need; that is, of maximizing individual gain. Strategically, competitive negotiators
aim to influence their opponents through
use of contentious strategies such as
argumentation, substantiation, demands and threatsSlide14
Negotiators who have received clearly cooperative messages will
continue to select cooperative messages and those who have encountered clearly
messages will continue to select competitive messages, even though
the other party is now using more ambiguous strategies.Slide15
Hypothesis 3a: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly cooperative messages
will continue to select cooperative messages in
response to later, ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 3b: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly competitive messages
will continue to select con^)
response to later, ambiguous messages.Slide16
negotiators who experience a switch from cooperation to
ambiguity will respond with
messages to protect themselves against
potential exploitation; negotiators who experience a switch from competition to
ambiguity will respond with cooperative messages in order to reciprocate and preserve
the apparently more cooperative approach of the other party and increase the
likelihood of settlement.Slide17
Hypothesis 4a: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly cooperative messages
will show a negative behavioral shift in response to ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 4b: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly competitive messages
will show a positive behavioral shift in response to ambiguous messages.Slide18
Research has established that emotion plays an important role in shaping negotiators' behavior.
For example, positive affect reduces the use of contention and increases both cooperation and concession-making negotiators who encounter cooperation will report more positive emotions than those who encounter competition.Slide19
Hypothesis 5a: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly cooperative messages
will report positive emotions and continue to report positive emotions in response to ambiguous messages.
Hypothesis 5b: Negotiators who receive a series of clearly competitive messages
will report negative emotions and continue to report negative emotions in response to ambiguous messages.Slide20
Consequences of Sustained Ambiguity
it is possible that prolonged ambiguity influences negotiators' impressions of the other party, their emotions, and their behaviors Negotiators who avoid discussion are likely to increase the level of uncertainty in the negotiation. Similarly, the sustained use of ambiguous strategies may be interpreted as an attempt to avoid engaging with the negotiation. sustained use of ambiguous strategies may be interpreted as an attempt to avoid engaging with the negotiationSlide21
Sustained ambiguity will lead to
(a) increasingly negative impressions of the other party,
(b) increasingly competitive responses, and
(c) increasingly negative emotions over time.Slide22
One hundred and two undergraduate psychology students at
a large mid western
university participated in this experiment. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of three experimental conditions (ambiguous, competitive, cooperative)Slide23
Participants receive a series of 3 messages: all either cooperative, competitive, or ambiguous, depending on framing
All participants receive a series of 3 ambiguous messagesSlide24Slide25