Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1037/apl0001149
Marco Warsitzka, Hong Zhang, Bianca Beersma, Philipp Alexander Freund, Roman Trötschel
{"title":"Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining.","authors":"Marco Warsitzka, Hong Zhang, Bianca Beersma, Philipp Alexander Freund, Roman Trötschel","doi":"10.1037/apl0001149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present research investigates how the number of issues affects the quality of outcomes in terms of joint gains and impasse rates in integrative negotiations. In the literature, two opposing positions exist reflecting a <i>complexity dilemma</i> regarding the number of negotiation issues: One position suggests that complex negotiations involving higher numbers of issues offer more trade-off opportunities, thereby providing negotiators with greater structural flexibility in reaching mutually beneficial agreements, which <i>improves</i> outcome quality. The opposite position emphasizes that the greater information load inherent in negotiating more issues <i>impedes</i> outcome quality. We propose a third, intermediate position: Negotiating more issues may only improve outcome quality up to a threshold, above which adding further issues results in deteriorated outcomes. We tested these propositions using a <i>quasi</i>-meta-analytic technique by examining the associations between the number of issues, joint gains, and impasse rates across multiple empirical studies on integrative negotiations using various negotiation tasks with different numbers of issues (<i>N</i> = 38,063/21,271 negotiations for joint gains/impasse rates). Moreover, we investigated whether factors related to how negotiators subjectively deal with the increased complexity associated with higher numbers of issues moderate the number-of-issues effect on joint gains. Multilevel analyses revealed no significant number-of-issues effect on joint gains up to a threshold of 3 issues but a negative effect for negotiations involving more than 3 issues. By contrast, we did not find a number-of-issues effect on impasse rates. Moreover, we did not obtain evidence for moderation effects. Findings are discussed with respect to their theoretical and practical implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1224-1249"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present research investigates how the number of issues affects the quality of outcomes in terms of joint gains and impasse rates in integrative negotiations. In the literature, two opposing positions exist reflecting a complexity dilemma regarding the number of negotiation issues: One position suggests that complex negotiations involving higher numbers of issues offer more trade-off opportunities, thereby providing negotiators with greater structural flexibility in reaching mutually beneficial agreements, which improves outcome quality. The opposite position emphasizes that the greater information load inherent in negotiating more issues impedes outcome quality. We propose a third, intermediate position: Negotiating more issues may only improve outcome quality up to a threshold, above which adding further issues results in deteriorated outcomes. We tested these propositions using a quasi-meta-analytic technique by examining the associations between the number of issues, joint gains, and impasse rates across multiple empirical studies on integrative negotiations using various negotiation tasks with different numbers of issues (N = 38,063/21,271 negotiations for joint gains/impasse rates). Moreover, we investigated whether factors related to how negotiators subjectively deal with the increased complexity associated with higher numbers of issues moderate the number-of-issues effect on joint gains. Multilevel analyses revealed no significant number-of-issues effect on joint gains up to a threshold of 3 issues but a negative effect for negotiations involving more than 3 issues. By contrast, we did not find a number-of-issues effect on impasse rates. Moreover, we did not obtain evidence for moderation effects. Findings are discussed with respect to their theoretical and practical implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

扩大派还是破坏蛋糕?谈判问题的数量如何影响综合议价。
本研究探讨了问题的数量如何影响综合谈判中共同收益和僵局率方面的结果质量。在文献中,存在两种相反的立场,反映了谈判问题数量的复杂性困境:一种立场认为,涉及更多问题的复杂谈判提供了更多的权衡机会,从而为谈判者提供了更大的结构性灵活性,以达成互利的协议,从而提高了结果质量。相反的立场强调,谈判更多问题所固有的更大的信息负荷会影响结果的质量。我们提出第三种中间立场:谈判更多的问题可能只会将结果质量提高到一个阈值,超过这个阈值,增加更多的问题会导致结果恶化。我们使用准元分析技术检验了问题数量、共同收益和僵局率之间的关系,通过多个综合谈判的实证研究,使用不同问题数量的各种谈判任务(N = 38,063/21,271次联合收益/僵局率谈判)来检验这些命题。此外,我们还调查了与谈判者如何主观处理与更多问题相关的复杂性相关的因素是否会调节问题数量对共同收益的影响。多层次分析显示,问题数量对共同收益的影响不超过3个问题的阈值,但对涉及3个以上问题的谈判有负面影响。相比之下,我们没有发现问题数量对僵局率的影响。此外,我们没有获得适度效应的证据。研究结果就其理论和实践意义进行了讨论。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信