Week 5 - Situational factors

Question 1

What does Curhan et al., 2010 means with Subjective value (SV)?

Answer 1

Social, perceptual, and emotional consequences of a
negotiation.

• Has a valence in that it refers to the positivity or negativity of a social psychological outcome.

Question 2

According to Curhan et al., 2010, Subjective Value encompasses four factors:

Answer 2

1) Instrumental SV
2) Self SV
3) Process SV
4) Relationship SV

Question 3

Instrumental SV (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 3

The economic outcome is beneficial, balanced, and consistent with principles of legitimacy and precedent;

Question 4

Self SV (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 4

Losing face versus feeling competent and satisfied that one has behaved appropriately

Question 5

Process SV (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 5

The perception that one has been heard and treated justly,
and that the process was efficient;

Question 6

Relationship SV (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 6

Involves positive impressions, trust, and a solid foundation for working together in the future

Question 7

Relationship Marketing (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 7

Fostering close relationships between buyers and sellers or channel partners, is economically advantageous

Question 8

Name 3 reasons why SV is important to negotiators according to Curhan et al., (2010)

Answer 8

1)It can serve as a good in itself;
2)Can influence learning and future behaviors;
3)The SV resulting from one negotiation may feed back, positively or negatively, into future economic outcomes.

Question 9

Curhan et al., 2010 states that SV is objectively valuable in negotiation. Why?

Answer 9

Subjective impressions appear to pay off economically in subsequent negotiations

Question 10

When could SV be inherently valuable according to Curhan et al., 2010?

Answer 10

When negotiators attempt to maximize socio-emotional rewards aside from instrumental rewards

Question 11

How did individuals perform in terms of objective value in the second negotiation (Curhan et al., 2010), and what was the factor influencing this outcome?

Answer 11

Individuals earned more objective value in the second negotiation if they had experienced greater Subjective Value (SV) in the first negotiation.

Question 12

What impact did partners’ total Subjective Value (SV) in the first negotiation have on the creation of joint value in the second negotiation for negotiation dyads, and which types of SV were significant? (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 12

Negotiation dyads created more joint value in the second negotiation if partners had experienced greater total SV in the first negotiation. This effect was significant for global, instrumental, and relationship SV.

Question 13

How did negotiators’ perception of their first settlements impact their subsequent motivation and effort, specifically concerning instrumental Subjective Value (SV)?

Answer 13

Negotiators who felt that their first settlements were favorable, fair, and balanced may have benefited subsequently from greater motivation and effort.

Question 14

According to Wang et al., (2012) What tends to happen when negotiators express anger, and what is the broader implication for negotiators’ future opportunities and outcomes?

Answer 14

They tend to receive larger concessions and claim more value. This suggests that negotiations can shape reputations, which are a critical asset that can significantly influence negotiators’ future opportunities and outcomes.

Question 15

What do individuals care about according to Curhan et al., (2010), in a negotiation or agreement situation, besides the final outcome?

Answer 15

The fairness of their treatment in the process

Question 16

What is a common reaction when individuals perceive that fairness has been violated in a negotiation? (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 16

Individuals often engage in retaliatory behavior, which can be either overt or covert

Question 17

How do individuals typically respond when they experience unfair treatment in a public setting? (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 17

Individuals often acquiesce(instemmen) to unfair treatment in public but pursue retribution through secretive and insidious means, seeking retribution in more concealed ways.

Question 18

What does the EASI model stand for, and how does it describe the influence of emotion expression on observers? (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 18

“Emotion as Social Information.” -Nonverbal and/or verbal channels can influence an observer through both an inferential and an affective mechanism.

Question 19

Inferential influence (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 19

When individuals actively interpret others’
expressions for meaning

Question 20

Emotion-based inferences (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 20

Inform and
shape the observers’ subsequent attitudes and behaviors.

Question 21

Rational-choice arguments (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 21

Negotiators are strategic actors who detect and decipher opponents’ emotional expressions and act on that information to maximize their interests

Question 22

If focusing solely on claiming value, expressing anger indeed appears to be helpful when negotiating with others who are … or … in power (Curhan et al., 2010)

Answer 22

If focusing solely on claiming value, expressing anger indeed appears to be helpful when negotiating with others who are lower or equal in power

Question 23

Covert retaliation in two forms in Curhan et al., 2010

Answer 23

1) Withholding important resources;
2) Creating obstacles for a negotiator.

Question 24

Communication orientation model (Swaab et al., 2012)

Answer 24

presence of visual, vocal,
and synchronous communication channels:
- helps neutral orientation achieve efficient and
effective negotiation and group decision-making outcomes;
- does not affect high-quality outcomes for cooperative orientation;
- hurts the outcomes of with noncooperative
orientation

Question 25

Swaab et al., (2012) states that ahigh-quality outcome is defined in two ways:

Answer 25

1) Succesfully reaching an agreement
2) Agreement reached joint profit

Question 26

According to Swaab et al., (2012) To achieve high joint profit the parties must make (2):

Answer 26

• Mutually beneficial trade offs or identify;
• Optimize compatible interests.

Question 27

A high-quality group decision-making outcome can be defined in three ways (Swaab et al., 2012)

Answer 27

1) Decision-makers select an objectively right answer
2) Decision that has been identified as superior by outside experts
3) Group’s ability to reach consensus

Question 28

Which two factors are preconditions for
high-quality outcomes according to Swaab et al 2012?

Answer 28

Sharing
Integrating

Question 29

Not being able to see, hear, or directly respond to others may shroud to…? Swaab et al (2012)

Answer 29

Antagonistic behaviors that can be roadblocks to information sharing and integration.

Question 30

Richness approach (Swaab et al., 2012)

Answer 30

Richness is based on the ability (beschikbaarheid en hoeveelheid) of communication channels