Week 5 - Situational factors Flashcards
What does Curhan et al., 2010 means with Subjective value (SV)?
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.
According to Curhan et al., 2010, Subjective Value encompasses four factors:
1) Instrumental SV
2) Self SV
3) Process SV
4) Relationship SV
Instrumental SV (Curhan et al., 2010)
The economic outcome is beneficial, balanced, and consistent with principles of legitimacy and precedent;
Self SV (Curhan et al., 2010)
Losing face versus feeling competent and satisfied that one has behaved appropriately
Process SV (Curhan et al., 2010)
The perception that one has been heard and treated justly,
and that the process was efficient;
Relationship SV (Curhan et al., 2010)
Involves positive impressions, trust, and a solid foundation for working together in the future
Relationship Marketing (Curhan et al., 2010)
Fostering close relationships between buyers and sellers or channel partners, is economically advantageous
Name 3 reasons why SV is important to negotiators according to Curhan et al., (2010)
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.
Curhan et al., 2010 states that SV is objectively valuable in negotiation. Why?
Subjective impressions appear to pay off economically in subsequent negotiations
When could SV be inherently valuable according to Curhan et al., 2010?
When negotiators attempt to maximize socio-emotional rewards aside from instrumental rewards
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?
Individuals earned more objective value in the second negotiation if they had experienced greater Subjective Value (SV) in the first negotiation.
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)
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.
How did negotiators’ perception of their first settlements impact their subsequent motivation and effort, specifically concerning instrumental Subjective Value (SV)?
Negotiators who felt that their first settlements were favorable, fair, and balanced may have benefited subsequently from greater motivation and effort.
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?
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.
What do individuals care about according to Curhan et al., (2010), in a negotiation or agreement situation, besides the final outcome?
The fairness of their treatment in the process
What is a common reaction when individuals perceive that fairness has been violated in a negotiation? (Curhan et al., 2010)
Individuals often engage in retaliatory behavior, which can be either overt or covert
How do individuals typically respond when they experience unfair treatment in a public setting? (Curhan et al., 2010)
Individuals often acquiesce(instemmen) to unfair treatment in public but pursue retribution through secretive and insidious means, seeking retribution in more concealed ways.
What does the EASI model stand for, and how does it describe the influence of emotion expression on observers? (Curhan et al., 2010)
“Emotion as Social Information.” -Nonverbal and/or verbal channels can influence an observer through both an inferential and an affective mechanism.
Inferential influence (Curhan et al., 2010)
When individuals actively interpret others’
expressions for meaning
Emotion-based inferences (Curhan et al., 2010)
Inform and
shape the observers’ subsequent attitudes and behaviors.
Rational-choice arguments (Curhan et al., 2010)
Negotiators are strategic actors who detect and decipher opponents’ emotional expressions and act on that information to maximize their interests
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)
If focusing solely on claiming value, expressing anger indeed appears to be helpful when negotiating with others who are lower or equal in power
Covert retaliation in two forms in Curhan et al., 2010
1) Withholding important resources;
2) Creating obstacles for a negotiator.
Communication orientation model (Swaab et al., 2012)
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
