MEETING 1
Steinel, W., Abele, A.E., De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and
Performance in Negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 533-550.
Research question: does experience, advice, or a combination of the two improve negotiation
performance? They didn’t look just at the outcomes, but also at the underlying behavioral processes.
Fixed-pie perception are purely distributive negotiations.
Integrative agreements benefit everyone.
fosters economic prosperity, strengthens feelings of self-efficacy, increases satisfaction, and
reduces the likelihood of future conflict.
Effects of advice
- People have a general tendency to egocentrically discount the advice they receive. This is because
they are secretive to the reasons supporting their own estimate, but not to the reasons supporting
the advisor’s estimates (exp: even after receiving full information about the opponent, participants
rarely abandoned their initial erroneous perceptions, so it doesn’t change fixed-pie perceptions).
- Giving negotiators advice and cues challenging fixed-pie perceptions higher joint outcomes.
* Especially when this advice is given after a prior negotiation experience: best trade-off insights +
mental models similar to those who fully realized the integrative potential of the negotiation.
Effects of experience
Mixed support for ‘learning by doing’.
In favor Against
- Skilled negotiators often have an - No effects of experience when negotiators engaged in
extensive track record. different tasks over time (only when given feedback).
- Exp. with non-expert negotiators: joint - People recall superficial similarities more easily than
outcomes improved both over negotiation structural ones. Because of this, we cannot take advantage of
rounds and within negotiators. prior experiences (because we are not noticing the important
structural similarities between negotiations).
Experience and advice in negotiation (combined is better)
- Exp. shows that experience alone is insufficient to improve negotiation performance.
Dyads reached higher joint outcomes and made more profitable trade-offs after some training
intervention (observational or analogical).
Why?
1. Bargainers can compare the advice they receive with prior negotiation experiences helps them
transfer the advice adjusts their negotiation behavior improves their performance.
2. People tend to view negotiations as a game that one either wins or loses fixed-pie perceptions
and a generally competitive approach not likely to make integrative agreements.
Joint outcomes are related to three types of negotiation tactics: (how exactly is not clear yet)
1. Distributive behavior (aim: force opponents to make concessions poorer joint outcomes). Is
usually more contentious (seeking arguments, quarrelsome discussions).
2. Information exchange
3. Heuristic trial and error
(are both strategies that help people to identify mutually satisfying settlements. This increases the
likelihood of reaching integrative agreements higher joint outcomes).
Steinel, W., Abele, A.E., De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and
Performance in Negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 533-550.
Research question: does experience, advice, or a combination of the two improve negotiation
performance? They didn’t look just at the outcomes, but also at the underlying behavioral processes.
Fixed-pie perception are purely distributive negotiations.
Integrative agreements benefit everyone.
fosters economic prosperity, strengthens feelings of self-efficacy, increases satisfaction, and
reduces the likelihood of future conflict.
Effects of advice
- People have a general tendency to egocentrically discount the advice they receive. This is because
they are secretive to the reasons supporting their own estimate, but not to the reasons supporting
the advisor’s estimates (exp: even after receiving full information about the opponent, participants
rarely abandoned their initial erroneous perceptions, so it doesn’t change fixed-pie perceptions).
- Giving negotiators advice and cues challenging fixed-pie perceptions higher joint outcomes.
* Especially when this advice is given after a prior negotiation experience: best trade-off insights +
mental models similar to those who fully realized the integrative potential of the negotiation.
Effects of experience
Mixed support for ‘learning by doing’.
In favor Against
- Skilled negotiators often have an - No effects of experience when negotiators engaged in
extensive track record. different tasks over time (only when given feedback).
- Exp. with non-expert negotiators: joint - People recall superficial similarities more easily than
outcomes improved both over negotiation structural ones. Because of this, we cannot take advantage of
rounds and within negotiators. prior experiences (because we are not noticing the important
structural similarities between negotiations).
Experience and advice in negotiation (combined is better)
- Exp. shows that experience alone is insufficient to improve negotiation performance.
Dyads reached higher joint outcomes and made more profitable trade-offs after some training
intervention (observational or analogical).
Why?
1. Bargainers can compare the advice they receive with prior negotiation experiences helps them
transfer the advice adjusts their negotiation behavior improves their performance.
2. People tend to view negotiations as a game that one either wins or loses fixed-pie perceptions
and a generally competitive approach not likely to make integrative agreements.
Joint outcomes are related to three types of negotiation tactics: (how exactly is not clear yet)
1. Distributive behavior (aim: force opponents to make concessions poorer joint outcomes). Is
usually more contentious (seeking arguments, quarrelsome discussions).
2. Information exchange
3. Heuristic trial and error
(are both strategies that help people to identify mutually satisfying settlements. This increases the
likelihood of reaching integrative agreements higher joint outcomes).
