Article2006

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement.

Carsten K. W. De Dreu · Bianca Beersma · Katherine E. Stroebe · Martin Euwema

270 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Personality and Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Conflict Management and Negotiation Social and Intergroup Psychology Social Power and Status Dynamics

Abstract

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 270 citations exist upstream.

References

1995An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust 1969The Handbook of Social Psychology 1995An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust 1986The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion 2013Handbook of Social Psychology 1999Dual-process theories in social psychology 2004Handbook of Social Psychology 1994Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.

Cited by

2013Interpersonal Trust within Negotiations: Meta-Analytic Evidence, Critical Contingencies, and Directions for Future Research 2010Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity.2013The consequences of faking anger in negotiations 2008Mental set and creative thought in social conflict: Threat rigidity versus motivated focus.2010Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception 2008When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.