Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations. / Majer, Johann; Zhang, Kai; Zhang, Hong et al.
In: Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 90, 102492, 01.06.2022.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{d2f3d2290ea448289a50669f1a171282,
title = "Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations",
abstract = "Negotiations that involve contributions or distributions of shared resources are ubiquitous. However, the empirical literature has predominantly focused on how parties negotiate the exchange of exclusive resources in transaction negotiations (e.g., buyer- seller negotiations) and ignored shared-resource negotiations. We develop a novel negotiation task to investigate how parties resolve conflicts over the contribution versus distribution of resources via negotiations. We propose that when parties negotiate the allocations of shared resources, their exclusive ownership becomes the dominant reference point in the negotiation which induces reference-dependent frames throughout the negotiation process. Whereas negotiating contributions should induce give frames that highlight losses, negotiating distributions should induce take frames that highlight gains. These different allocation frames should, therefore, distinctly affect parties{\textquoteright} tradeoff aversion (i.e., willingness to trade off exclusive resources against shared resources), their allocation behaviors, and the quality of the final negotiation agreements. We further predict that these effects of give and take frames should be reversed when negotiating burdens. Across two preliminary and one preregistered, incentivized, and interactive negotiation experiments, we show that parties reach less integrative agreements when they have to contribute their own benefits to the shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights losses) than when they have to distribute benefits into their exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights gains). For negotiating the allocations of burdens, this finding reversed and parties reached less integrative agreements when they had to distribute burdens to the exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights losses) than when they had to contribute own burdens to shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights gains). Our findings suggest that parties{\textquoteright} aversion against tradeoffs prevents negotiators from reaching integrative agreements. The present studies are among the first to systematically elucidate negotiation processes over the contribution versus distribution of shared resources and point towards future research pathways to overcome reference-dependent biases.",
keywords = "Psychology, conflict management, Negation, Give and take frames, Shared resources, Reference-dependent framing, Tradeoff aversion, Negotiation",
author = "Johann Majer and Kai Zhang and Hong Zhang and Benjamin H{\"o}hne and Roman Tr{\"o}tschel",
note = "This research was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG; TR 565/6-1) awarded to the last author RT. ",
year = "2022",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joep.2022.102492",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
journal = "Journal of Economic Psychology",
issn = "0167-4870",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations

AU - Majer, Johann

AU - Zhang, Kai

AU - Zhang, Hong

AU - Höhne, Benjamin

AU - Trötschel, Roman

N1 - This research was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG; TR 565/6-1) awarded to the last author RT.

PY - 2022/6/1

Y1 - 2022/6/1

N2 - Negotiations that involve contributions or distributions of shared resources are ubiquitous. However, the empirical literature has predominantly focused on how parties negotiate the exchange of exclusive resources in transaction negotiations (e.g., buyer- seller negotiations) and ignored shared-resource negotiations. We develop a novel negotiation task to investigate how parties resolve conflicts over the contribution versus distribution of resources via negotiations. We propose that when parties negotiate the allocations of shared resources, their exclusive ownership becomes the dominant reference point in the negotiation which induces reference-dependent frames throughout the negotiation process. Whereas negotiating contributions should induce give frames that highlight losses, negotiating distributions should induce take frames that highlight gains. These different allocation frames should, therefore, distinctly affect parties’ tradeoff aversion (i.e., willingness to trade off exclusive resources against shared resources), their allocation behaviors, and the quality of the final negotiation agreements. We further predict that these effects of give and take frames should be reversed when negotiating burdens. Across two preliminary and one preregistered, incentivized, and interactive negotiation experiments, we show that parties reach less integrative agreements when they have to contribute their own benefits to the shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights losses) than when they have to distribute benefits into their exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights gains). For negotiating the allocations of burdens, this finding reversed and parties reached less integrative agreements when they had to distribute burdens to the exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights losses) than when they had to contribute own burdens to shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights gains). Our findings suggest that parties’ aversion against tradeoffs prevents negotiators from reaching integrative agreements. The present studies are among the first to systematically elucidate negotiation processes over the contribution versus distribution of shared resources and point towards future research pathways to overcome reference-dependent biases.

AB - Negotiations that involve contributions or distributions of shared resources are ubiquitous. However, the empirical literature has predominantly focused on how parties negotiate the exchange of exclusive resources in transaction negotiations (e.g., buyer- seller negotiations) and ignored shared-resource negotiations. We develop a novel negotiation task to investigate how parties resolve conflicts over the contribution versus distribution of resources via negotiations. We propose that when parties negotiate the allocations of shared resources, their exclusive ownership becomes the dominant reference point in the negotiation which induces reference-dependent frames throughout the negotiation process. Whereas negotiating contributions should induce give frames that highlight losses, negotiating distributions should induce take frames that highlight gains. These different allocation frames should, therefore, distinctly affect parties’ tradeoff aversion (i.e., willingness to trade off exclusive resources against shared resources), their allocation behaviors, and the quality of the final negotiation agreements. We further predict that these effects of give and take frames should be reversed when negotiating burdens. Across two preliminary and one preregistered, incentivized, and interactive negotiation experiments, we show that parties reach less integrative agreements when they have to contribute their own benefits to the shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights losses) than when they have to distribute benefits into their exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights gains). For negotiating the allocations of burdens, this finding reversed and parties reached less integrative agreements when they had to distribute burdens to the exclusive ownership (i.e., inducing a take frame that highlights losses) than when they had to contribute own burdens to shared ownership (i.e., inducing a give frame that highlights gains). Our findings suggest that parties’ aversion against tradeoffs prevents negotiators from reaching integrative agreements. The present studies are among the first to systematically elucidate negotiation processes over the contribution versus distribution of shared resources and point towards future research pathways to overcome reference-dependent biases.

KW - Psychology

KW - conflict management

KW - Negation

KW - Give and take frames

KW - Shared resources

KW - Reference-dependent framing

KW - Tradeoff aversion

KW - Negotiation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124404798&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/d57e3a1a-ae77-3f45-9a2c-73388697f9b9/

U2 - 10.1016/j.joep.2022.102492

DO - 10.1016/j.joep.2022.102492

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 90

JO - Journal of Economic Psychology

JF - Journal of Economic Psychology

SN - 0167-4870

M1 - 102492

ER -

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Staatshaftungsanspruch, Kausalität
  2. Internationales Kartell- und Fusionskontrollverfahrensrecht
  3. Schulsystem, Selektion und Schulzufriedenheit in Frankreich
  4. Fate of phenothiazine pharmaceuticals during Fenton process
  5. Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent
  6. Gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Staatshaftungsanspruch, Rechtsfolge
  7. Chancen und Risiken im Kontext von Migration und Adoleszenz
  8. Stand und Herausforderungen der Bürgerenergie in Deutschland
  9. Discourse Analyses in Chat-based CSCL with Learning Protocols
  10. Exploring Affective Human-Robot Interaction with Movie Scenes
  11. Wood-pastures in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe
  12. Uncovered workers in plants covered by collective bargaining
  13. Math-Bridge: Adaptive Plattform für Mathematische Brückenkurse
  14. Die Hessische Schmelztiegelfabrik Elias Goebel & Sohn, Epterode
  15. How Strong is the Case for Criminal Sanctions in Cartel Cases?
  16. Circular supply chain management for the wind energy industry
  17. Complexities and Nuances in Radical Right Voters' (Anti)Feminism
  18. Der Übergang ins Postfossile Zeitalter- Übersehene Knappheiten
  19. Photolysis of sulfamethoxypyridazine in various aqueous media
  20. Der Grundsatz II der BaFin - eine kritische Beurteilung, (Teil I)
  21. Leuphana Professional School – ein Ort für Lebenslanges Lernen
  22. Vertrag über die Europäische Union (EUV) : Artikel 18 [Ausführung]
  23. Grundwissen - öffentliches Recht: Der Vorrang des Unionsrechts
  24. Wissen und Macht im Biodiversitätsdiskurs - Genderperspektiven
  25. Die Vernetzung des Museums im Zürcher und Schweizer Kunstfeld
  26. New Labor, Old Questions: Practices of Collaboration with Robots
  27. Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in Hungary