Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes

Roman Trötschel; David Demian Loschelder; Benjamin Höhne; Johann Martin Majer

doi:10.1037/pspi0000009

Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Standard

Procedural Frames in Negotiations : How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes. / Trötschel, Roman ; Loschelder, David Demian ; Höhne, Benjamin et al.

In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 108, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 417-435.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Bibtex

@article{6166f0650a9e4186b06ef83a6241a0f3,

title = "Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes",

abstract = "Although abundant negotiation research has examined outcome frames, little is known about the procedural framing of negotiation proposals (i.e., offering my vs. requesting your resources). In a series of 8 experiments, we tested the prediction that negotiators would show a stronger concession aversion and attain better individual outcomes when their own resource, rather than the counterpart's, is the accentuated reference resource in a transaction. First, senders of proposals revealed a stronger concession aversion when they offered their own rather than requested the counterpart's resources- both in buyer-seller (Experiment 1a) and in classic transaction negotiations (Experiment 2a). Expectedly, this effect reversed for recipients: When receiving requests rather than offers, recipients experienced a stronger concession aversion in buyer-seller (Experiment 1b) and transaction negotiations (Experiment 2b). Experiments 3-5 investigated procedural frames in the interactive process of negotiations-with elementary schoolchildren (Experiment 3), in a buyer-seller context (Experiments 4a and 4b), and in a computer-mediated transaction negotiation void of buyer and seller roles (Experiment 5). In summary, 8 experiments showed that negotiators are more concession averse and claim more individual value when negotiation proposals are framed to highlight their own rather than the counterpart's resources.",

keywords = "Psychology, Concession aversion, Negotiations, Offer, Procedural frames, Request",

author = "Roman Tr{\"o}tschel and Loschelder, {David Demian} and Benjamin H{\"o}hne and Majer, {Johann Martin}",

year = "2015",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1037/pspi0000009",

language = "English",

volume = "108",

pages = "417--435",

journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",

issn = "0022-3514",

publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural Frames in Negotiations

T2 - How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes

AU - Trötschel, Roman

AU - Loschelder, David Demian

AU - Höhne, Benjamin

AU - Majer, Johann Martin

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Although abundant negotiation research has examined outcome frames, little is known about the procedural framing of negotiation proposals (i.e., offering my vs. requesting your resources). In a series of 8 experiments, we tested the prediction that negotiators would show a stronger concession aversion and attain better individual outcomes when their own resource, rather than the counterpart's, is the accentuated reference resource in a transaction. First, senders of proposals revealed a stronger concession aversion when they offered their own rather than requested the counterpart's resources- both in buyer-seller (Experiment 1a) and in classic transaction negotiations (Experiment 2a). Expectedly, this effect reversed for recipients: When receiving requests rather than offers, recipients experienced a stronger concession aversion in buyer-seller (Experiment 1b) and transaction negotiations (Experiment 2b). Experiments 3-5 investigated procedural frames in the interactive process of negotiations-with elementary schoolchildren (Experiment 3), in a buyer-seller context (Experiments 4a and 4b), and in a computer-mediated transaction negotiation void of buyer and seller roles (Experiment 5). In summary, 8 experiments showed that negotiators are more concession averse and claim more individual value when negotiation proposals are framed to highlight their own rather than the counterpart's resources.

AB - Although abundant negotiation research has examined outcome frames, little is known about the procedural framing of negotiation proposals (i.e., offering my vs. requesting your resources). In a series of 8 experiments, we tested the prediction that negotiators would show a stronger concession aversion and attain better individual outcomes when their own resource, rather than the counterpart's, is the accentuated reference resource in a transaction. First, senders of proposals revealed a stronger concession aversion when they offered their own rather than requested the counterpart's resources- both in buyer-seller (Experiment 1a) and in classic transaction negotiations (Experiment 2a). Expectedly, this effect reversed for recipients: When receiving requests rather than offers, recipients experienced a stronger concession aversion in buyer-seller (Experiment 1b) and transaction negotiations (Experiment 2b). Experiments 3-5 investigated procedural frames in the interactive process of negotiations-with elementary schoolchildren (Experiment 3), in a buyer-seller context (Experiments 4a and 4b), and in a computer-mediated transaction negotiation void of buyer and seller roles (Experiment 5). In summary, 8 experiments showed that negotiators are more concession averse and claim more individual value when negotiation proposals are framed to highlight their own rather than the counterpart's resources.

KW - Psychology

KW - Concession aversion

KW - Negotiations

KW - Offer

KW - Procedural frames

KW - Request

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925689975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/pspi0000009

DO - 10.1037/pspi0000009

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 25751716

VL - 108

SP - 417

EP - 435

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 3

ER -

Related by journal

How Individuals React Emotionally to Others’ (Mis)Fortunes: A Social Comparison Framework

Boecker, L., Loschelder, D. D. & Topolinski, S., 01.07.2022, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 123, 1, p. 55-83 29 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Does social psychology persist over half a century? A direct replication of Cialdini et al.’s (1975) classic door-in-the-face technique.

Genschow, O., Westfal, M., Crusius, J., Bartosch, L., Feikes, K. I., Pallasch, N. & Wozniak, M., 02.2021, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120, 2, p. e1-e7 7 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory

Essien, I., Calanchini, J. & Degner, J., 05.2021, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120, 5, p. 1204-1230 27 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

On the Relation of Boredom and Sadistic Aggression

Pfattheicher, S., Lazarevic, L. B., Westgate, E. C. & Schindler, S., 01.09.2021, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 121, 3, p. 573-600 28 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Front in the mouth, front in the word: The driving mechanisms of the in-out effect.

Maschmann, I. T., Körner, A., Boecker, L. & Topolinski, S., 10.2020, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 119, 4, p. 792-807 16 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Other publications by the same author(s)

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., Patel, Y., Goldwert, D., Pei, Y., Chakroff, A., Pronizius, E., Broek, K. L. V. D., Vlasceanu, D., Constantino, S., Morais, M. J., Schumann, P., Rathje, S., Fang, K., Aglioti, S. M., Alfano, M., Alvarado-Yepez, A. J., Andersen, A., Anseel, F., Apps, M. A. J., Asadli, C., Awuor, F. J., Azevedo, F., Basaglia, P., Bélanger, J. J., Berger, S., Bertin, P., Białek, M., Bialobrzeska, O., Blaya-Burgo, M., Bleize, D. N. M., Bø, S., Boecker, L., Boggio, P. S., Borau, S., Bos, B., Bouguettaya, A., Brauer, M., Brick, C., Brik, T., Briker, R., Brosch, T., Buchel, O., Buonauro, D., Butalia, R., Carvacho, H., Chamberlain, S. A. E., Chan, H-Y., Chow, D., Chung, D., Cian, L., Cohen-Eick, N., Contreras-Huerta, L. S., Contu, D., Cristea, V., Cutler, J., D'Ottone, S., Keersmaecker, J. D., Delcourt, S., Delouvée, S., Diel, K., Douglas, B. D., Drupp, M. A., Dubey, S., Ekmanis, J., Elbaek, C. T., Elsherif, M., Engelhard, I. M., Escher, Y. A., Etienne, T. W., Farage, L., Farias, A. R., Feuerriegel, S., Findor, A., Freira, L., Friese, M., Gains, N. P., Gallyamova, A., Geiger, S. J., Genschow, O., Gjoneska, B., Gkinopoulos, T., Goldberg, B., Goldenberg, A., Gradidge, S., Grassini, S., Gray, K., Grelle, S., Griffin, S. M., Grigoryan, L., Grigoryan, A., Grigoryev, D., Gruber, J., Guilaran, J., Hadar, B., Hahnel, U. J. J., Halperin, E., Harvey, A. J., Haugestad, C. A. P., Herman, A. M., Hershfield, H. E., Himichi, T., Hine, D. W., Hofmann, W., Howe, L., Huaman-Chulluncuy, E. T., Huang, G., Ishii, T., Ito, A., Jia, F., Jost, J. T., Jovanović, V., Jurgiel, D., Kácha, O., Kankaanpää, R., Kantorowicz, J., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Mintz, K. K., Kaya, I., Kaya, O., Khachatryan, N., Klas, A., Klein, C., Klöckner, C. A., Koppel, L., Kosachenko, A. I., Kothe, E. J., Krebs, R., Krosch, A. R., Krouwel, A. P. M., Kyrychenko, Y., Lagomarsino, M., Lamm, C., Lange, F., Cunningham, J. L., Lees, J., Leung, T. Y., Levy, N., Lockwood, P. L., Longoni, C., Ortega, A. L., Loschelder, D. D., Lu, J. G., Luo, Y., Luomba, J., Lutz, A. E., Majer, J. M., Markowitz, E., Marsh, A. A., Mascarenhas, K. L., Mbilingi, B., Mbungu, W., McHugh, C., Meijers, M. H. C., Mercier, H., Mhagama, F. L., Michalakis, K., Mikus, N., Milliron, S., Mitkidis, P., Monge-Rodríguez, F. S., Mora, Y. L., Moreau, D., Motoki, K., Moyano, M., Mus, M., Navajas, J., Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, D. M., Nguyen, T., Niemi, L., Nijssen, S. R. R., Nilsonne, G., Nitschke, J. P., Nockur, L., Okura, R., Öner, S., Özdoğru, A. A., Palumbo, H., Panagopoulos, C., Panasiti, M. S., Pärnamets, P., Paruzel-Czachura, M., Pavlov, Y. G., Payán-Gómez, C., Pearson, A. R., Costa, L. P. D., Petrowsky, H. M., Pfattheicher, S., Pham, N. T., Ponizovskiy, V., Pretus, C., Rêgo, G. G., Reimann, R., Rhoads, S. A., Riano-Moreno, J., Richter, I., Röer, J. P., Rosa-Sullivan, J., Ross, R. M., Sabherwal, A., Saito, T., Sarrasin, O., Say, N., Schmid, K., Schmitt, M. T., Schoenegger, P., Scholz, C., Schug, M. G., Schulreich, S., Shreedhar, G., Shuman, E., Sivan, S., Sjåstad, H., Soliman, M., Soud, K., Spampatti, T., Sparkman, G., Spasovski, O., Stanley, S. K., Stern, J. A., Strahm, N., Suko, Y., Sul, S., Syropoulos, S., Taylor, N. C., Tedaldi, E., Tinghög, G., Huynh, L. D. T., Travaglino, G. A., Tsakiris, M., Tüter, İ., Tyrala, M., Uluğ, Ö. M., Urbanek, A., Valko, D., Linden, S. V. D., Schie, K. V., Stekelenburg, A. V., Vanags, E., Västfjäll, D., Vesely, S., Vintr, J., Vranka, M., Wanguche, P. O., Willer, R., Wojcik, A. D., Xu, R., Yadav, A., Zawisza, M., Zhao, X., Zhao, J., Żuk, D. & Bavel, J. J. V., 09.02.2024, In: Science Advances. 10, 6, 19 p., eadj5778.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000009
Final published version

Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

RIS

Related by journal

How Individuals React Emotionally to Others’ (Mis)Fortunes: A Social Comparison Framework

Does social psychology persist over half a century? A direct replication of Cialdini et al.’s (1975) classic door-in-the-face technique.

Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory

On the Relation of Boredom and Sadistic Aggression

Front in the mouth, front in the word: The driving mechanisms of the in-out effect.

Other publications by the same author(s)

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices

Expanding the pie or spoiling the cake? How the number of negotiation issues affects integrative bargaining

Nine Degrees of Uncertainty in Negotiations

Present generation’s negotiators realize their interests at the cost of future generations

DOI