1. //
  2. Start
  3. //
  4. Publications
  5. Procedural Frames in Negotiations
  6. Output formats
  7. //

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

Harvard

Trötschel, R, Loschelder, DD, Höhne, B & Majer, JM 2015, 'Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000009

APA

Trötschel, R., Loschelder, D. D., Höhne, B., & Majer, J. M. (2015). Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000009

Vancouver

Trötschel R, Loschelder DD, Höhne B, Majer JM. Procedural Frames in Negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015 Mar 1;108(3):417-435. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000009

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

Defeminizing Sustainability: How to Boost Men’s Motivation for Proenvironmental Behavior

Hällfritzsch, M., Volpi, L., Daniel, K. G., Somogyi, C., Kause, A., Reese, G. & Loschelder, D. D., 2024, (E-pub ahead of print) In: Motivation Science.

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

Empowered or informed? Seeking to mitigate gender differences in first-offer assertiveness through pre-negotiation interventions

Kokić, E., Wagner, L., García López del Amo, A., Giering, C. L., Ly Truong, V., Petrowsky, H. M., Husen, O. M. & Loschelder, D. D., 01.12.2024, In: Journal of Economic Psychology. 105, 11 p., 102775.

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

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

Warsitzka, M., Zhang, H., Beersma, B., Freund, P. A. & Trötschel, R., 01.08.2024, In: Journal of Applied Psychology. 109, 8, p. 1224-1249 26 p.

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

Gender differences in sex drive: Reply to Conley and Yang (2024)

Frankenbach, J., Weber, M., Loschelder, D. D., Kilger, H. & Friese, M., 01.08.2024, In: Psychological Bulletin. 150, 8, p. 1011-1019 9 p.

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

DOI

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Audio Video Sampler