Search

Presenting programmed angry messages to a negotiator has increased concession rates in a series of recent experiments. But observing responses to a computer or confederate counterpart cannot yield insight into the perceptions, reactions, and negotiation outcomes experienced by those who actually deploy anger as a tactic. We report five studies examining the anger expression decision using a range of different methods. In the fully interactive two‐person integrative negotiation in Study 1, expressed anger generally degraded trust while damaging implementation of deals. That ultimately diminished value actually claimed by anger expressers. In the discrete choice experiment of Study 2, sending angry messages proved costly for expressers, who registered very high levels of measured disutility from using this tactic. In Study 3, survey respondents reported widespread unwillingness to misrepresent anger during negotiation. Recalling a past negotiation, anger correlated negatively with experienced success, indicating that disutility from expressing anger generalizes widely across different contexts. Study 4 revealed that negotiators generally consider the tactic to be unethical. More than just specific beliefs about the lack of efficacy, Study 5 revealed that the source of tactical disutility lies in generalized discomfort with the misrepresentation of anger. Implications for research, practice, and training are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People generally adhere to the norm of reciprocity during both tacit and negotiated exchange. Emotional responses generated from profitable and unprofitable exchange facilitate the formation of motives to settle scores with others. In two studies we examine how exchange incidents trigger positive and negative emotional responses, bargaining behavior, and process. In Study 1, we developed measures of emotional response toward the counterpart that can index the state of relational accounts between parties. In a complex, multi-issue negotiation, The measures show that prior profitable or unprofitable exchange experiences shifted affect and individual social motives, as well as initial bargaining positions. In Study 2, shifts in relational accounts altered the bargaining process and subsequent implementation of agreements. The relational accounting concept represents an important link for understanding how negotiation functions as a sub-process in the wider stream of social exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]