Cognitive Dissonance in Negotiation: Free Choice or Justification?

Previous research suggests a barrier to conflict resolution whereby negotiators inflate their valuation for offers they make due to the psychological process of cognitive dissonance reduction. Research outside of the negotiation context indicates that cognitive dissonance is induced either by being forced to choose among relatively equal options, or by having to justify a counter-attitudinal position. A negotiation involves both choice and justification, so it is unclear which process is responsible for inducing preference inflation. We present two studies in which we examine the independent effect of choosing an opening offer, as well as the additive effect of justifying that choice on preference inflation. Findings suggest that both processes induce negotiator preference change and that justification has an additive effect beyond choice alone. We discuss implications of these results for cognitive dissonance theory and the practice of negotiation.