Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies tested whether making first offers influences negotiators’ feelings of anxiety and their sense of satisfaction. The results of Study 1 show that the strategy of making the first offer led to decreased levels of satisfaction with the negotiation process and outcomes. This effect was mediated by perceived feelings of anxiety. Study 2 discerned that anxiety about making the first offer derived from self-perception concerns, represented as anxiety about being taken advantage of by the opposing party. In both studies, anxiety led negotiators who made the first offer to be relatively less satisfied with the negotiation, than negotiators who did not make the first offer, despite the increased economic gains associated with making the first offer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with previous research, the amount of the first offer was significantly correlated with the economic outcome (see Table 1). Accordingly, we conducted our analysis controlling only for first offers,

    only for economic outcomes, and for both first offers and economic outcomes. The results remained the same regardless of whether only one of these control variables was included or both were included. In the analysis presented in the results section, we included both of the control variables.

  2. Additional analysis showed that when analyzed separately, the same pattern of correlational findings between the predictor and dependent variables was noted for both buyers and sellers.

  3. In addition to assessing anxiety-overall before the negotiation began, we also evaluated anxiety about making the first offer (i.e., anxious, under pressure, stressed, and tense) at the end of the negotiation as we did in Study 1. The pre- and post-task measures were significantly correlated (\(r = 0.71,\, p < .001\)). In addition, an exploratory factor analysis showed that a single construct emerged (7 out of 8 factor loadings \(>\)0.70 and one loading equaled 0.63). This suggests that whether anxiety about the first offer is measured before the negotiation (as here in Study 2) or after the negotiation (as in Study 1), the pre- and post-measures are likely to tap the same or a very similar construct.

  4. Post-hoc analysis showed that the mean for anxiety-overall differed from the means for the other anxiety measures (\(p\text{ s }<.05\)) listed in Table 2.

References

  • Aquino K, Becker T (2005) Lying in negotiations: how individual and situational factors influence the use of neutralization strategies. J Organ Behav 26(6):661–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock L, Laschever S (2003) Women don’t ask: negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball S, Bazerman M, Carroll J (1991) An evaluation of learning in the bilateral winner’s curse. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 48(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry B, Friedman R (1998) Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(2):345–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry B, Fulmer IS, Goates N (2006) Bargaining with feeling: emotionality in and around negotiation. In: Thompson LL (ed) Negotiation theory and research. Psychosocial Press, New York

  • Bazerman M, Neale M (1992) Negotiating rationally. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton A, Kelley H, Liebling B (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. J Pers Soc Psychol 24:73–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookmire D, Sistrunk F (1980) The effects of perceived ability and impartiality of mediators and time pressure on negotiation. J Confl Resolut 24(2):311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks AW, Schweitzer ME (2011) Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 115(1):43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clore G, Schwarz N, Conway M (1994) Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In: Wyer RS, Srull TK (eds) Handbook of social cognition, vol 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 323–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Curhan J, Elfenbein H, Kilduff G (2009) Getting off on the right foot: subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. J Appl Psychol 94:524–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curhan J, Elfenbein H, Xu H (2006) What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(3):493–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Drolet AL, Morris MW (2000) Rapport in conflict resolution: accounting for how nonverbal exchange fosters cooperation on mutually beneficial settlements to mixed-motive conflicts. J Exp Soc Psychol 36:36–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich B, Mussweiler T (2001) Legal judgment under uncertainty: anchoring effects in the court room. J Appl Soc Psychol 31:1535–1551

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreman P, Murnighan K (1996) Learning to avoid the winner’s curse. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67(2):170–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky A, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J Pers Soc Psychol 81(4):657–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky A, Mussweiler T, Medvec V (2002a) Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(5):1131–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky A, Seiden V, Kim P, Medvec V (2002b) The dissatisfaction of having your first offer accepted. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie J, Brett J, Weingart L (2000) Interdependence, social motives, and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:779–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudykunst W (2005) An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers’ intercultural adjustment. In: Gudykunst W (ed) Theorizing about intercultural communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 419–457

  • Hayes AF (2009) Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun Monogr 76:408–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann DA, Griffin MA, Gavin M (2000) The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski S (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 467–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman S, Avi-Yonah O, Varghese A (2012) The mindful negotiator: strategic emotion management and wellbeing. In: Cameron K, Spreitzer G (eds) The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 591–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman S, Rosette AS, Thompson L (2006) The three faces of Eve: strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 99:81–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kray L, Thompson L, Galinsky A (2001) Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(6):942–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen H, Garling T (1997) The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 71(1):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer EJ (1975) Illusion of control. J Pers Soc Psychol 32(2):311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrick RP, Wu G (2007) Claiming a large slice of a small pie: asymmetric disconfirmation in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 92:212–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary MR (1983) Understanding social anxiety: social, personality, and clinical perspectives. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Keltner D (2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cogn Emot 14:473–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Saunder D, Barry B (2009) Negotiation. McGraw, Irwin

  • Li S, Roloff ME (2006) Strategic emotion in negotiation: cognition, emotion, and culture. In: Riva G, Anguera MT, Widerhold BK, Mantovani F (eds) From communication to presence: cognition, emotions and culture towards the ultimate communicative experience. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 166–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind AE, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Thompson L, Bazerman M (1989) Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(3):426–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feeling. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee J, Galinsky A, Gruenfeld D (2007) Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33(2):200–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E, Innami I (1993) The effects of argument preparation and timing of first offers on negotiators’ cognitions and performance. Group Decis Negot 2(4):347–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus H, Kunda Z (1986) Stability and malleability of the self-concept. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:858–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick D, Sentis K (1985) Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data. Eur J Soc Psychol 15:389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore D, Kurtzberg T, Thompson L, Morris M (1999) Long and short routes to success in electronically-mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 77(1): 22–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Englich B (2005) Subliminal anchoring: judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Mak Process 98:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (1999) Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. J Exp Soc Psychol 35:136–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (2000) Numeric judgment under uncertainty: the role of knowledge in anchoring. J Exp Soc Psychol 36:495–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft G, Neale M (1987) Amateurs, experts, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39:84–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novemsky N, Schweitzer M (2004) What makes negotiators happy? The differential effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 95:186–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor K (1997) Motives and cognitions in negotiation: a theoretical integration and an empirical test. Int J Confl Manag 8(2):114–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver R (1993) Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J Consum Res 20: 418–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver R, Balakrishnan P, Barry B (1994) Outcome satisfaction in negotiation: a test of expectancy disconfirmation. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 60(2):252–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potworowski G, Kopelman S (2008) Strategic display and response to emotions: developing evidence-based negotiation expertise in emotion. Negot Confl Manag Res 1(4):333–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36:717–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosette AS, Brett J, Barsness Z, Lytle A (2012) When cultures clash electronically: the impact of e-mail and culture on negotiation behavior. J Cross-Cult Psychol 43:628–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 10. Academic Press, New York, pp 174–221

  • Schwartz N, Clore GL (1983) Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: information and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:513–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder CR, Higgins RL (1997) Reality negotiation: governing one’s self and being governed by others. Rev Gen Psychol 1:336–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack F, Mussweiler T (1997) Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:437–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (1990) Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychol Bull 108:515–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (1995) The impact of minimum goals and aspirations on judgments of success in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 4:513–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (2012) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 1:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef G (2010) The emerging view of emotion as social information. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 4/5:331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef G (2009) How emotions regulate social life: the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(3):184–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler M (2004) Anxious moments: openings in negotiation. Negot J 20(2):153–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederhold B, Wiederhold M (2005) Virtual reality therapy for anxiety disorders: advances in evaluation and treatment. American Psychological Association, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, Lubin B (1965) The multiple affective adjective check list. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman M, Lubin B, Rinck C (1983) Construction of new scales for the multiple affective adjective check list. J Behav Assess 5:119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC, 27708-0120, USA

    Ashleigh Shelby Rosette

  2. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1234, USA

    Shirli Kopelman

  3. C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, 334 Melcher Hall, Houston, TX, 77204-6021, USA

    JeAnna Lanza Abbott

Authors
  1. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shirli Kopelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JeAnna Lanza Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashleigh Shelby Rosette.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosette, A.S., Kopelman, S. & Abbott, J.L. Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers. Group Decis Negot 23, 629–647 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9348-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9348-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation