Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 505-514

  Leliveld, Marijke C ^a   Beest, Ilja van ^b   Dijk, Eric van ^b   Tenbrunsel, Ann E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Bargaining; Do no harm; Fairness accessibility; Norms; Outcome valence

Indexed keywords

EID: 64049104171     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: 10960465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Allison S.T., and Messick D.M. Social decision heuristics in the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3 (1990) 195-204
2. Anton R.J. Drawing the line: An exploratory test of ethical behavior in negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management 1 (1990) 265-280
3. Aquino K.F., and Becker T.E. Lying in negotiations: How individual and situational factors influence the use of neutralization strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (2005) 661-679
4. Bargh J.A. The automaticity of everyday life. In: Wyer R.S. (Ed). Advances in social cognition Vol. 10 (1997), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 1-49
5. Bargh J.A., Chaiken S., Govender R., and Pratto F. The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1992) 893-912
6. Baron J. Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 8 (1995) 71-83
7. Baron J. Do no harm. In: Messick D.M., and Tenbrunsel A. (Eds). Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (1996), Russel Sage Foundation, New York 197-213
8. Bazerman M.H., Magliozzi T., and Neale M.A. Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35 (1985) 294-313
9. Blanz M., Mummendey A., and Otten S. Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology 27 (1997) 165-176
10. Blount S. When social outcomes aren't fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63 (1995) 131-144
11. Brosnan S.F., and de Waal F.B.M. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425 (2003) 297-299
12. Buchan N.R., Croson R., Johnson E., and Wu G. Gain and loss ultimatums. In: Morgan J. (Ed). Advances in behavioral and experimental economics. Advances in applied microeconomics series (2005), Elsevier Science - JAI Press, Greenwich, CT
13. Camerer C., and Fehr E. When does "economic man" dominate social behavior?. Science 311 (2006) 47-52
14. Camerer C., and Thaler R.H. Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (1995) 209-219
15. De Dreu C.K.W., Beersma B., Steinel W., and van Kleef G.A. The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basic processes. In: Kruglanski A.W., and Higgins E.T. (Eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. 2nd ed. (2007), The Guilford Press, New York 608-629
16. De Dreu C.K.W., and Carnevale P.J. Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 35 (2003) 235-291
17. De Dreu C.K.W., Carnevale P.J.D., Emans B.J.M., and Van de Vliert E. Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 (1994) 90-107
18. De Dreu C.K.W., Carnevale P.J.D., Emans B.J.M., and Van de Vliert E. Outcome frames in bilateral negotiation: Resistance to concession making and frame adoption. In: Stroebe W., and Hewstone M. (Eds). European review of social psychology Vol. 6 (1995), Wiley, Chisester 97-125
19. De Dreu C.K.W., and Steinel W. Social decision making in fuzzy situations: Motivated information processing and strategic choice. In: De Cremer D., Zeelenberg M., and Murnighan J.K. (Eds). Social psychology and economics (2006), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 55-77
20. DiMaggio P. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1997) 263-287
21. Fazio R.H. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: Petty R.E., and Krosnick J.A. (Eds). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (1995), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 247-282
22. Fazio R.H. On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion 15 (2001) 115-141
23. Fazio R.H., Sanbonmatsu D.M., Powell M.C., and Kardes F.R. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986) 229-238
24. Fellner G., and Güth W. What limits escalation? Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment. Economics Letters 80 (2003) 53-60
25. Gamliel E., and Peer E. Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research 19 (2006) 307-322
26. Grover S.L. Lying, deceit, and subterfuge: A model of dishonesty in the workplace. Organization Science 4 (1993) 478-495
27. Güth W., Ockenfels P., and Tietz R. Distributive justice versus bargaining power. In: Lea S.E.M., and Widely P. (Eds). New directions in economic psychology: Theory experiment and application (1992), Edward Elgar Ltd, Aldershot, UK 153-175
28. Güth W., Schmittberger R., and Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3 (1982) 367-388
29. Handgraaf M.J.J., Van Dijk E., and De Cremer D. Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research 16 (2003) 263-283
30. Harms W., and Skyrms B. Evolution of moral norms. In: Ruse M. (Ed). The Oxford handbook on philosophy of biology (2008), Oxford University Press, Oxford 434-450
31. Higgins E.T. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: Higgins E.T., and Kruglanski A.W. (Eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (1996), Guilford, New York 133-168
32. Kagel J.H., Kim C., and Moser D. Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior 13 (1996) 100-110
33. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979) 263-291
34. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39 (1984) 341-350
35. Klauer K.C., and Musch J. Affecting priming: Findings and theories. In: Musch J., and Klauer K.C. (Eds). The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 1-49
36. Komorita S.S., and Parks C.D. Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology 46 (1995) 183-207
37. Konow J. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 41 (2003) 1188-1239
38. Loewenstein G.F., Thompson L., and Bazerman M.H. Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989) 426-441
39. Mannix E.A., Neale M.A., and Northcraft G.B. Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63 (1995) 276-286
40. March J.G. A primer on decision making (1994), Free Press, New York
41. Messick D.M. Equality as a decision heuristic. In: Mellers B.A., and Baron J. (Eds). Psychological perspectives on justice (1993), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 11-31
42. Messick D.M. Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 39 (1999) 11-28
43. Messick D.M., and McClintock C.G. Motivational basis of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Psychology 4 (1968) 1-25
44. Muller D., Judd C.M., and Yzerbyt V.Y. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2005) 852-863
45. Mummendey A., and Otten S. Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In: Stroebe W., and Hewstone M. (Eds). European review of social psychology Vol. 9 (1998), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester 107-143
46. Mummendey A., Simon B., Dietze C., Grunert M., Haeger G., Kessler S., et al. Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28 (1992) 125-144
47. Neale M.A., Huber V.L., and Northcraft G.B. The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39 (1987) 228-241
48. Otten S., and Mummendey A. To our benefit or at your expense? Justice considerations in intergroup allocations of positive and negative resources. Social Justice Research 12 (1999) 19-38
49. Pillutla M., and Murnighan J.K. Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal 38 (1995) 1408-1426
50. Pillutla M., and Murnighan J.K. Fairness in bargaining. Social Justice Research 16 (2003) 241-262
51. Schwartz S.H. Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry 31 (1968) 355-369
52. Schweitzer M.E., and DeChurch L.A. Linking frames in negotiations: Gains, losses and conflict frame adoption. International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (2001) 100-113
53. Shen F. Chronic accessibility and individual cognitions: Examining the effects of message frames in political advertisements. Journal of Communication 54 (2004) 123-137
54. Sondak H., Neale M.A., and Pinkley R. The negotiated allocation of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64 (1995) 249-260
55. Suleiman R. Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology 17 (1996) 531-554
56. Tenbrunsel A.E., and Messick D.M. Power asymmetries and the ethical atmosphere in negotiations. In: Darley J.M., Messick D.M., and Tyler T.R. (Eds). Social influence on ethical behavior in organizations (2001), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwan, NY 201-216
57. Thaler R.H. Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2 (1988) 195-206
58. Törnblom K.Y., and Jonsson D.R. Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly 48 (1985) 249-261
59. Van Beest I., Van Dijk E., De Dreu C.K.W., and Wilke H.A.M. Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41 (2005) 609-617
60. Van Beest I., Wilke H.A.M., and Van Dijk E. The excluded player in coalition formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2003) 237-247
61. Van Dijk E., De Cremer D., and Handgraaf M.J.J. Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 697-707
62. Van Dijk E., Engelen M., Van Leeuwen E., Monden L., and Sluijter E. Distributive justice and the allocation of costs, losses, and profits. Social Justice Research 12 (1999) 5-18
63. Van Dijk E., and Tenbrunsel A. The battle between self-interest and fairness: Evidence from ultimatum, dictator, and delta games. In: Gilliland S.W., Steiner D.D., Skarlicki D.P., and Van den Bos K. (Eds). What motivates fairness in organizations? (2005), Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT 31-48
64. Van Dijk E., and Vermunt R. Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36 (2000) 1-25
65. Van Lange P.A.M. The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1999) 337-349
66. Van Lange P.A.M., De Cremer D., Van Dijk E., and Van Vugt M. Self-Interest and beyond: Basic principles of social interaction. In: Kruglanski A.W., and Higgins E.T. (Eds). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2007), Guilford Press, New York
67. Van Prooijen J.-W., Van den Bos K., and Wilke H.A.M. Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002) 1353-1361
68. Weber J.M., Kopelman S., and Messick D.M. A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (2004) 281-307
69. Wenzel M., and Mummendey A. Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimination: A normative analysis of differential evaluations of ingroup and outgroup on positive and negative attributes. British Journal of Social Psychology 35 (1996) 493-507