Looking and competing

Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining

Bibliographic Data

ID6202638
AuthorsPeter J D Carnevale, Peter J Carnevale (Buffalo State University, corresponding author), Dean G Pruitt, Steven D Seilheimer
Year1981
Volume40
Issue1
Pages111-120
Publication date1981-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-3514 • E-ISSN: 1939-1315
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037//0022-3514.40.1.111
OpenAlexW4241849796
LanguageEN
Citations received44
References cited10

This research was designed to reconcile conflicting findings about the impact of negotiator accountability on process and outcome. Some studies have found that high accountability produces more pressure (dominance) tactics and lower joint than low accountability. Other studies have found no accountability effects. Results of the present research suggest that negotiators' visual accessibility is a moderator of the effects of accountability. Accountabilit y only produced lower joint when the negotiators were face to face. Cooperative behavior and reports of a cooperative atmosphere were also diminished when negotiators were facing each other rather than talking across a barrier. These results were interpreted on the assumption that negotiation involves a competitive definition of the situation, especially under high accountability. In such a context, staring is likely to be employed to dominate and is likely to be interpreted as domineering behavior. When there is no visual access, staring is not possible; hence, there is less temptation to try to dominate and less reason to view the other party as making a similar effort. The result is more cooperation and greater joint benefit. This research dealt with the effects of negotiator accountability on joint in bilateral negotiation. Negotiators are accountable to the extent that their constituents can reward or punish them on the basis of their performance. Joint benefit means the collective gain achieved by the two negotiators in the final agreement. The study was part of a larger series of investigation s of the antecedents of high joint benefit. Processes that lead to high joint have sometimes been called integrative bargaining (Walton & McKersie, 1965) because the negotiators' separate values must be integrated (i.e., reconciled) to achieve this outcome. An earlier study in this series (Pruitt

Accountability · Cognitive psychology · Political science · Business Law and Ethics · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Construction Project Management and Performance · European and International Law Studies · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub