Game theory provides a language and a set of tools for analyzing behavior in a wide range of strategic interactions, including negotiation. Here, we illustrate behavioral game theory's contributions to the study of negotiation, with a particular focus on the role that communication and emotion play in negotiation. We explain how researchers can use games to study various negotiation phenomena, including the effects of power, information asymmetry, and identity on negotiation processes and outcomes. The concepts, methods, and findings we review offer insights and tools that negotiation scholars and practitioners can harness to advance their understanding of negotiation.

Abstract: Defaults are powerful: whereas wisely set defaults increase prosocial choices, poorly set defaults promote selfish decisions. In two preregistered studies (NStudy 1 = 584, NStudy 2 = 587), we test whether distracting environments, compared to distraction-free environments, make people rely more on selfish than prosocial defaults. Participants completed repeated binary dictator games in a 2 (selfish default vs. prosocial default) x 2 (distraction vs. no distraction) within-subjects design. Results from both studies and an internal meta-analysis provide no support for the hypothesis. Whereas participants accepted prosocial more than selfish defaults (in Study 1 and in an internal meta-analysis), the existence (vs. absence) of distraction did not affect default acceptance differentially for selfish versus prosocial defaults. Exploratory cluster analyses showed that around 75% of participants made choices based on their social preference, thereby showing little to no response to defaults. The remaining 25%, however, were responsive to defaults, resulting in an overall higher fraction of prosocial choices made when defaults are prosocial (vs. selfish). Overall, despite most participants being non-responsive, findings highlight the aggregate benefit of setting prosocial defaults, both in distracting and non-distracting environments.

Abstract: Blindfolding—selecting candidates based on objective selection tests while avoiding personal information about their race and gender—is commonly used to mitigate bias in selection. Selection tests, however, often benefit people of a certain race or gender. In such cases, selecting the best candidates requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, the biasing factor. We examined people’s preference for avoiding candidates’ race and gender, even when fully aware that these factors bias the selection test. We put forward a novel prediction suggesting that paradoxically, due to their fear of appearing partial, people would choose not to reveal race and gender information, even when doing so means making suboptimal decisions. Across three experiments (N = 3,621), hiring professionals (and laypeople) were tasked with selecting the best candidate for a position when they could reveal the candidate’s race and gender or avoid it. We further measured how fear for their social imagecorresponds with their decision, as well as how job applicants perceive such actions. The results supported our predictions, showing that more than 50% did not reveal gender and race information. By contrast, only 30% did not reveal situational biasing information—features of the situation rather than the individual—such as the time of day in which the selection test occurred. Those who did not reveal information expressed higher concerns for their social and self-image than those who decided to reveal. We conclude that decision-makers avoid personal biasing information to maintain a positive image, yet by doing so, they compromise fairness and accuracyalike.

Abstract: Altruistic decisions are central to civic engagement and humanitarian efforts. However, altruistic behavior is often context-dependent rather than consistent—the same individuals who act generously in one situation may behave selfishly in another. Here, we review research on this phenomenon, which we label reluctant altruism. We outline its various forms, from willful ignorance to the strategic avoidance of morally challenging decisions. We examine three key psychological drivers of reluctant altruism: (i) cognitive inattentiveness, (ii) guilt and self-image concerns, and (iii) shame and social-image concerns. We also review cross-cultural findings, highlighting robust evidence for willful ignorance across nations. Taken together, this literature offers a cautiously optimistic outlook: by thoughtfully designing decision-making environments, we can encourage reluctant individuals to act altruistically.

Abstract: People give more to a person in need when this person’s identity is known. Such altruistic behaviors may arise from a genuine concern for the person, leading people to give. Alternatively, altruistic behavior may also arise from one’s attempt to reduce the guilt of not giving, leading people to give in. Is the increased altruism toward an identified (vs. unidentified) charity recipient driven by a genuine concern for the person or by guilt? The current registered report addressed this question in two experiments (N = 3,671), in which participants made allocation decisions in transparent vs. ambiguous settings with a predetermined (versus undetermined; Study 1) or an identified (versus unidentified; Study 2) child in need as the recipient. Consistent with our pre-registered hypothesis, results revealed that participants gave significantly less to undetermined/unidentified children in an ambiguous, compared with a transparent setting. However, in contrast to our predictions, predetermined/identified children did not receive more than undetermined/unidentified children in transparent settings in which they know how their choice impacts the children. Accordingly, the predicted interaction between identification and ambiguity was not significant. Exploratory analyses revealed that participants who willingly resolve the ambiguity surrounding the impact of their choice gave more compared to those who were given transparent information by default. The results suggest that some people give in when making their donation decisions, but the tendency to give in is independent of whether the recipient is identified or not.

Abstract: People sometimes avoid information about the impact of their actions as an excuse to be selfish. Such “willful ignorance” reduces altruistic behavior and has detrimental effects in many consumer and organizational contexts. We report the first meta-analysis on willful ignorance, testing the robustness of its impact on altruistic behavior and examining its underlying motives. We analyze 33,603 decisions made by 6,531 participants in 56 different treatment effects, all employing variations of an experimental paradigm assessing willful ignorance. Meta-analytic results reveal that 40% of participants avoid easily obtainable information about the consequences of their actions on others, leading to a 15.6-percentage-point decrease in altruistic behavior compared to when information is provided. We discuss the motives behind willful ignorance and provide evidence consistent with excuse-seeking behaviors to maintain a positive self-image. We investigated the moderators of willful ignorance and address the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of our findings on who engages in willful ignorance, as well as when and why. 

Abstract: The sharing economy is fueled by trust, which allows strangers to cooperate. To share responsibly, one needs to be aware of the various consequences sharing has on interacting and third parties. When transparency about such consequences is lacking, mutual trust among interacting parties may encourage people to cooperate and share, in turn, creating unintended negative impacts. Psychologists have long studied trust and cooperation, yet few insights from psychological science have been used to understand the sharing economy. Here, we propose that evoking trust may paradoxically increase motivated information processing leading people to share irresponsibly by ignoring the negative consequences sharing has on others. We review three conditions under which evoking trust may lead to irresponsible sharing: ethical blind spots, willful ignorance, and misinformation. We propose that transparent information is key to enable and encourage responsible sharing. More psychological research is needed to better understand how this flourishing, trust-based industry can be shaped to encourage safe, cooperative, and responsible sharing.   

Abstract: ‘Finding the missing millions’ with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease became part of the Department of Health strategy for England in 2010. Targeted case-finding within primary care is one potential pro-active strategy, but currently little is known about the views of healthcare professionals on this approach. In this study, 36 healthcare professionals (12 GPs, 14 nurses, and 10 practice managers) from 34 UK practices participated in semi-structured telephone interviews about targeted case-finding. Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using ‘Framework Approach’. Most of those interviewed practiced opportunistic case-finding. The main perceived barriers to wider case-finding programmes were the resource implications associated with running such programmes and identifying more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Financial incentives, support from specialist clinicians, and comprehensive guidance were viewed as facilitators. While targeted case-finding is conceptually accepted by primary care staff, scepticism surrounding (1) the value of identifying those with mild disease and (2) the availability of effective targeted case-finding methods, may lead some to favour an opportunistic approach. Key concerns were a lack of unequivocal evidence for the relative benefits vs. disadvantages of diagnosing patients earlier, and resource constraints in an already over-burdened system. Barriers to practical implementation of case-finding studies may be addressed with financial, human and educational resources, such as additional staff to undertake searches and perform spirometry tests, and practical and educational support from specialist teams.