Response to emotion during negotiation as a function of the social status of the negotiator.

Abstract

Emotional expression by one individual often affects others observing them. Research has found that emotion expressed by an individual affects various factors in others observing that emotion, among other things, the emotion of the observer, judgments that they make regarding the individual expressing the emotion, and their behavior, which are affected by exposure to the emotion that the other individual is expressing. In addition, it has been found that perception of the social status of a given individual depends on the emotion that they express. In this regard, it has been found that an individual expressing anger in response to failure is perceived as someone with higher social status than an individual who responds with embarrassment to the same failure. On the other hand, an individual who expresses pride in response to success will be perceived as having a higher social status than an individual expressing gratitude for the same achievement. Similarly, in a series of studies in the context of negotiations, the context of which was examined in the present study, it was found that an individual who is negotiating with another, uses emotional responses of the counterpart as a signal to the degree to which the counterpart accepts or does not accept the offer that is on the table. Specifically, it has been found that when the counterpart expresses happiness in response to a counter offer, the negotiator understands that their offer is acceptable to the counterpart; while if the individual expresses anger, they understand that the counterpart is not satisfied with the offer. Accordingly, the next offer made will be affected by perception of the counterpart’s emotional response and their interpretation of it. As can be seen, a central factor determining the manner in which one person's emotion affects another person depends greatly on the type of emotion expressed, .i.e., it depends on the question of whether the object expressed, for example, anger or happiness. However, the response expressed by the observer of the emotion will depend not only on the actual emotion but also on the context in which the emotion is expressed. Studies in the context of negotiations indicate that one observing an ד individual who is negotiating with another, will only attribute importance to the emotion that the counterpart expresses in response to an offer if the observer sees themselves as one who is in a position of inferior power relative to the other, e.g. as lacking alternatives to get what they are negotiating for from another party. The question of social perception of emotion has only recently begun to interest more researchers. The question of the impact of context over the process and its results has only recently begun to receive attention, as research regarding the question of the impact of context over social responses to emotion is still relatively sparse. The focus of the present study is an attempt to enrich understanding regarding the role that social context plays in the social perception of emotion. In this context, the present research examines the question of how emotion of one party to negotiations, as a function of their social status, affects the process and its results. In other words, to what degree does the power of the negotiator have identical impact under condit ה whereas participants defined as wielding much power (i.e., having many and highquality alternatives) were not affected by the emotions of their counterpart. One may conclude from this study that a central factor affecting the rate of impact of others' emotions over the negotiator is the power that they wield during negotiations. The present study indicates that response to emotion during business negotiations will vary according to the type of emotion aimed at the receiver of the emotion. A positive emotional response towards the negotiator on the part of a counterpart will lead the negotiator to concede less than a negotiator who experiences negative emotion such as anger. This finding raises the question: how does the power of the negotiator affect the negotiation process in light of emotional responses of a counterpart during the process. At the same time, since in some cases of the instance studies, power is used such that it may impact the perception of necessity to reach agreement, the present study examined the impact of power while attempting to detach it from this feeling of commitment. The research assumption was that negotiators with power will be less sensitive to negative emotional responses than those with less social power. This is because, as previously mentioned, those with power are "used to" not being sensitive to the emotions of others, while those with less social power are "used to" being sensitive to the emotions of others and being more dependent on others. In light of the above, anger on the part of a counterpart is expected to cause them to tend to compromise more significantly than individuals with more power. Alternatively, when a counterpart shows signs of happiness, those with little power are expected to respond in the same way as individuals with power, since the counterpart is broadcasting a message of satisfaction and willingness to compromise through their happiness, and therefore the individual with little power does not feel truly threatened and the response of expecting to achieve the most from the negotiation does not encounter any opposition. Specifically, within the framework of the present research two experiments were done that dealt with examining computer-mediated negotiations among negotiators who were exposed to emotion from their negotiating counterpart. In both experiments use was made of an identical negotiation technique to that used in the series of experiments of Van Kleef et al. (2004a,b). The task was planned such that it included the main characteristics of real negotiations (many issues that differ in their ו relative benefit to the negotiator, information about compensation, and a series of offers from one party, each with its resulting counter-offer). The participants received information and were assigned the role of a seller. Their goal was to negotiate over price, period of warrantee, and number of software updates. The participants were presented with a table of rewards from which they could learn what results were preferable for them. They were told that their goal was to earn the highest number of points. In order to increase the involvement of participants in the negotiation task, they were told that their points would be converted to a raffle ticket, and the more points they won, the higher their chance to win the prize of a dinner for two, in order to emphasize the contradictory motivations in negotiation situations (maximizing profit versus a desire to close a deal). Two hundred and twenty one individuals participated in the first study, they were assigned the role of sellers in the negotiation. The social power of each participant was determined through instructions regarding the type of role they played within the organization on behalf of which they were negotiating. Appointment as general manager was the greatest level of social power, while trainee salesperson was the lowest level of social power. In addition to informing each participant regarding their organizational status, external indicators were provided to indicate organizational status. These indicators included an instruction sheet for the general manager, a "general manager" tag or "trainee salesperson" tag which was given to each participant while they were waiting to participate in the experiment, a table sign which said either "general manager" or "trainee salesperson", a state-of-the-art computer screen which was labeled "general manager's screen" or an old screen labeled "trainee salesperson", a manager's chair for the general manager, or a simple chair for salespeople. In order to neutralize the possibility that participants would take liberties in making decisions based on the position itself and not based on the social status that the role provided, the participants were specifically instructed that the buyer was important to the company and that all efforts must be made to remain on good terms with the buyer. The results of this experiment showed that those with lower social power gave in more quickly to their counterpart than those with more social power. This can be seen in lower initial offers compared to those given by those with higher social standing, even before the negotiators were exposed to emotions of their counterparts. ז Afterwards, when the participants were exposed to the emotions of their counterparts, the trend changed based on type of emotion. Specifically, when the participants with lower social status were exposed to anger, they gave in more easily to the counterpart than when those with higher social status were exposed to anger from their counterpart. On the other hand, when exposed to happiness, the social status effect gradually disappeared, the longer the negotiation progressed, and the more they were exposed to happiness on the part of their counterpart, no matter what their social status. In general, the participants conceded less to a happy counterpart than to an angry counterpart. It may be assumed from this that the effect of social power during negotiation is affected by the emotional responses of the counterpart. In addition, it was found that emotion also affected the perceived sense of power by the participant when the counterpart responded with anger to the offer. The participants felt less in control when the counterpart responded in a different manner. Two hundred and forty eight individuals participated in the second experiment. This experiment was conducted in order to test if the findings of the first experiment would be repeated when the source of power differed. This experiment use manipulation of priming in order to control the social power of the participants. Priming has been proven to be effective for manipulation of power (see for example, Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Smith & Trope, 2006). Although power was achieved through priming which was not within the organizational context, manipulation was not expected to impact the degree to which sellers felt committed to reach an agreement. Again, the same negotiation paradigm was used as in the first experiment. The participants were told that they were going to participate in two separate studies which were unrelated to one another. The participants randomly received one of three priming texts which served as a power assignment. This manipulation was developed by Galinsky, et al. (2003). Specifically, the participants were asked to describe in as much detail as possible one of three options: a period in which they held more power relative to another person or people; or when another person or people had more power than them; or to describe what happened to them yesterday. The moment they finished this task, the participant placed the page in a box labeled "my position of power", "my lack of power" or "yesterday", accordingly. The box was left ח in front of them during the course of the entire study in order to increase the impact of the priming. Afterwards, the participants were told that they were going to begin the second study which dealt with negotiation. The tasks and procedure that followed were identical to those that occurred in the first experiment. The results of the second experiment were partially similar to those in the first experiment. Specifically, as in the first experiment, social power had a significant impact over the initial offer. The initial offer of a participant with higher social power was more demanding than that of participants with lower social standing. In addition, in general, those with higher social power compromised less than those with lower social power. In general, a happy counterpart encountered less concessions than an angry counterpart. However, in this study, the impact of social power decreased as the negotiations progressed. Apparently, the decrease in the impact of social power as negotiations progressed can be attributed to the decrease in the impact of priming and not the relative significance of power in relation to the emotions of the counterpart. Since the process of priming for power took place at the beginning of the experiment, it is possible that the immediate availability of the exposure to emotion was more significant to the response of the participant. In general, in both studies it was found that social power affects the initial offer in negotiation, such that one with higher social power will demand more than one with lower social standing. When the present research examined the response of the participant during the negotiations, it was found that the degree of impact of social power during negotiation varied and depended on the response of the counterpart to the offer that was made. When the counterpart indicated happiness or satisfaction with the offer, the impact of social power disappeared. On the other hand, faced with an angry response, those with higher social power conceded less than those with less social power. In summary, the present research found that while social power is significant in the initial stage of negotiations, in later stages, after receipt of the social responses of counterparts, the importance of the social status will vary. When encountering happiness, an individual with lower social standing will make up for a weak beginning and will concede less relative to one with higher social standing. However, when faced with an angry counterpart, an individual with lower social standing will ט concede, whereas an individual with higher social power will not compromise. In other words, it is not worthwhile to express happiness in negotiation.