Abstract
We explored the relationship between counterfactual thinking and the construction of integrative negotiation agreements. Building on past research demonstrating that counterfactual mind-sets promote a structured imagination (Kray, Galinsky, & Wong, 2006), we hypothesized that priming a counterfactual mind-set would impair the construction of novel solutions to conflict at the bargaining table. To test this hypothesis, in Experiment 1 we manipulated counterfactual thinking prior to a dyadic negotiation task. We showed that dyads primed to think counterfactually prior to the negotiation were less likely to create integrative agreements. In Experiment 2 we examined whether this effect was moderated by the additive versus subtractive nature of counterfactual thoughts. By directing participants to generate upward counterfactual thoughts about a previous negotiation that specified what they might versus might not have done to improve their performance, we tested this hypothesis. Dyads that produced subtractive counterfactuals prior to negotiating were less like to create integrative agreements than dyads that produced additive counterfactuals.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.