Beyond Reactive Devaluation: Implementation Concerns and Fixed-Pie Perceptions Involving the Geneva Accords

Abstract

Prior research on reactive devaluation has consistently and convincingly shown that negotiators devalue objectively identical offers when they are made by the other party rather than by one's own party. However, in many or most real world negotiation contexts, authorship of specific offers and proposals cannot be attributed to one or the other of the conflicting parties. More typically, the offer or proposal under consideration is the outcome of a negotiation itself. This study identifies the possibility of reactive devaluation in such contexts, and then tests for its existence using data on Israeli support for the Geneva Accords. The results suggest that implementation concerns might mitigate reactive devaluation by creating a demand for a match in the degree to which each side supports (or opposes) the agreement. Strategic and theoretical implications are discussed.