GRIT as a Foundation for Integrative Bargaining.

Abstract

Sixty male subjects first engaged in a Prisoner's Dilemma interaction with a simulated other who either followed a conciliatory strategy (GRIT), a competitive strategy, or a no-message control strategy. They then participated in an integrative bargaining task in which the optimal agreement required logrolling over three commodities. As hypothesized, the subjects in the GRIT condition differed from the others in terms of number arriving at the optimal agreement, their level of aspiration as bargaining opened, and in the content of their communications. The GRIT subjects differed from the competitive subjects on post experimental ratings of the other person and of their objectives on the bargaining task. The results are discussed in terms of conciliation on one task laying the foundation for high aspirations and effective interaction in later integrative bargaining.