It Takes Two to Tango: Understanding the Interplay between Disputant Power and Type of Negotiation in Predicting Conflict Resolution Outcomes

Abstract

Within the negotiation literature, the type of negotiation (integrative or distributive) and the relative power among negotiators are two issues that have received considerable attention. However, a direct comparison of integrative and distributive negotiations using an identical negotiation task is surprisingly absent, and thus many commonly held beliefs about the differences between integrative and distributive negotiations are confounded by differences in the negotiation task. Furthermore, research on power disparity among negotiators often overlooks the potential for differential effects between integrative and distributive negotiations. The present study provides a direct comparison of integrative and distributive dyadic negotiations and examines the role of power disparity across both types of negotiation in terms of the effects on conflict in the negotiation. Results suggest that in conditions where power is equivalent among negotiators, no significant difference exists between integrative and distributive negotiations in terms of the amount of task or relationship conflict. Similarly, in conditions where power disparity exists among negotiators, no significant difference exists between integrative and distributive negotiations in terms of the amount of task conflict. Interestingly, however, distributive negotiations do promote greater levels of relationship conflict when one party has greater power than the other party. Areas for future research and practical implications of the study are discussed.