Abstract
Negotiators often concede to angry partners. But what happens when they meet again? The reputation spill-over hypothesis predicts that negotiators demand less from a partner who had expressed anger during a previous negotiation, because they perceive the other as tough. The retaliation hypothesis posits that negotiators demand more from a partner who had previously expressed anger, because they develop a negative impression of the other and want to set things straight. In Experiment 1, participants first negotiated with a simulated partner who expressed anger during a computer-mediated negotiation. Participants subsequently demanded less in a second negotiation when they dealt with the same rather than a different partner. In Experiment 2, participants demanded less in the second negotiation when their partner in the first negotiation had expressed anger rather than no emotion and the second negotiation was with the same (rather than a different) partner. Consistent with the spill-over hypothesis, this effect was mediated by inferences regarding the partner's limits.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
