Alexandra Mislin

Agreement Attraction and Impasse Aversion Reasons for Selecting a Poor Deal Over No Deal at All

In the present studies, we examined the positive value of agreement and the negative value of impasse. Participants chose to give up real value and sacrifice economic efficiency in order to attain an agreement outcome and avoid an impasse outcome. A personally disadvantageous option was selected significantly more often when it was labeled “Agreement” rather than “Option A,” and a personally advantageous option was avoided significantly more often when it was labeled “Impasse” rather than “Option B.” In a face-to-face negotiation, a substantial proportion of individuals reached an agreement that was inferior to their best alternative to agreement. We showed that the appeal of agreement and the aversion to impasse both contribute to this effect, yet the aversion to impasse is the stronger of the two motivations. These findings have important implications for negotiators.

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects

We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory’s research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science.

Should He Chitchat? The Benefits of Small Talk for Male Versus Female Negotiators

Past research links the use of small talk in negotiations to positive outcomes. We posit that men and women may not benefit equally from small talk. Building on stereotype and environmental certainty theories, we propose contexts when male negotiators who small talk are perceived more favorably. Studies 1a/1b show that men enjoy a social boost from small talk when cues for behavior are not strongly articulated. Study 2 identifies a social boost from small talk to both genders when cues for behavior are clearly articulated, but this boost only translates into better deals for men who small talk. Overall, small talk in negotiations has a stronger, more consistent effect for men.

Flying Bagels and Social Graces: The Impact of Strategic Expressions of Emotion on Distrust and Post Settlement Behavior

Strategic emotion can be used as a negotiation tactic to extract value from one’s opponent. Previous research findings have found that the use of this tactic can influence not only the amount of value claimed, but post-negotiation behaviors. However, interacting with an opponent who possesses power based on their alternative to an agreement can halt the amount of value claimed. Individuals with more power (i.e. a better BATNA) are less likely to concede and more likely to make attempts to earn more points or money for themselves. While interacting, these variables - use of strategic emotion and level of power - produce perceptions that may alter not only the negotiated outcomes, but what occurs post-hoc after the contract has been negotiated. This experiment examined these effects - the influence of power and the strategic use of emotion - on economic outcomes within a negotiation as well as post-negotiation behavior. Despite prior research findings, our results fail to replicate the influence of emotion on value claimed - angry participants do not claim more value but does influence post-negotiation behaviors.

Power as an emotional liability: Implications for perceived authenticity and trust after a transgression

People may express a variety of emotions after committing a transgression. Through 6 empirical studies and a meta-analysis, we investigate how the perceived authenticity of such emotional displays and resulting levels of trust are shaped by the transgressor’s power. Past findings suggest that individuals with power tend to be more authentic because they have more freedom to act on the basis of their own personal inclinations. Yet, our findings reveal that (a) a transgressor’s display of emotion is perceived to be less authentic when that party’s power is high rather than low; (b) this perception of emotional authenticity, in turn, directly influences (and mediates) the level of trust in that party; and (c) perceivers ultimately exert less effort when asked to make a case for leniency toward high rather than low-power transgressors. This tendency to discount the emotional authenticity of the powerful was found to arise from power increasing the transgressor’s perceived level of emotional control and strategic motivation, rather than a host of alternative mechanisms. These results were also found across different types of emotions (sadness, anger, fear, happiness, and neutral), expressive modalities, operationalizations of the transgression, and participant populations. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that besides the wealth of benefits power can afford, it also comes with a notable downside. The findings, furthermore, extend past research on perceived emotional authenticity, which has focused on how and when specific emotions are expressed, by revealing how this perception can depend on considerations that have nothing to do with the expression itself.