Fieke Harinck

When Gains Loom Larger Than Losses Reversed Loss Aversion for Small Amounts of Money

Previous research has generally shown that people are loss averse; that is, they weigh losses more heavily than gains. In a series of three experiments, we found that for small outcomes, this pattern is reversed, and gains loom larger than losses. We explain this reversal on the basis of (a) the hedonic principle, which states that individuals are motivated to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain, and (b) the assumption that small losses are more easily discounted cognitively than large losses are.

Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).

Public trust in organizations that are involved in the management and use of new technologies affects lay judgments about the risks and benefits associated with these technologies. In turn, judgments about risks and benefits influence lay attitudes toward these technologies. The validity of this (indirect) effect of trust on lay attitudes toward new technologies, which is referred to as the causal chain account of trust, has up till now only been examined in correlational research. The two studies reported in this article used an experimental approach to more specifically test the causal chain account of trust in the context of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). Complementing existing literature, the current studies explicitly distinguished between two different types of trust in organizations: competence-based trust (Study 1) and integrity-based trust (Study 2). In line with predictions, results showed that the organizational position regarding CCS implementation (pro versus con) more strongly affected peoples risk and benefit perceptions and their subsequent acceptance of CCS when competence-based trust was high rather than low. In contrast, the organizational position had a greater impact on peoples level of CCS acceptance when integrity-based trust was low rather than high.

Voice in political decision-making: the effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions.

The implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS) is considered an important climate change mitigation strategy, but the viability of this technology will depend on public acceptance of CCS policy decisions. The results of three experiments with students as participants show that whether or not interest groups receive an opportunity to express their opinions in the decision-making process (i.e., group voice) affects acceptance of CCS policy decisions, with inferred trustworthiness of the decision maker mediating this effect. Decision-making procedures providing different interest groups with equal opportunities to voice their opinions instigate more trust in the decision maker and, in turn, lead to greater willingness to accept decisions compared to no-voice procedures (i.e., unilateral decision-making-Study 1) and unequal group-voice procedures (i.e., when one type of interest group receives voice, but another type of interest group does not-Study 2). Study 3 further shows that an individuals own level of knowledge about CCS moderates the desire for an opportunity for members of the general public to voice opinions in the decision-making process, inferred trustworthiness of decision makers, and policy acceptance. These results imply that people care about voice in decision-making even when they are not directly personally involved in the decision-making process. We conclude that people tend to use procedural information when deciding to accept or oppose policy decisions on political complex issues; hence, it is important that policymakers use fair group-voice procedures and that they communicate to the public how they arrive at their decisions.

The Implications of Value Conflict How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-Involvement and Perceived Common Ground

This article presents two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. interests) in a situation where people take opposite positions. Study 1 examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement and to perceive less common ground. This result can be seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to escalate more easily than conflicts of interests and also offers scope for interventions directed at value conflict resolution.

Sexual Orientation Biases Attentional Control: A Possible Gaydar Mechanism

Homosexuals are believed to have a “sixth sense” for recognizing each other, an ability referred to as gaydar. We considered that being a homosexual might rely on systematic practice of processing relatively specific, local perceptual features, which might lead to a corresponding chronic bias of attentional control. This was tested by comparing male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals – brought up in the same country and culture and matched in terms of race, intelligence, sex, mood, age, personality, religious background, educational style, and socio-economic situation – in their efficiency to process global and local features of hierarchically-constructed visual stimuli. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals showed better performance on global features – the standard global precedence effect. However, this effect was significantly reduced in homosexuals, suggesting a relative preference for detail. Findings are taken to demonstrate chronic, generalized biases in attentional control parameters that reflect the selective reward provided by the respective sexual orientation.

Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations

Emotions play an important role in conflict resolution. Past work has found that negotiators tend to concede when confronted with anger. We argue and show that this effect occurs in conflicts about interests, but not in conflicts about values. In value conflicts that are more closely tied to a persons values, norms, and identity, expressions of anger are likely to backfire. We demonstrate that people deem expressions of anger more unfair in value conflicts than in interest conflicts (Study 1) and that they are more likely to engage in retaliatory and escalatory behaviours when confronted with an angry reaction in the context of a value issue rather than an interest issue (Study 2).

At the Heart of a Conflict Cardiovascular and Self-Regulation Responses to Value Versus Resource Conflicts

Value-based conflicts are prone to escalation and rather insensitive to standard conflict resolution techniques. To understand why this is the case, we assessed self-regulatory and cardiovascular (CV) responses to test how people cope with conflict, depending on whether values versus resources are at stake. Our results show that a value conflict induces a CV threat profile and raises a prevention focus. Conversely, a resource conflict induces a CV challenge profile and decreases prevention focus. These results suggest that value conflicts are linked to more prevention-focused motivational profiles than resource conflicts. This knowledge can foster the development of specific strategies to facilitate resolution of value conflicts.

Do negotiation interventions matter? Resolving conflicting interests and values

This study compared the effects of three interventions and a no-intervention control on the settlement of resource and value conflicts. These variables were arranged in a two (conflict issue: resources vs. values) by four (no intervention vs. other affirmation vs. shared identity vs. transaction costs) between-dyads design in which 127 dyads engaged in a negotiation task. Negotiators reached generally lower joint outcomes in the value conflict compared to the resource conflict, but after the other-affirmation intervention, this pattern was reversed. The shared-identity intervention did not result in higher joint outcomes for value conflicts. Stressing positive concern for the other negotiator may be a more effective strategy than stressing commonalities between the parties: increased concern for self and decreased defense of own opinions may account for this result. Forcing and logrolling behavior are shown to be mediating variables between the type of conflict and outcomes.

Increasing Intergroup Distinctiveness The Benefits of Third Party Helping

Discrimination is often used to increase public perceptions of group distinctiveness. The current research studied the effectiveness of third party helping as an alternative, more benign strategy to this end. Across four studies, we examined whether helping a third party can position the helping group as more distinct from, or more similar to, a comparison group, depending on the nature of the comparison group’s relationship with the third party. Results from three studies showed that third party helping was as effective as discrimination of the comparison group, but third party helping elicited a more positive public image of the group compared with discrimination. Study 4 provided evidence for the spontaneous use of third party helping in response to distinctiveness threat. These findings extend insights from classic balance theories and research on strategic intergroup helping to the domain of intergroup differentiation, and highlight a benign strategy to achieve positive group distinctiveness.

Mindset-Oriented Negotiation Training (MONT) : teaching more than skills and knowledge

In this conceptual paper, we propose that both skill set development and mindset development would be desirable dimensions of negotiation training. The second dimension has received little attention thus far, but negotiation mindsets, i.e., the psychological orientations by which people approach negotiations, are likely to have a considerable influence on the outcome of negotiations. Referring to empirical and conceptual mindset studies from outside the negotiation field, we argue that developing mindsets can leverage the effectiveness of skills and knowledge, increase learning transfer, and lead to long-term behavioral changes. We introduce an integrative negotiation mindset that comprises three inclinations which complement each other: a collaborative, a curious, and a creative one. We also discuss activities that help people to develop and enhance this mindset both in and out of the classroom. Our general claim is that by moving beyond the activities of conventional negotiation training, which focuses on skills and knowledge, mindset-oriented negotiation training can increase training effectiveness and enable participants to more often reach what we define as sustainable integrative agreements.