Roman Trötschel

Self-Regulation of Priming Effects on Behavior

In three experiments, we tested whether people can protect their ongoing goal pursuits from antagonistic priming effects by using if-then plans (i.e., implementation intentions). In Experiment 1, concept priming did not influence lexical decision time for a critical stimulus when participants had formed if-then plans to make fast responses to that stimulus. In Experiment 2, participants who were primed with a prosocial goal allowed a confederate who asked for help to interrupt their work on a focal task for a longer time if they had merely formed goal intentions to perform well than if they had also formed implementation intentions for concentrating on the task. In Experiment 3, priming the goal of being fast increased driving speed and errors for participants who had formed mere goal intentions to drive only as fast as safety allowed or who had formed no goal intentions, whereas the driving of participants who had formed such goal intentions as well as implementation intentions showed no such priming effects. Our findings indicate that implementation intentions are an effective self-regulatory tool for shielding actions from disruptive concept- or goal-priming effects.

“€14,875?!”: Precision Boosts the Anchoring Potency of First Offers

In negotiations, higher first offers from sellers drive up sale prices—reversely, buyers benefit from lower first offers. Whereas abundant research has replicated this robust anchoring effect of opening offers, little is known about the impact of anchors’ precision or the interplay of extremity and precision. We propose that precision moderates the effect of anchor extremity, in that precise anchors gain in plausibility and thereby magnify the first-mover advantage. Two experiments tested this assumption. Study 1 shows that increasing precision strengthens the anchoring potency of first offers—sellers assimilate more to strong and precise anchors, which ultimately results in a particularly pronounced first-mover advantage. Study 2 replicates this moderating effect for buyers and indicates that an increased plausibility of precise anchors accounts for the findings. Implications for anchor theorizing, negotiation research, and the first minutes at a bargaining table are discussed.

The first-mover disadvantage: the folly of revealing compatible preferences.

The current research establishes a first-mover disadvantage in negotiation. We propose that making the first offer in a negotiation will backfire when the sender reveals private information that an astute recipient can leverage to his or her advantage. In two experiments, we manipulated whether the first offer was purely distributive or revealed that the sender’s preferences were compatible with the recipient’s preferences (i.e., the negotiators wanted the same outcome on an issue). When first offers contained only distributive issues, the classic first-mover advantage occurred, and first offers predicted final prices. However, a first-mover disadvantage emerged when senders opened with offers that revealed compatible preferences. These effects were moderated by negotiators’ social value orientation: Proself negotiators were more likely to take advantage of compatible information than were prosocial negotiators. Overall, the key factor that determined whether the first-mover advantage or disadvantage emerged was whether the offer revealed compatible preferences. These results demonstrate that first offers not only provide numerical value but also convey qualitative information.

When yielding pieces of the pie is not a piece of cake: Identity-based intergroup effects in negotiations

The present research intends to shed light on an identity-based intergroup effect in negotiations by demonstrating that the mere perception of the negotiation as an instance of intergroup interaction suffices to impair the negotiation process and to deteriorate its outcomes. It was predicted that negotiators’ salient group identities increase their competitive perceptions, reduce their concession behavior, and consequently lead to inferior negotiation outcomes. Study 1 revealed that solo negotiators with salient group identities achieved lower joint outcomes than negotiators with salient individual identities. Study 2 systematically explored the underlying mechanisms of this identity-based intergroup effect by analyzing negotiators’ concession-making behaviors over the course of the negotiation. The results of the second experiment replicate the findings of the first study and further show that the detrimental effect of an identity-based intergroup context will occur in distributive as well as integrative negotiations. The findings of the present research are discussed with respect to their contribution to future research on intergroup negotiation.

Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: Third-party intervention in intergroup negotiations

The present research addresses the specific impairments of an intergroup negotiation context with respect to intergroup competitiveness and partial impasses. We examined whether mediation-arbitration (med-arb), a hybrid form of third-party intervention, is conducive to overcoming the detrimental effect of an intergroup negotiation context. Study 1 demonstrated the detrimental effect of an intergroup negotiation context and showed that mediation-arbitration is an effective means to overcome this detrimental effect in a distributive negotiation task. The findings of Study 1 further suggest that the beneficial effect of med-arb on negotiation outcomes can be explained in terms of an alleviation of intergroup competitiveness. Study 2 replicated the beneficial effect of mediation-arbitration in an integrative intergroup negotiation and, by means of comparing mediation-arbitration to straight mediation, corroborated the notion that the anticipated arbitration in med-arb is a necessary precondition to alleviate the competitiveness throughout the mediated negotiation process. Study 2 further revealed that the beneficial effect of med-arb on intergroup competitiveness can be explained in terms of the perceived decision control that disputants ascribed to the third party. The findings of the present research are discussed with respect to their contribution to future research on intergroup negotiation and third-party intervention.

Procedural frames in negotiations: how offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes.

Although abundant negotiation research has examined outcome frames, little is known about the procedural framing of negotiation proposals (i.e., offering my vs. requesting your resources). In a series of 8 experiments, we tested the prediction that negotiators would show a stronger concession aversion and attain better individual outcomes when their own resource, rather than the counterparts, is the accentuated reference resource in a transaction. First, senders of proposals revealed a stronger concession aversion when they offered their own rather than requested the counterparts resources-both in buyer-seller (Experiment 1a) and in classic transaction negotiations (Experiment 2a). Expectedly, this effect reversed for recipients: When receiving requests rather than offers, recipients experienced a stronger concession aversion in buyer-seller (Experiment 1b) and transaction negotiations (Experiment 2b). Experiments 3-5 investigated procedural frames in the interactive process of negotiations-with elementary schoolchildren (Experiment 3), in a buyer-seller context (Experiments 4a and 4b), and in a computer-mediated transaction negotiation void of buyer and seller roles (Experiment 5). In summary, 8 experiments showed that negotiators are more concession averse and claim more individual value when negotiation proposals are framed to highlight their own rather than the counterparts resources.

Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.

Das Selbst und die soziale Identität

Malen Sie sich zunachst einmal aus, wie Sie den Speichel, der Ihnen im Mund zusammenlauft, herunterschlucken, oder tun Sie es. Stellen Sie sich danach vor, wie Sie ihn in einen Becher spucken und diesen austrinken! Was Ihnen als naturlich und als „Ihnen zugehorig“ erschien, wird eklig und fremd. Das, was man als eng zum eigenen Korper gehorig empfindet, ist warm und angenehm; das, was man vom eigenen Korper getrennt empfindet, wird nach einem kurzen Augenblick kalt und fremdartig.

Strong or Weak Synergy? Revising the Assumption of Team-Related Advantages in Integrative Negotiations:

When negotiations are complex and consequential, organizations usually send teams rather than individuals to the negotiation table because teams are expected to provide additional beneficial negotiation processes and, thus, generate superior outcomes. Similarly, theoretical accounts of integrative negotiations assume higher outcomes for teams than for individual negotiators as a consequence of team-related advantages (e.g., increased information processing and problem-solving capabilities). In this study, we challenge this established assumption and across three negotiations and various empirical tests, we show that the advantages of teams are merely the result of individual-level processes (i.e., one person asking interest-related questions). Moreover, Bayesian estimation supported our claim and rejected the extant account: The probability of the teams achieving better outcomes than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups (i.e., strong synergy) was up to four times smaller than the probability of the teams not achieving better results than the best individuals in commensurate nominal groups. Finally, in the majority of our analyses, individual negotiators generated better relationship outcomes than teams even though the economic outcomes were comparable. On the basis of these results, we revise the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations. We discuss the implications of our results for future negotiation research and for the practical assignment of teams or individuals to negotiations.

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.