Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in

Transcription

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations
Author(s): Michele J. Gelfand, Virginia Smith Major, Jana L. Raver, Lisa H. Nishii and Karen
O'Brien
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 427-451
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159210
Accessed: 05-05-2015 01:12 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159210?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management
Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 206.196.184.18 on Tue, 05 May 2015 01:12:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
?
Academy ofManagement Review
2006,Vol. 31,No. 2, 427-451.
NEGOTIATINGRELATIONALLY:
THEDYNAMICSOF THERELATIONAL
SELF
INNEGOTIATIONS
MICHELE J.GELFAND
University
of Maryland
VIRGINIA
SMITHMAJOR
Miller
Inc. and
Consultants/
Inc.
Balance
Corporate
Concepts,
JANAL. RAVER
Queen's
University
LISA H. NISHII
Cornell
University
KAREN O'BRIEN
University
a distinctly
view o? negotiation.
relational
We delineate
the
which
self-construals
in ne
relational
accessible
(RSC) become
through
that inhibit their use, and we
and
the conditions
illustrate mechanisms
we
In this article
conditions
gotiations
of Maryland
advance
RSC affects negotiation
and outcomes.
We
four
introduce
processes
through which
relational
relational
dynamics?arelational
trading, relational
satisiicing,
distancing,
and relational
discuss
their consequences
of
for the accumulation
integrating?and
economic
and
relational
capital
in negotiation.
on negotiation
is thriving. Over
Research
the
two decades,
scholars
have
ad
greatly
our understanding
of basic psychologi
vanced
cal processes
in negotiation,
including negotia
tor cognition
& Bazerman,
1991;
(e.g., Neale
& Hastie,
1990), motivation
(e.g.,
Thompson
De Dreu & Carnevale,
2003), and emotion
(e.g.,
teams, third parties, and technology?on
nego
tiation dynamics
&
1999; McGinn
(e.g., Croson,
&
Keros, 2002; Thompson,
Peterson,
Kray, 1995).
Indeed, research is shedding new light on topics
that previously were at a "dead end." For exam
last
& Raia,
Allred, Mallozzi,
Matsui,
1997; Barry &
Morris
&
Oliver,
1996;
Keltner, 2000; Thompson,
& Kopelman,
Medvec,
Seiden,
2001). Great
in understanding
strides have also been made
in negotiation,
such as
complex social processes
communication
Prietula, Hyder,
(e.g., Weingart,
& Genovese,
1999) and power and influence (e.g.,
&
Ebenbach
1998; Mannix,
Keltner,
1994). Like
have provided
into
researchers
wise,
insights
as
the impact of the negotiation
context?such
We
ers
thank
at
thank Elizabeth
for their valuable
the Decision,
the National
0213474)
Mannix
and
feedback
on
three anonymous
this manuscript.
review
We
also
ple, not long ago, personality was seen as lack
in negotiation,
value
ing much explanatory
yet
there has recently been a resurgence
of interest
in this topic (Barry & Friedman,
1998). Generally,
in organizational
few areas
behavior
have de
veloped as rapidly, and with as much depth and
breadth, as the field of negotiation
(Kramer &
1995; see also
Bazerman,
Curhan,
& Valley, 2000).
research on negotiation
has not
Nevertheless,
without
criticism.
Numerous
scholars
have
gone
a
bemoaned
that the field offers
largely arela
Messick,
Moore,
tional view of an inherently relational
situation.
In an early critique, Barley
(1991) questioned
whether
findings, largely drawn from simulated
between
negotiations
partici
unacquainted
to the dynamics
of real-world
pants, correspond
in which prior relationships
negotiations
figure
Science
Risk, and Management
Program
Science
Foundation
525
(grant number
for its generous
support.
427
428
Academy
of Management
so prominently.
Later, Gray
(1994) cogently ar
field's
that
of
the
many
meta-assumptions
gued
au
reflect an arelational
bias?emphasizing
over
inter
and
tonomy, competition,
rationality
and
cooperation,
relationality.
dependence,
these sentiments,
scholars
have echoed
Other
research
that traditional
arguing
negotiation
does not adequately
capture relational
dynam
ics in negotiation
& Chapman,
(Greenhalgh
1995; Greenhalgh
& Gilkey,
1993; Kolb &
1991).
Coolidge,
Yet despite
this void, there is still a dearth of
on relational
in
constructs
and
research
theory
there
As
discussed
below,
although
negotiation.
has been
some discussion
of relational
orienta
tion in negotiation
& Gilkey,
(e.g., Greenhalgh
Rubin
&
&
Brown, 1975),
Hinson,
1994;
1993; King
ill de
remained
this construct has
relatively
and so
fined, and its constituent psychological
unex
remain
in negotiation
cial processes
criticisms
In short, although
regarding
plored.
nature of negotiation
the arelational
theory are
we
that many
valid?and
suspect
certainly
scholars would
agree
have
nonetheless
they
with
these
arguments?
ab
remained
of a concrete
largely
little in the way
for the field.
a more comprehen
In this article we advance
in negotiation.
At the
sive theory of relationality
core of our model
is the construct of the rela
stract, offering
research agenda
tional self-construal
(RSC). As we detail below,
in the last two decades
there has been a prolif
on the
in social psychology
eration of research
in
self
in
relational
self
partic
general and the
& Chen, 2002; Baldwin,
ular (e.g., Andersen
1992;
Brewer & Gardner,
1996; Chen, 2001, 2003; Chen,
& Bargh, 2001; Cross, Bacon, & Morris,
Lee-Chai,
1997; Cross & Morris, 2003;
2000; Cross & Madson,
& Gardner,
Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002; Gabriel
et
2002).
al., 1995; Sanchez-Burks,
1999; Kashima
In contrast to a view of the self as largely inde
pendent, RSC
of the self as
individuals
reflects a cognitive representation
to other
connected
fundamentally
et
1997; Kashima
(Cross & Madson,
1995). It has been
array of psychological
al.,
linked
to an
impressive
including at
processes,
&
tention, memory and inference (e.g., Gabriel
ex
and
Gardner,
1999), emotional
regulation
pression
(e.g., Cross et al., 2000; Cross & Madson,
et al., 2000;
1997), and motivation
(e.g., Cross
&
Gabriel,
Hochschild,
Gardner,
2002). RSC has
a
in
wide
also been
range of social
implicated
are
at
aimed
that
processes
cultivating and pre
Review
April
including partner choice,
decision
self-disclosure,
et
behavior
Cross
al., 2000,
(e.g.,
serving relationships,
communication
and
and
making,
Gabriel
& Gardner,
2002;
and
exciting
far-reaching
these
1999). Yet despite
theoretical and empir
discussions
of RSC have re
ical developments,
mained
from the field of organizational
isolated
in general and the field of negotiation
behavior
in particular.
a dy
We begin filling this void by advancing
namic
In
and
of
RSC
what
negotiation.
theory
follows we first define key terms regarding
the
for
self in order to provide necessary
grounding
our model
of RSC and negotiation.
Second, we
the construct of RSC and how it is
delineate
in cognitive, emotional,
and motiva
implicated
we
tional processes.
Third,
present our integra
and negotiation.
Viewing ne
a
we
delineate
gotiation
through
temporal lens,
ac
the processes
through which RSC becomes
in negotiation
and the conditions
cessible
that
in
then illustrate
the ways
inhibit its use. We
tive model
which
of RSC
RSC
affects
prenegotiation
negotiators'
later
and
states,
tactics, and
early
psychological
a
outcomes.
number of
We
advance
negotiation
can
occur
distinct
relational
that
dynamics
on the dyadic composition
of RSC, each of
costs to the
benefits
and
distinct
brings
a discus
table.
We
conclude
with
negotiation
based
which
sion of the implications
of the model
and
practice.
theory
ation
for negoti
KEY TERMS
is a multidimensional,
dynamic
structure
self-rele
that organizes
knowledge
et
vant
information
al., 2002; Markus,
(Cross
1977; Markus & Wurf, 1987). It comprises multiple
termed
have been
self-representations?what
or self-construals?that
self-schemas
embody
The
self
about oneself,
including
"personal
knowledge
fu
social
roles, past experience,
ity attributes,
ture goals, and the like" (Fiske & Taylor,
1991:
are especially
self-construals
181-182). Some
and
well
elaborated,
important to an
others are less important and are
individual;
more peripheral
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
central,
a large repertoire of self
Although we possess
scholars have
social cognition
construals,
long
a
number
of these are
limited
that
only
argued
in use at any point in time (Markus & Kunda,
1986; Markus
Cheever,
& Wurf,
1987; McGuire,
1986). Specifically,
McGuire,
self-knowledge
&
can
2006
in memory,
be available
but unless
Raver,
Major,
it is acces
to process
information.
for stored
refers to the potential
to stimuli
to respond
to be used
itwill
sible,
Gelfand,
not be used
Accessibility
knowledge
& King,
1996; Higgins
(Bruner, 1957; Higgins,
of an at
the accessibility
1981). The greater
is
that attribute
tribute, the more self-defining
for an
individual
Shah,
(Higgins, 1996; Higgins,
& Friedman,
1997; Shah, Higgins,
& Friedman,
1998).
can be de
The accessibility
of self-construals
rived from two distinct sources. Self-construals
are likely to become
accessible
the
chronically
more
and
individuals
consistently
frequently
use
such
attributes
can also
to define
the self.
Self
be temporarily accessible
context
strong features of a situational
in
and temporarily
impinge on an individual
crease
of self-knowledge
(Kihl
accessibility
strom & Cantor,
of a con
1984). Accessibility
construals
when
struct
is an
addifive
function
of chronic
and
temporary accessibility
(Bargh, Bond, Lombardi,
& Tota, 1986; Higgins,
1989). That is, the effect of
situation depends
in a particular
accessibility
source
solely on its strength of accessibility?the
or
is ir
of the accessibility,
chronic,
temporary
relevant (Higgins, 1996).
does not automati
Importantly, accessibility
use. Rather, there
into
translate
?nowiedge
cally
that prevent acces
may be inhibitory processes
sible knowledge
from being used and that ne
more
in
relevant knowledge
cessitate
be used
stead. An important variable
that influences
whether stored knowledge will actually be used
is the fitor applicability
to the
of the knowledge
stimulus
explains:
(Higgins, 1996). As Higgins
The greater the overlap between
some
tures
stored
of a
and
knowledge
the greater
stimulus,
the
the features of
attended
fea
is the applicabil
to the stimulus and the
ity of the knowledge
greater is the likelihood that the knowledge will
be activated in the presence of the stimulus (1996:
154).
assess
involves an unconscious
Applicability
ment of the relevance
construct
of an accessible
to the context; if the knowledge
structure is not
relevant, itwill not be used
(Higgins, 1996). For
an
whom
individual
for
the construct
example,
of aggressiveness
use that construct
will not actually
thoughts, feelings, or
is accessible
to guide
behavior
the stimulus
unless
has aggressive
cues (i.e., it is applicable
to the knowledge
struc
to
An
is
ifan
this
rule, however,
ture).
exception
Nishii,
and
O'Brien
429
of
individual has extremely strong accessibility
can com
a construct; very strong accessibility
&
for weak
pensate
(Higgins
applicability
individuals may also
1995). Furthermore,
knowl
decide not to use accessible
consciously
to
is deemed
knowledge
edge if the accessible
As
have
low "judged usability"
1996).
(Higgins,
Higgins notes, "Even when stored information is
Brendl,
and appli
because
of its accessibility
a
to
not
it
be con
stimulus,
cability
might
as
or
it
if
is
irrelevant
used
sciously
perceived
con
(1996: 136). Importantly,
inappropriate"
activated
due to judged usability occurs
processing
activation
"after knowledge
but before knowl
use"
1996:
152; see also Devine,
edge
(Higgins,
and
1989,
1989).
Kruglanski,
Finally, once they are in use, self-construals
are a powerful
of human
behavior.
regulator
scious
have
Self-construals
formation processing
a critical
about
influence
oneself
and
on
in
other
memory, attribu
affecting perception,
people,
inferences
tions, and
1991;
(Fiske & Taylor,
Markus,
Smith, & Moreland,
1985). The self also
has a profound influence on emotion and affect
(Cross & Madson,
1997). For example,
regulation
self-construals
determine what triggers individ
to a stimulus event.
reactions
uals' emotional
an aspect of the self is affirmed through
When
an event, positive
emotions
result, whereas
when an aspect of the self is threatened, nega
tive emotions
follow (Higgins, 1987). The self is
also
tied to motivation
and
self
intricately
direct our actions as
regulation. Self-construals
we
or unconsciously
in tac
engage
consciously
tics to "self-verify" or confirm our conceptions
of
set goals
ourselves
(Swann,
1987). Individuals
en
that are consistent with their self-construals,
in behaviors
to fulfill those goals,
and
gage
monitor
their accomplishments
very closely
(Carver & Scheier,
1981).
RSC
of the past century, research on the
of self-construals
has
consequences
on
focused
the
self?the
largely
independent
of the self as an autonomous
and
conception
For much
nature and
unique entity (Bakan, 1966; Markus & Kitayama,
1949; Triandis,
1991; Parsons,
1989). Independent
self-construals
have been
associated
with a
sense of personal
a
on
focus
the
self as
agency,
a
from
and
belief
that
the
self is
others,
separate
to
dissimilar
others
&
(Shweder
generally
430 Academy
of Management
Bourne, 1982). In recent years, however, research
has shown
that this prevailing
self-construal
a
on the na
rather limited perspective
provides
ture and consequences
of the self. In contrast to
a focus on independence,
a proliferation
of re
can empha
search has shown that individuals
size
the relational
fundamentally
(e.g., Andersen
self?a
connected
Review
April
TABLE 1
RSC
and Associated
of RSC
Components
Relational
cognition
& Chen,
2002; Aron, Aron, &
1992; Brewer & Gardner,
Smollman,
1996; Chen,
2001, 2003; Chen et al., 2001; Clancy & Dollinger,
et al., 2000; Cross & Madson,
1993; Cross
1997;
Cross & Morris, 2003; Cross et al., 2002; Gilligan,
when
connections
with
has with
Enhanced
relational
Relational
emotion
for
memory
events
are
feelings
of considerable
negative
a source
and
of
self
distress
and
feelings
and experience
of
Empathy
others' emotions
(i.e., emotional
contagion)
Reluctance
to express
that thwart connections
Relational
motivation
emotions
to develop
and preserve
with others
relationships
to help others achieve
Desire
Desire
their goals
and
desire
for
mutual
Use
empowerment
of behaviors
to foster
connections
with
others
(e.g.,
self-disclosure)
Self-regulation
connections
regarding
(i.e., monitoring
of
accomplishments
interactions)
throughout
to alter actions
Willingness
to
relational
Cognition
As with other aspects
of the self, RSC provides
is fil
framework through which
information
and remembered.
These pro
tered, processed,
cesses
are referred to as relational
cognition,
since they all implicate
the self in connection
is accessible,
with others. When
the con
RSC
are
one
nections
has with others
very salient
the self
(i.e., one's thoughts focus on how much
to others), and one is more likely to
is connected
and process
encode,
for one's ability
implications
nection with others
(Cross
Cross et al., 2002). Accordingly,
ity is related to an increased
notice,
that one
to develop
and
inability
affirm connections
is a source
1 summarizes
Table
the
regulated.
of
relational
discussion
these
cogni
following
tion, emotion, and motivational
processes.
a
to others'
behavior
The
tivation are
Relational
is a
others
the similarity
others
Connections
positive
esteem
others
in one's
of
representations
figure prominently
not one's per
the self, it is relationships?and
sonal attributes?that
provide a critical frame
work through which cognition, emotion, and mo
with
focus of consciousness
on
Focus
et al.,
& Hardie,
2000; Kashima
au
than emphasizing
individual
own
in
and
of
one's
tonomy
promotion
goals,
this self-construal,
the priority is to emphasize
to others and
in
"connectedness
[to] behave
that promote and strengthen existing rela
ways
as
(Cross et al., 2002: 400). Moreover,
tionships"
below,
Connection
Processes
attunement
Cognitive
verbal
and nonverbal
1982; Kashima
1995). Rather
detailed
Relational
Specific
primary
view of the self as
to other individuals
Processes
Psychological
stimuli that have
to cultivate a con
& Madson,
1997;
RSC accessibil
to oth
sensitivity
behavior
verbal
and nonverbal
(Jordan,
1988; Sanchez-Burks,
1997; Markus & Oyserman,
awareness
of others'
2002) and a heightened
interests
&
and
Madson,
1997;
(Cross
goals
Cross et al., 2000). As noted by Cross and Mad
to such information is helpful
son, attentiveness
ers'
with others,
in the maintenance
of relationships
once "one has carefully attended
to an
because
meet
relational
goals
other's
thoughts and
feelings, one should be
more likely to behave
in a fashion that demon
strates empathy and support" (1997: 81).
is also related to an increased
focus on
RSC
the similarity that one has to others. For exam
et al. (2002) found that people with
ple, Cross
were more likely to rate close
RSC accessibility
in terms of
others as being similar to themselves
is also
and
beliefs.
This
notion
traits,
abilities,
consistent with research
that has shown
that
the overlap
be
perspective
taking increases
tween representations
of the self and others
2000; see also Davis,
(Galinsky & Moskowitz,
is likely to
Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996), which
RSC accessible.
of
perceptions
similarity of the self
Generally,
and others affirm the connection within a rela
be
higher
among
those with
2006
Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
facilitate
and affirm the
tionship,
harmony,
value of one's own attributes
(Cross et al., 2002).
consistent
with enhanced
memory
Finally,
functions of the self, research has shown that
events. For
for relational
RSC affects memory
example, Cross et al. (2002) found that RSC was
to which people
to the degree
recalled
information about a target and
the
relational
to
information
which
they organized
degree
about others inmemory based on their relation
related
a highly organized
of
cluster
ships. Having
to
information enables
individuals
relational
infor
and
notice, encode,
process
relationship
mation with greater speed and ease.
Relational
Emotion
Nishii,
and
431
O'Brien
(Cross & Madson,
1997). Individuals
contagion"
are
with RSC accessible
also likely to avoid the
of certain emotions
that can thwart
expression
connections.
others have
For example,
unless
(as dis
obligations
reneged on their relational
individuals with RSC accessible
cussed above),
are likely to be reluctant
to express
negative
re
emotions
which
might damage
(e.g., anger),
(Cross & Madson,
lationships
Relational
1997).
Motivation
inmotivation
and self
implicated
become
the
Connections
with
others
regulation.
are moti
framework through which
individuals
to action?processes
that are referred to
vated
as relational motivation.
is
RSC accessibility
RSC
is also
in
to emotional
is related
RSC
functioning,
(i.e.,
cluding the eliciting conditions of emotions
and the
what
triggers an emotional
response)
&
(Markus
types of emotions
experienced
are
to
referred
These
1991).
processes
Kitayama,
with the desire to develop
positively associated
to the
is related
and affirm relationships
and
use of tactics to foster connections
with others
RSC ac
(Cross & Madson,
1997). For example,
to
emotions.
In particular,
the ability
a
is
with
affirm
connections
others
and
develop
source
emotions
self
of
and
major
positive
esteem
whereas
for those with RSC accessible,
the inability to develop
and affirm connections
emo
with others is a major source of negative
is also
Jordan, 1997; Kolb & Coolidge,
1991)?and
with seeking
to help others achieve
associated
their goals
& Gardner,
(Fletcher, 1996; Gabriel
et
Cross
al.
demonstrated
that RSC
1999).
(2000)
is related
to the willingness
to take others'
as
since
relational
emotion,
they are filtered
a
on
connections
with others.
focus
through
connections
with oth
When
RSC is accessible,
ers are highly salient and can trigger positive or
negative
tions (Cross et al., 2002). For example,
individu
als with RSC accessible
may feel considerable
anxiety or distress as a result of conflict with a
friend or lack of connection with an acquain
a connection
tance with whom
they expected
(Cross & Madson,
1997).
can elicit anger and re
Thwarted connections
taliation among
those with RSC accessible.
For
one expects
an
in situations where
example,
other to behave
and the other does
relationally
not reciprocate
the relational
efforts, one with
in subtle, covert,
RSC accessible
may behave
but aggressive
that conceal
one's true in
ways
tentions?a
that
has
been
referred
phenomenon
to as relational
&
Madson,
(Cross
aggression
is associated
with personal
self
cessibility
which helps to foster rapport (Cross
disclosure,
et al., 2000). RSC
is also related to motivations
for "mutual empowerment"?a
desire formutual
in
and
aid
(Fletcher, 1996;
support
relationships
into account when
opinions, and wishes
an
others
making
important decision.
Helping
is often a goal in and of itself, leading
succeed
even
to a sense of personal
if
empowerment,
of one's own needs
doing so is at the expense
(Fletcher, 1996; Kolb & Coolidge,
1991). Finally,
consistent with the self-regulatory
function of
the self, RSC is related to relational monitoring;
needs,
is accessible
for whom
individuals
RSC
monitor
their relational
accomplishments
closely
throughout their interactions, and
in order to meet
will change
their actions
is also related to other emotional
experi
For example,
individuals
with RSC ac
cessible
will have greater empathy
for others'
emo
emotions and may experience
"vicarious"
of others?that
tional experiences
"emotional
is,
they
rela
tional
This
is consistent with Surrey's
goals.
that the relational
self includes
(1991) argument
to consider one's actions
the capacity
in light of
ofhers' needs
1997;Talbot, 2002).
RSC
ences.
will
very
Divergence
and
feelings.
from Other
Constructs
we
have
focused on the processes
with RSC, it is worth noting what
is not, ox, in other words, how it diverges
While
sociated
as
RSC
from
432 Academy
of Management
in the literature. For example,
from other aspects
of the self that
linked to culture?namely,
the indi
other constructs
RSC
is distinct
have
been
and
vidualistic
collectivistic
aspects
1999; Kashima
1995). Kashima
of the self
& Hardie,
(Gabriel & Gardner,
et al.,
et al. (1995)
2000; Kashima
differentiated among
three different
empirically
in
dimensions
of the self that are often confused
dimension
the literature: (1) the individualistic
of the self, which
refers to the self as an inde
and agentic entity; (2) the
pendent, autonomous,
of the self, which refers to
relational
dimension
the extent towhich people
regard themselves as
to other individuals;
connected
and
emotionally
which
the
collective
dimension
of
the
self,
(3)
refers to the self in relation to a group or collec
in
latter emphasizes
group affiliation,
statuses
and
defined
collec
norms,
by
tive. The
group
tives (Kashima & Hardie,
2000; Tajfel & Turner,
from five countries
1979; Triandis,
1989). Data
of the self are
that these three aspects
showed
indeed distinct constructs
(Kashima et al., 1995).
in the negotiation
literature that
some overlap with RSC include inter
orientation
1975),
(Rubin & Brown,
motives
1999), other con
(Van Lange,
Constructs
also
share
personal
prosocial
cern (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), relationship
orienta
tion (Greenhalgh
& Gilkey,
1993), and relation
1994). All of
(King & Hinson,
ship preference
on being
these constructs
share an emphasis
the
others, yet none captures
Rubin
of
RSC.
For
breadth and depth
example,
and Brown's
orientation"
(1975) "interpersonal
in
refers to someone who is attuned to variations
some
has
This construct
another's
behavior.
about
concerned
of RSC,
component
overlap with the cognitive
as
an
not
it
is
aspect of the
yet
conceptualized
nor
to
it
have
does
self,
psy
linkages
multiple
orientation
processes.
Interpersonal
chological
elements not related to
also includes extraneous
the measure
includes ques
RSC. For example,
to en
tions regarding
individuals'
willingness
in unethical
behavior?that
is, not buying
gage
that was stolen (Swap & Rubin, 1983).
something
Likewise,
and Gilkey's
(1993) "re
and
Hinson's
(1994)
King
and
and
Kolb
preference,"
of a feminist
(1991) consideration
Greenhalgh
orientation,"
lationship
"relationship
Coolidge's
of the relational
model
share some overlap with
self
RSC,
in negotiations
in that all are
How
concerned with cultivating
relationships.
these constructs
unlike RSC,
generally
in information pro
not been
implicated
ever,
have
Review
April
emotions,
cessing,
and
motivation,
self-regula
tion (see Table
linked to
1), nor have they been
of knowledge
activation
conditions
(e.g., tempo
rary and chronic accessibility,
inhibitory pro
cesses).
motives
(Van Lange,
1999),
Finally, prosocial
as well as other concern
(in the dual concern
model
[DCM]; Pruitt & Rubin,
1986), share some
of the motivational
of RSC,
component
aspects
concern forothers. Yet
in that they all emphasize
concern
for others' outcomes
is one goal
while
with
RSC, the relational motivation
in that it includes
of
is broader
RSC
component
a
as
concern
relational
such
for connec
goals,
associated
tion and the accumulation
of relational
capital
in negotiation
in addition
to
(discussed
below),
other motivational
processes
(e.g., self-regula
tion, relational
mutual
empower
ment).
As part of the self-system, RSC also captures
other psychological
that are not in
processes
in the DCM or social motive
cluded
theory. For
so
the DCM and theory on prosocial
example,
cial motives
monitoring,
do not explicitly make
of relational
the nature
predictions
cognition
of
verbal
and
nonverbal
cues, en
(e.g., tracking
hanced memory
for relational
events) or rela
dis
tional emotion
contagion,
(e.g., emotional
are thwarted, relational
tress when connections
regarding
As we discuss below, with the RSC
aggression).
a
construct we see how a refusal to establish
can be perceived
as an affront to
connection
one's
tiators
self-concept,
to become
thereby
leading
some
nego
in rela
angry
engage
in
is grounded
tional aggression.
Because
RSC
our
theories
of
the
model
of
RSC
self,
dynamic
activation
and negotiation
includes knowledge
are
not
in
that
included
these
other
processes
In this way, as we discuss
models.
below, we
and
the DCM
and social
an
providing
understanding
extend
motive
theory by
of the conditions
concerns
to be prominent or
that lead relational
In all, RSC provides a
inhibited in negotiations.
to exist
that adds
perspective
complementary
ing constructs
in the literature.
Summary
There
is substantial
evidence
demonstrating
for information pro
implications
and resulting be
cessing, emotion, motivation,
the wide-ranging
theoretical
havior. Despite
of RSC,
scholars
ramifications
and practical
that RSC
has
2006
Gelfand,
Raver,
Major,
not yet delineated
how RSC
influences
and
contexts
social
such as
complex
dynamic
scholars
and, conversely,
negotiation,
studying
have not drawn from the extant re
negotiation
search on the nature of the relational
self. As we
seek to show below, an integration of RSC the
have
Nishii,
and
O'Brien
433
cess, including the creation and claiming of val
ue; and (4) resultant distal outcomes of economic
as well as compliance
and relational
capital,
with agreements
(cf. Barry & Oliver,
1996). Al
though we first focus on the individual negotia
we later argue
tor as the unit of analysis,
that
ory and negotiation
of the arelationality
to address
criticisms
begins
of negotiation
theory and
new
illuminates
that have
research,
phenomena
to
be
in
examined
to
yet
negotiation,
begins
on
a
research
of
issues
integrate
variety
through
a common set of principles,
and ultimately has
for expanding
the theory and practice
promise
of negotiation.
is an im
between
congruency
negotiators
in which RSC
of the way
portant determinant
outcomes.
ultimately affects negotiation
RSC
RSC
and
Accessibility
Inhibitory Processes
Our model
begins with a formulation of the
con
factors that affect RSC use in negotiation
we
texts. As shown in Figure
1,
posit that there
are multiple
factors that can increase
chronic
THE DYNAMICS OF RSC INNEGOTIATION
and temporary accessibility
in negotia
of RSC
tion. However,
consistent with the literature on
the processes
to knowledge
use, we il
leading
a num
lustrate that, even if RSC is accessible,
ber of inhibitory factors can suppress
its actual
use before a negotiation
begins.
In Figure
1 we present our model
in
of RSC
our
In
model
is
viewed
negotiation.
negotiation
through a temporal lens that involves a series of
conditions
that affect
(1) prenegotiation
stages:
the accessibility
of RSC and inhibit its use, as
well as the influence of RSC on negotiators'
pre
in negotiations.
Chronic accessibility
of RSC
As we noted previously,
chronic accessibility
of
a self-construal
is a function of repeated
expe
over time. At
riences and roles that are enacted
the individual
who have had
level, individuals
states;
(2) early
negotiation
psychological
stages of the negotiation,
including negotiators'
first offers, initial concessions,
and tactical be
later
of
the
havior;
(3)
pro
stages
negotiation
FIGURE 1
Negotiating
Relationally:
RSC
Prenegotiation
and initial
accessibility
in negotiation
Individual
Dynamics
and
of RSC
in Negotiation
states
psychological
tactical behavior
Later
tactical
outcomes,
behavior,
and
group
Negotiation
outcomes
differences
Gender
National
negotiation
postsettlement
Economic
culture
capital
Relational
Occupation/organization
capital
Chronic
accessibility
Prenegotiation
RSC
ofRSC
psychological
states
accessibility
accessibility
-_
ofRSC
Situational
judgments,
goals
conditions
with
Negotiations
friends, spouses,
acquaintances
Inhibitory processes
Lack of relational
context
Lean
Initial offers
Concession
Negotiator
frames,
strength
Temporary
Initial tactical
behavior
and
making
Relational
Later
behaviors
Creating
claiming
value _
behaviors
RSC
between
congruency
negotiators
communication
media
Constituencies,
and instructions
tactics
Relational
roles,
and
Post
settlement
compliance
and future
negotiations
434 Academy
of Management
and roles that have continuously
experiences
reinforced RSC will have chronically accessible
to the extent that experiences
RSC. Additionally,
there can also be group
and roles are shared,
This
accessibility.
for gender, with women
scoring higher on RSC and its associ
generally
than men (e.g., Cross et al., 2000;
ated processes
in chronic
differences
has been
Gabriel
RSC
demonstrated
& Gardner,
1999).
that
shows
research
Furthermore,
although
na
more
variance
than
accounts
for
gender
et
in
self
relational
the
tional culture
(Kashima
al., 1995), culture may also affect the degree
Kashima
which RSC is chronically accessible.
al. (1995) found that Koreans
(males and
to
et
fe
than other
relational
much more
is consistent with in
Rim groups, which
on the pivotal
role of
perspectives
digenous
woori
"us") in Korean soci
(connection between
males)
Pacific
were
the rela
1993). Likewise,
ety (Choi, Kim, & Choi,
in Latin America
tional self is also emphasized
and females alike, reflected in the
among males
or a concern with the so
notion of "simpat?a,"
of interactions
(Sanchez
aspects
&
2000; Triandis, Marin,
Ybarra,
Burks, Nisbett,
1984).
Lisansky, & Betancourt,
in RSC chronic ac
Finally, group differences
occupational
cessibility may also arise along
con
lines. In organizational
and organizational
rou
texts where
there are strong and pervasive
the im
and norms prescribing
tines, practices,
cioemotional
strong connections with
portance of developing
Southwest
others
Gittell,
Airlines;
2003),
(e.g.,
accessible.
RSC will more likely be chronically
norms may also be strong in compa
Relational
for service"
that have a strong "climate
nies
(Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998), where employ
to develop
ees are expected
strong connections
customers.
with potential
in negotia
of RSC
accessibility
Temporary
liter
with the social cognition
tions. Consistent
that certain negoti
illustrates
ature, our model
can temporarily
increase
the
ation conditions
in
situations
that
We
of
RSC.
posit
accessibility
are negotiating
with close
individuals
or
will
romantic
friends
partners
temporarily in
RSC
of
crease
the accessibility
among negotia
there is a strong
tors. Such conditions?where
and the expectation
bond between
negotiators
salient
make
of ongoing
interdependence?will
to
of connectedness
or "prime" the importance
to protect and maintain
others and the desire
which
such
connections;
accordingly,
the relational
Review
April
to be more accessible.
More
is expected
we
the
strength
posit that the greater
generally,
in ne
of ties, the stronger the RSC accessibility
is ex
gotiations. For example, RSC accessibility
self
to be very strong in negotiations
among
pected
lovers and close
friends, moderately
strong in
somewhat
friends, and
among
negotiations
among
acquaintances
strong in negotiations
who have towork together in the future. This is
research
that has
with previous
consistent
romantic part
shown that negotiations
among
ners and close friends are especially
focused on
and ten
conflict
solidarity, minimizing
building
over
sub
the
and
sion,
relationship
prioritizing
& Williams,
(Fry, Firestone,
&
1969; Thompson,
Wood,
1983; Schoeninger
Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). It is also consistent with
on expected
future interdependence,
research
become more con
which shows that negotiators
stantive
cerned
outcomes
about
others'
outcomes
in such
condi
tions (Pruitt & Carnevale,
1993).
that temporary and
In Figure
1 we denote
chronic sources of RSC combine additively
(see
an
of
et
RSC
overall
for
al.,
1986)
strength
Bargh
which will be related to a host of
accessibility,
states and, in turn,
psychological
prenegotiation
late
and
tactics,
and,
ultimately, negotia
early
as noted previously,
tion outcomes.
However,
translate
does not automatically
accessibility
use. Before turning to a discus
into knowledge
sion of how RSC affects negotiators'
prenegotia
inhibit
factors that may
tion states, we discuss
RSC in negotiations.
the use of accessible
RSC
affecting accessible
Inhibitory processes
an important fac
As discussed,
in negotiations.
struc
tor that influences whether a knowledge
ture, such as RSC, is, in fact, used is the degree
the features
to which
there is a match between
structure and the features of
of the knowledge
when
is accessible,
if RSC
the situation. Even
structure
the knowledge
there is not a match,
situation (Hig
in that particular
is
relevant
RSC
1996).
only in
Accordingly,
gins,
to RSC?situa
that are applicable
situations
are pos
connections
tions in which meaningful
will not be used
sible.
features of the negotia
It follows that when
tion context render such connections
highly ir
its
associated
RSC
(and
relevant,
usage
psycho
This
will
be attenuated.
processes)
logical
of RSC use is particularly
attenuation
important
is high
for whom RSC
for people
to consider
because
of chronic accessibility.
Our model
pos
2006
Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
its that even when RSC
ble, if there is a complete
is chronically
accessi
lack of relational con
as
in one-shot
text between
negotiators,
use
is likely to
interactions with strangers, RSC
use
is also likely
be attenuated.
Likewise, RSC
to be attenuated
when
the other negotiator has
and communica
presence
very little relational
are
tion is highly restricted, as when negotiators
as
text
such
lean
media,
interacting
through
electronic
mail.
As McGinn
and
note, when communicating
tiators have
little social
Croson
(2004)
through email, nego
awareness
of their
is low in
because
this medium
is
in
and has
feedback
low
(i.e.,
synchronicity
is highly
of
other
and
the
poor immediacy
party)
restricted in terms of conveying
paralinguistic
and relational cues. As a result, without explicit
counterparts,
interventions
(e.g., to form connec
tions), interactions over email tend to be highly
&
(Moore, Kurtzberg,
Thompson,
impersonal
in highly
rela
restricted
Morris,
1999). Thus,
relational
tional contexts, accessible
is expected
RSC
to be
attenuated.
can be
for this proposition
Indirect support
found in the negotiation
literature. As discussed
have been
found
previously, women
generally
to have
chronic accessibility
of RSC. Our
that
conditions
that
posits
negotiation
or impossible
render connections
irrelevant
and would
would
reduce RSC usage
possibly
in negotiation.
Al
reduce gender
differences
no
assessment
is
of
direct
this
though there
greater
model
in an exploratory
Stuhl
proposition,
analysis,
macher
and Walters
(1999) found that gender
effects in negotiation were smaller in studies in
which
there was no interaction outside
the ex
to studies inwhich future
periment as compared
interaction could reasonably
Like
be expected.
in support of the notion
that restricted
wise,
communication
attenuate
media
RSC
usage
and, thus, should reduce gender differences, an
other meta-analysis
&
(Walters, Stuhlmacher,
that gender
differences
1998) showed
Meyer,
were
in experiments
reduced
involving matrix
had little direct com
games, where bargainers
munication,
periments
face-to-face
and were
involving
more
explicit
pronounced
bargaining,
was
communication
in ex
where
allowed.
re
previous
cognition
&
it
Brendl,
however,
1995),
(e.g., Higgins
is worth noting that very strong RSC accessibil
situations.
ity can override weak
applicability
Consistent
with
social
search
Thus,
for example,
we would
expect
that in sit
and
Nishii,
435
O'Brien
ac
with chronically
individuals
were
cessible
RSC
with friends or
negotiating
with people with whom
they were highly inter
uations
where
where RSC accessibility
dependent?situations
was maximized
owing to both chronic and tem
sources?accessible
still be
RSC would
porary
used, even if the other party had little relational
were
presence
(e.g., negotiations
taking place
through email).
Finally, consistent
with Higgins'
(1996) discus
and judged usabil
processes
can also consciously
to
choose
ity, negotiators
inhibit their accessible
RSC if they judge its use
sion of conscious
to be
where
inappropriate.
For example,
receive explicit
in situations
instructions
negotiators
from others
to
(or perceive
implicit demands)
"take up" a different self, the use of RSC is likely
are often
to be actively
inhibited. Such demands
linked
als
to role-based
that individu
expectations
for constituents.
For
negotiating
research has shown that negotiators
others assume
that their
representing
have when
example,
who are
want them to behave
competitively
&
Druckman,
1973; Diekmann,
1997; Gel
(Benton
fand & Realo,
In
other
1999; Gruder,
words,
1971).
can
when negotiating
for others, the situation
constituents
create
strong alternative
implicit (or explicit) de
that can inhibit RSC use. Some support
for this notion can also be seen in research on
mands
For example,
negotiation.
Riley and Babcock
women
were
found
that
much
less coop
(2002)
erative when representing mixed-gender
dyads
than when
which
themselves,
representing
could possibly be mediated
by inhibition of RSC
accessibility.
to
More
negotiators,
from
generally,
constituents,
directions
given
supervisors,
even experimenters,
can inhibit RSC use in
negotiations.
With
these contextual
antecedents
and mod
erators in mind, we now discuss
the dynamics
that occur when RSC, is, in fact, used in negoti
and
and is deemed
(i.e., RSC is both accessible
relevant to the context). Consistent
with theory
a
is
RSC
continuous
suggesting
accessibility
ation
variable (Higgins, 1996;Higgins & Brendl, 1995;
1998), we discuss how the strength of
RSC accessibility
affects negotiators'
prenego
tiation psychological
states and early tactics.
Shah
We
et al.
then discuss
how both the strength of RSC
the congruency
of RSC within dyads are
related to later tactics and, ultimately,
to nego
tiation outcomes.
and
436
and Negotiators'
States
Psychological
RSC
Academy
Prenegotiation
and Initial Tactical
Behaviors
how the relational
described
previously
such
self affects basic psychological
processes,
In this
as cognition, motivation,
and emotion.
this discussion
section we expand
by illustrat
We
affects
cognitive
negotiators'
ing how RSC
and goals prior to en
frames, judgment biases,
re
Whereas
negotiation
tering a negotiation.
as
self
often portrays
search
negotiators
interested actors, we present a divergent view of
relational
that highlights
negotiators?one
for the
and
biases
frames and judgment
goals
of relational
accumulation
capital.
frames and judgments. Negotiation
Relational
con
that individuals
scholars have long argued
or
of negotiations,
struct mental
representations
sense of
conflict frames, that help them make
that
situations. We similarly argue
negotiation
and are
which affect perception
self-construals,
critical
in lending meaning
to social
situations
(Fiske & Taylor, 1991;Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994),
conflict frames. This
negotiators'
in
with
the
is consistent
assumption
prevailing
that previously
research
developed
negotiation
structures are used as individuals
knowledge
(Thompson,
try tomake sense of novel situations
2004). Specifically, when RSC
Neale, & Sinaceur,
are likely to view ne
individuals
is accessible,
will
influence
through what Pinkley (1990) terms re
gotiations
frames?that
and
is, they
cooperative
lationship
as
to
will perceive
opportunities
negotiations
the relationship
affirm and strengthen
through
cooperation.
In addition
of the
representations
situation, RSC will be re
the
of the confexf in which
to cognitive
specific negotiation
lated to construals
forwhom
is embedded.
Negotiators
negotiation
as
context
the
will
is accessible
RSC
perceive
is, they
socially and temporally embedded?that
that the social
will be more
likely to perceive
the immediate
dyadic
beyond
is
context
the
that
and
temporal
relationship
into in the
and extends considerably
continuous
& Gilkey,
future (cf. Greenhalgh
1993; Kolb &
context
Review
of Management
extends
forwhom RSC
1991) than negotiators
Coolidge,
is not accessible.
For example, with regard to the social context,
will be
is accessible,
when
RSC
negotiators
more likely to perceive
that they are connected
are re
their counterparts
to others with whom
April
lated, or, in other words,
their interactions with
they will construe
their counterparts
for their relationships
with an HR repre
accessible
may as
also
have
ramifications
with
others.
In negotiations
those with RSC
sentative,
sume
that what
that
can
in that setting may
happens
with
for
their
relationships
implications
with the representative.
others associated
to the temporal
With
context, when
regard
are
RSC is accessible,
likely to view
negotiators
have
with an eye for how it might
the negotiation
with their coun
affect their future relationship
and
(1993), for ex
Gilkey
terparts. Greenhalgh
found that relationship-oriented
negoti
ample,
ators were more
likely to regard interaction as
rather
"events within a long-term relationship,"
of the immediate
than to focus on the exigencies
a
with RSC
As
transaction.
result, individuals
that what
will be likely to believe
in the current situation will be remem
happens
bered in the future (cf.Greenhalgh,
1987).
It is worth noting that the effect of RSC acces
accessible
from
sibility on temporal frames is independent
our hypothesis
of future interde
that conditions
are linked to temporary RSC accessi
pendence
condition
bility. In the latter case, a situational
serves
as
a
"stimulant"
that activates
stored
in the former case, stored
whereas
once
then serves to filter
accessible,
knowledge,
the target situ
and interpret information about
knowledge,
The difference, noted by Higgins
(1996), is
is from
in which
the direction of influence
versus
from
to stored knowledge
the stimulus
of the stimulus.
to perceptions
stored knowledge
can
"The same stimulus
As Higgins
explains,
ation.
one
over
function as a target and a stimulant
...
a
as
a
stim
function
stimulus might first
time
then the stim
ulant and activate a construct...
ulus might function as a target" (1996: 137).
affect infer
Finally, given that self-construals
ences
&
and
1991;
(Fiske
Taylor,
judgments
Markus & Wurf, 1987), in our model we likewise
will affect negoti
predict that RSC accessibility
Numerous
ators'
judgment biases
judgments.
in
been
identified
research,
have
negotiation
in nature
(see
many of which are competitive
et al., 2004, for a review). A critical
the na
then, is how does RSC change
question,
Put differently,
ture of judgment in negotiation?
are attenuated
when RSC is acces
what biases
Thompson
sible?
when
what biases
Likewise,
RSC is accessible?
are
exacerbated
2006 Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
a discussion
of all judgment biases
of this paper, we advance
for future research. For ex
should attenuate
fixed
RSC
ample,
accessibility
or
erroneous
"the
that
the
belief
other
biases,
pie
interests are directly opposed
to one's
party's
Although
is beyond
the scope
several propositions
own
interests when,
in fact, they are often not
(Thompson et al., 2004: 19;
1990). This bias is rooted in
completely
opposed"
Thompson & Hastie,
faulty beliefs and judgments about another par
et al. (2004) refer to as ofher
ty?what Thompson
is linked to negotiators
biases?and
perception
own
on
rather than
their
focusing
preferences
their counterparts'
(Bottom & Paese
son et al., 2004). However, because
1997; Thomp
RSC accessi
is related to cooperative
construals
and a
awareness
of others' goals and in
heightened
terests (Cross et al., 2000; Cross & Madson,
1997),
we expect that negotiators with RSC accessible
bility
that others' inter
be less likely to assume
ests are completely
to
their own at the
opposed
start of negotiations,
and
they will be more
to
accurate
information
about their
likely
gather
over
course
interests
the
of
negotia
partners'
will
tions. Lending
indirect support for this notion,
and Morris
(2003) found that individuals
were
in
to discern others'
RSC
better able
high
values and beliefs than people
low in RSC (see
Cross
also Greenhalgh
& Gilkey,
1993).
reac
should also attenuate
RSC accessibility
tive devaluation
concessions
wherein
biases,
are automatically
made
devalued
simply be
cause
from the other party (Still
they originate
Keltner, & Ross, 1990). Because
to the desire
is related
for
inger, Epelbaum,
RSC accessibility
connections
and mutual
aid
and
support
are more
(Fletcher,
1996), others' concessions
an indication
likely to be viewed positively?as
to sacrifice
that the others are willing
their
needs
for the sake of the relationship.
At the same time, RSC is likely to also exac
certain
erbate
For example,
judgment biases.
given their enhanced
perspective
taking, nego
tiators for whom RSC
is accessible
should be
more vulnerable
to other negotiators'
influence,
and
to
therefore may be particularly
susceptible
effects
&
Tver
(Northcraft
Neale,
1987;
anchoring
1974) and/or others' communi
sky & Kahneman,
cated frames (De Dreu, Emans, & van de Vliert,
1992). Likewise, when
is focused
negotiator
RSC is accessible
and the
on building
relationships,
that negotiator may fall victim to certain "rela
tional illusions." For example,
he or she may be
Nishii,
and
437
O'Brien
about
overly optimistic
the relationship.
and Morris's
viduals
high
others'
This
how
feel about
others
is consistent
with Cross
(2003) work, which shows that indi
in RSC tend to have illusions about
In addi
about the relationship.
is accessible
for whom RSC
tion, negotiators
assume
that
may unconsciously
(inaccurately)
is good for the other is good for the self,
what
even if it is, in fact, economically
disadvanta
a
to
the
self?in
reversal
of the
effect,
geous
feelings
reactive
reduce
may
devaluation
bias.
In all, RSC
biases
competitive
judgment
to other
increase
susceptibility
is likely to
but also
relational
biases.
with our discus
Relational
goals. Consistent
is also ex
sion of relational motivation,
RSC
eco
pected to affect negotiators'
goals. Whereas
nomic capital
has been
the primary
focus of
research, we argue that the accumu
negotiation
is a central goal for
capital
for
is accessible.
whom
Rela
RSC
negotiators
tional capital
is similar to the notion of social
in social
focuses on investments
capital, which
returns (Granovetter,
networks with expected
lation of relational
1998). However, while social capital
theory typically focuses on the overall pattern of
in our
individuals,
among many
relationships
on
model
relational
focuses
the rela
capital
that accumulate
tional assets
within a specific
1985; Portes,
dyadic negotiation
relationship.
We define relational
capital as including as
sets of mutual
trust, and com
liking, knowledge,
mitment to continuing
the relationship. Assets of
mutual
liking
a mutual
when
de
negotiators
develop
to each other. Assets
attraction
velop
of mutual knowledge
develop when negotiators
come to an understanding
of each other's per
and
trust de
of mutual
needs.
Assets
spectives
come
on
when
to
each
velop
negotiators
rely
other to fulfill promises
and see each other as
commitment
Last, assets of mutual
predictable.
a
when
shared de
negotiators
develop
develop
sire to continue
into the future.
the relationship
in our view, goals
for relational
Importantly,
are
not
exclusive
capital
necessarily
mutually
from goals
for economic
capital. Yet we posit
that negotiators
forwhom RSC is highly acces
sible will be likely toweigh
the accumulation
of
as
more
relational
capital
important than the
accumulation
Goals
of economic
for accumulating
to be reflected
expected
tiators have
capital.
relational
in concerns
prior to the negotiation.
capital are
that nego
When RSC
of Management
438 Academy
are likely to be con
is accessible,
negotiators
a positive
cerned with making
impression and
a
on the
negative
impression
avoiding making
in order
other negotiator
ing and trust. Negotiators
to increase
will
lik
mutual
also wish to gain
about the other negotiator,
knowledge
personal
serves
to develop
which
mutual
knowledge.
of relational
And, consistent with our discussion
motivation,
associated
the other
RSC accessibility
with prenegotiation
achieve
negotiator
commitment
to
a
focus (Weingart &
strategic
have as a
Olekalns,
2004). When
negotiators
of relational
the accumulation
principal
goal
in tacti
it follows that they will engage
capital,
the con
that develop and enhance
cal behaviors
nection
with
with
their counterparts
that might threaten
and will
avoid
it (Cross & Mad
relational
son, 1997; Greenhalgh,
1987). Such
concerns will be manifested
in initial offers,
tactics.
concession
making, and early relational
behaviors
negotiators who construe the sit
Specifically,
frames and judgments
uation through relational
relational
and who are focused on developing
mutual
trust,
liking, knowledge,
(e.g.,
capital
initial offers
and commitment) will likely make
that signal an interest in forming a connection
with the other party, and they will refrain from
offers that convey a negative
impres
making
sion. For example,
negotiators with RSC acces
sible will be less likely to state very high initial
harm the
since this could potentially
demands,
to
the
Likewise,
put the
tendency
relationship.
to
be reflected in indi
first is likely
relationship
to make
concessions
viduals' willingness
early
in order to signal their interest
in a negotiation
a connection
with
in building
and sustaining
is supported by Green
(1993) finding that a relation
is willing
tomake con
negotiator
their counterparts.
halgh and Gilkey's
This
ship-oriented
for the sake
cessions with his or her counterpart
that
and by research
of the future relationship,
with sacrific
has shown that RSC is associated
in order to help others
ing one's own desires
a connection
one
is developing
with whom
& Gardner,
et al., 2000; Gabriel
1999).
of
their
because
longer time hori
Generally,
(Cross
is accessible
for whom RSC
to forego short-term economic
for the purposes
of building
relational
zons, negotiators
will be willing
gains
capital
RSC
(cf.Mannix,
accessibility
tactical behavior
1995).
Tinsley, & Bazerman,
is also expected
to relate to
to increase
that serves
rela
tional
tac
Initial offers, concessions,
and relational
1
that
af
illustrates
RSC
tical behavior.
Figure
in early
tactical
behavior
fects negotiators'
are
behaviors
of negotiations.
Tactical
stages
behaviors
April
trust,
(mutual liking, knowledge,
capital
to the relationship).
mutual
commitment
in
with personal
First, RSC will be associated
and
to be
is expected
of
helping
goals
his or her own
fosters loyalty and
goals, which
the relationship.
Review
formation exchange?questions
asked
of the
as well as the willingness
to
other negotiator,
self-disclose
information. Self-disclo
personal
sure is an important factor in the development
of
intimacy and general
ships, since it conveys
trust and
Barrett, & Pietromonaco,
with research
that has
shown
to the other
with RSC
satisfaction
in relation
responsiveness
2003; Laurenceau,
1998). This is consistent
(Cross & Morris,
accessible
that individuals
more in "get
self-disclose
are
and,
consequently,
tasks
acquainted"
as more
viewed
responsive
by their counter
et
research has
al.,
Likewise,
(Cross
2000).
parts
with RSC accessi
also shown that individuals
informa
ble elicit and remember more personal
tion from others
(Cross & Morris, 2003).
to be related to rela
Second, RSC is expected
in
tional tuning tactics, in which an individual
matches
another
tentionally or unintentionally
nonverbal
and paralinguistic
be
negotiator's
tone of voice, and even speech
havior,
tempo
or "mimicry";
"social
(also called
contagion"
1998). This is supported by research
Thompson,
is associated
with in
that has shown that RSC
in non
creased mimicry of partners' behaviors
contexts
1999;
(Chartrand & Bargh,
negotiation
2002; van Baaren,
Maddux,
Sanchez-Burks,
de Bouter, & van Knippenberg,
Chartrand,
2003).
and Bargh (1999) have
For example,
Chartrand
shown that individuals who are high in perspec
tive taking (i.e., being attuned to the behavior
of
to relational
are more
previously)
in behavioral
Like
mimicry.
their counterparts, which
as discussed
cognition,
is related
likely to engage
that
shown
Sanchez-Burkes
wise,
(2002) has
we
are
as
more
have argued,
women, who,
likely
are more
to have
chronic RSC
accessibility,
in behavioral
than
mimicry
likely to engage
men.
is
for whom RSC
negotiators
Generally,
will make efforts to be in sync (Blount
accessible
& lanicik, 2003) in their personal
styles and man
in sync
nerisms.
Being
ness of interactions and
facilitates
the smooth
fosters liking and
rap
2006
Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
& Bargh,
1999), which are key
those with RSC accessible.
forwhom RSC
is
just as negotiators
will likely engage
in behaviors
that
port (Chartrand
concerns among
Finally,
accessible
help to develop
and affirm a connection with
their counterparts,
to use
they will be unlikely
tactics that could potentially
thwart the devel
&
(cf. Greenhalgh
opment of relational
capital
will
avoid
1993). For example,
Gilkey,
they
likely
such as bragging
about
self-enhancement,
or emphasizing
themselves
other options
that
(i.e., their BATNAS).
they have as alternatives
Rather, RSC will lead to a focus on relationship
of
enhancement?expressions
agreement,
going
relationship.
there is no direct evidence
for these
Although
on negotiations
research
with close
notions,
friends and romantic partners?conditions
that
we argue
increase
of
temporary accessibility
some
for these proposi
support
ties among negotiators
have been
found to produce more concession
less
making,
more
and
tactics
competition,
cooperative
RSC?offers
tions. Close
& Chapman,
1998; Halpern,
1992;
&
De
&
Wood,
1969;
Schoeninger
Thompson
et
al.
found
that
1998). Fry
(1983)
Harpport,
dating
used
fewer pressure
tactics and were
couples
less willing
to push hard for their own interests
than were mixed-sex
Polzer,
stranger couples.
(Greenhalgh
and Glenn
that negoti
(1993) also argue
among friends often involve a "politeness
want
to appear
ritual," wherein
negotiators
and
unselfish
modest,
polite,
(Valley, Neale, &
to provide an
Mannix,
1995). Our model begins
of
these tactics might be
understanding
why
how the relational
its
self and
used, showing
associated
and emo
cognitive, motivational,
tional processes
the effects of
may mediate
close ties.
We
have
so
far discussed
the initial
tactical
behaviors
of negotiators
with RSC accessible,
who, we argue, strategically
attempt to accumu
late relational
is,
however,
capital. Negotiation,
in which the
by definition, a dyadic experience,
behavior
of one's counterpart
invariably affects
one's own later tactics and outcomes.
Below we
take
posit
and
O'Brien
439
in dyads
and the congruency
of RSC between
are important determinants
of later
negotiators
relational dynamics
and negotiation
outcomes.
We
first explore
the impact of the strength of
RSC accessibility
in dyads on relational dynam
ics and outcomes.
we assume
In this discussion
that both members
of a negotiating
dyad have
similar levels of RSC accessibility.
We
then ex
amine
the effect of RSC incongruency
in dyads,
and
highlighting
likely relational
dynamics
when
have
dissimilar
consequences
negotiators
levels of RSC accessibility.
Figure 2 summarizes
these relational dynamics.
em
pathy with another's
position, and enthusiasm
about the interaction. Negotiators
forwhom RSC
is accessible
will also be less likely to use dis
tributive tactics, such as putdowns,
threats, and
which
from the on
warnings,
imply separation
Neale,
ations
Nishii,
these levels of analysis
into account
and
that both the strength of RSC accessibility
RSC Accessibility Strengthand Negotiation
Outcomes
A central
is that RSC will have a
prediction
effect on negotiation
outcomes, with
RSC accessibil
negotiators who have moderate
the most overall capital?
ity strength attaining
that is, both high relational and high economic
to negotiators with low or
capital?as
compared
RSC
on these
We elaborate
high
accessibility.
curvilinear
relational
below, discussing
unique
are
to
that
dynamics
likely
transpire among ne
with
and low RSC ac
gotiators
high, moderate,
and
how
to varying levels
lead
cessibility
they
of economic
and relational
capital.
and negotiation
out
High RSC accessibility
comes. We
that dyads
in which
both
predict
predictions
will
parties have very high RSC accessibility
what we refer to as a relational
sat
experience
as shown in Figure 2. These
isfying dynamic,
are predicted
to engage
in rela
negotiators
tional tactical behaviors
and to experience
pos
itive emotions, given that the relational
self is
(i.e., mu
being affirmed and relational
capital
tual liking, knowledge,
trust, and commitment)
is developing.
We
emo
these positive
expect
tions, in turn, to strengthen RSC accessibility
and to further enhance
use of
the negotiators'
relational
tactics (e.g., concessions,
relational
tuning). Because
itive affect and
of the cyclical
of pos
processes
and
highly concessionary
coop
we expect
erative behavior,
that these dyads
will build considerable
relational capital by the
end of the negotiation.
However, we note that these dyads may not
achieve
capital,
or joint economic
very high individual
at least in the short run. Negotiators
with very high RSC accessibility will likelybe
intensely
focused
on the relationship,
and,
thus,
440
Academy
of Management
Review
April
FIGURE 2
High
RSC
Dynamics
RSC
incongruency:
relational
RSC
RSC
1
RSC
integrating
RSC
congruency:
arelational
satisticing
congruency:
relational
Low
congruency:
relational
distancing
RSC Accessibility
Negotiator
in Negotiation
incongruency:
relational
trading
Low
distancing
High
RSC Accessibility
Negotiator
issues will
loom much
relational
larger than
returns
& Gilkey,
economic
(cf. Greenhalgh
1993). Put differently, although
highly conces
are useful for
and
behaviors
cooperative
sionary
of relational
the development
they are
capital,
not necessarily
effective at creating value?or
the pie of resources. Negotiators with
expanding
will also be averse
RSC
very high
accessibility
to appearing
selfish and focusing on their own
to cJaim
and,
thus, will be unlikely
For these reasons, we argue
that these
or
very high individual
dyads may not achieve
economic
joint
capital.
to substanti
future research needs
Although
ate these notions, there is some indirect support
interests
value.
in the lit
friends or
for the relational
satisficing dynamic
erature on negotiations
close
between
we have argued,
romantic partners?conditions,
that temporarily activate
strong RSC accessibil
For example.
Fry et al.
ity among negotiators.
(1983) found that couples achieved
considerably
than
lower joint economic
and,
strangers,
gain
discussed
consistent with the dynamic
above,
that low joint gain was due to con
they argued
cerns for the development
and protection of the
satisfic
The dynamic of relational
relationship.
is
research
also
consistent
with
by Thomp
ing
2
son et al. (1996), who
found that negotiations
fewer integrative
among close friends produced
than negotiations
solutions
among
strangers,
close friends were focused ex
possibly because
on maintaining
clusively
solidarity and agree
ment on nontask
issues and avoiding
disagree
ment on task-related issues (see also Schoeninger
is consistent
& Wood,
1969). Finally, this dynamic
with
research
Tenbrunsel,
Wade-Benzoni,
by
(1999),who found that strong
Moag, and Bazerman
ties among negotiators can produce economically
subobtimal
(see also Curhan, Neale,
agreements
& Ross, 2002, for similar notions regarding rela
We
tional norms and suboptimal
agreements).
to understand many of the
posit that it is possible
above findings, at least in part, through a common
the strength of RSC acces
mechanism?namely,
its
associated
processes.
sibility and
and negotiation
RSC accessibility
in which
the case
Next, we examine
is moderately
RSC accessibility
strong among
in Figure
As shown
2, we expect
negotiators.
Moderate
outcomes.
negotiators who
ity to experience
have moderate
RSC accessibil
what we refer to as a relational
dynamic. As in dyads with high RSC
integrating
both negotiators
accessibility,
in relational
will likely engage
in this condition
tactics and will
2006
Gelfand,
Raver,
Major,
experience
positive emotions as their relational
are
affirmed and relational capital devel
selves
later rela
will engender
ops. Such processes
tional tactics that serve to further strengthen the
capital
they have accumulated.
do not
these individuals
because
However,
as strongly in terms of rela
define themselves
of
they are likely be more mindful
tionships,
relational
the
of the negotiation?namely,
other outcomes
can
economic
In
other
that
be
achieved.
capital
to negotiators
in high RSC ac
words, compared
are unlikely
these
negotiators
cessibility dyads,
on the relationship
to focus exclusively
and will
to creafe economic value
begin identifying ways
both for themselves and the dyad in later stages
of the negotiation.
how
In keeping with our RSC perspective,
in these
value
of economic
ever, the creation
relational
likely have a distinctly
dyads will
re
For example, with their enhanced
of each
lational knowledge
and understanding
in these dyads will
other's interests, negotiators
to identify compatible
is
be in a good position
character.
Nishii,
and
O'Brien
and offers in a rather nonrelational
or discussing
interests re
underlying
of the negotiation.
the material
aspects
garding
error (Pruitt, 1983;
trial and
Such
heuristic
Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988) can help these negotia
proposals
manner,
tors
create
value,
kalns
and
tors
in
late to high joint and individual profit. We note,
the arelational
that although
however,
trading
to produce high
is generally
dynamic
expected
economic capital, it is entirely possible
that, if in
the course of interacting negotiators
shift from a
focus to a competitive
task-oriented
focus, the
dyad
will
achieve
Low
comes.
capital.
RSC
Last,
accessibility
and
we
the
consider
negotiation
case
where
out
nego
tiators have low RSC accessibility,
that
arguing
it will result in what we refer to as an arela
tional trading dynamic.
In this dyadic composi
are likely to engage
tion both negotiators
in
arelational
tactical behavior.
That
is, rather
in relational behaviors
than engage
that lead to
in later
the development
of relational
capital
of
the
will
focus
parts
negotiation,
primar
they
or economic
of the inter
ily on material
aspects
action
and will
exchange?for
engage
largely
example,
in task-oriented
exchanging
multiple
lower
individual
and
joint
gain.
This
nomic
expect
found that negotia
oriented
dyads
individualistically
in the ex
achieve
value
high joint
by engaging
of multiple
issue offers. Pinkley and
change
Northcraft (1994) also found that task frames re
thus, will be more
value
for themselves
likely to cJaim economic
as well.
of the
Because
com
of
relational
tactics,
processes
cyclical
bined with value creation and claiming, we ex
pect that these dyads will build considerable
individual
and joint relational
capital and eco
we
consequently,
(2003), who
Smith
much relational
as other dyadic
time perspectives
(i.e., "I'll give you this now if
me
will
this
later"; Mnookin,
you
give
Peppet, &
to
In
addition
Tulumello,
2000).
creating value,
in these dyads are expected
to be
negotiators
more concerned with their own outcomes
and,
and,
can
in low RSC accessibility
that congruency
lead to high individual and joint economic
cap
ital.
in part by Ole
is supported
This prediction
to recognize possible
tradeoffs, and to sug
can
in
benefit. Likewise,
which
both
gest ways
with their temporally embedded
construal of the
to
create
will
be
able
mutually
negotiation,
they
on different
tradeoffs that capitalize
satisfying
sues,
441
that share low RSC accessi
dyads
are
economic
likely to develop
bility generally
as
it
is
will
that
develop
capital,
unlikely
they
Although
capital, at least in the short run,
described
above,
compositions
on
are
not
the
achieve
that
focused
given
they
ment of relational
In other words,
be
goals.
cause
not
low RSC accessibility
will
negotiators
as
on
of their
be
focused
the relational aspects
interactions,
they will be less likely to develop
outcomes
that
is consistent
include
with
relational
components.
Pinkley and Northcraft's
the authors
that
argue
do not tend to have re
issues in their final set
work
(1994), in which
task-focused
disputants
lationship maintenance
tlements. More generally,
effects for negotiators
are expected
to be
with low RSC accessibility
the mirror image of those with high RSC acces
are expected
to
sibility: low RSC negotiators
accumulate
economic
whereas
relatively low economic
relational
capital.
accumulate
high
RSC
relatively high individual and joint
low relational
and
capital
capital,
are expected
to
RSC
high
negotiators
Congruency
versus
capital
and
Incongruency
In the discussion
above we assumed
that both
a
in
shared
similar
levels of
negotiators
dyad
not
RSC accessibility.
this
be the
Yet, often,
may
442
Academy
of Management
"What rela
case, raising the natural question,
tional dynamics
outcomes
and
characterize
such dyads?" A key prediction
of our model
is
that dyadic
of RSC will relate to
incongruency
lower joint economic and relational capital
than
of the negotia
congruency,
dyadic
regardless
tors' strength of RSC
is
There
accessibility.
in goals
abundant
evidence
that incongruency
(e.g., Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001), values
(e.g.,
Adkins, Russell, & Werbel,
1994), and/or person
ality (e.g. Smith, 1998) is related to higher con
flict (lehn, Chad wick, & Thatcher,
1997), lower
communication
&
Kuhn,
(Gelfand,
quality
more
and
Radhakrishnan,
1996),
per
negative
of interaction partners
(Adkins et al.,
ceptions
is also related to lower trust,
1994). Incongruency
and
satisfaction,
Jansen, & Colbert,
commitment
(Kristof-Brown,
2002). In contrast, congruency
to be beneficial
it increases
because
is thought
attraction
and
liking (Byrne, 1961; Newcomb,
to
1956; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly,
1992), contributes
social
individuals'
and
self
positive
identity
esteem
1989; Tajfel & Turner,
(Ashforth & Mael,
coordinate
their be
1986), and helps partners
to a common
set of expecta
havior according
tions (Barsade, Ward,
Turner, & Sonnenfeld,
& DeHarpport,
2000; Thompson
1998; Triandis,
1959).
on this literature, we expect
that in
Building
in
which
have
negotiators
incongruent
dyads
levels
of RSC
is
RSC
accessibility?where
between
asymmetric
negotiators?negotiators
will have lower perceptions
of similarity, expe
rience more negative
emotions, have difficulty
lower trust
interactions, and have
coordinating
and commitment, all likely to thwart the ability
to understand
of the negotiators
each other's
interests and make
tradeoffs.
mutual
discussion
of RSC accessibility
Our previous
also helps us to further understand
the negative
to be
that are expected
negotiation
dynamics
For exam
with RSC
incongruency.
expe
ple, persons with strong RSC accessibility
their
rience distress and negative
affect when
a connection
are thwarted
efforts to develop
associated
in behaviors
1997), resulting
(Cross & Madson,
to with
from
relational
ranging
aggression
from the interaction
drawal
(Cross & Madson,
or with
of whether aggression
1997). Regardless
as a response, we argue
that
result for both is the same: since
the ultimate
leads to the creation
neither of these behaviors
to congruent
of value, we predict that, compared
drawal
is chosen
dyads,
Review
April
dyads with RSC
incongruency
achieve
lower individual
and
will
ulti
joint eco
a further
mately
nomic capital and will also experience
of the relationship,
to lower
distancing
leading
relational
In addition,
these dyads are
capital.
more unequal
likely to experience
negotiation
outcomes,
with
individuals
in RSC
high
than
likely
those low in
as a rela
refer to this phenomenon
tional distancing
in
dynamic, depicted
Figure 2.
little
research
has
the
Although
investigated
versus
of
incon
congruency
impact
negotiator
achieving
RSC. We
lower
outcomes
indirect support
for this proposition
gruency,
can be found in the negotiation
literature. For
and
(1998)
example,
Thompson
DeHarpport
found that friends engaging
tasks who were dissimilar
tation obtained
in problem-solving
in communal
lower settlement
to friends who
pared
or very low communal
relational distancing
outcomes
orien
com
both had
either very high
orientation. Our notion of
is also consistent with re
search
and Keros
(2002), who found
by McGinn
one party
in
that in asymmetric
which
dyads
was
and
the
other
cooperated
nonresponsive,
the cooperator
reacted in one of two ways: he or
she either became
angry and lashed out at the
other party or broke off from the interaction and
sacrificed
research
has
Likewise,
agreement.
shown that prosocial
individuals
respond very
competitively
when
dealing
with
noncoopera
tive individuals (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970;Van
the relational
1999). Finally,
Lange,
distancing
is also
dynamic
indirectly
supported
by re
on
we
search
linked to
gender, which
previously
In situations
is ex
where
RSC.
cooperation
women
not
have been
pected but
forthcoming,
found to react with
and
anger
aggression
&
1997; Rapoport
(Mikolic, Parker, & Pruitt,
1965; Swap & Rubin, 1983; Tedeschi,
Chammah,
Schlenker, & Bonoma,
1973).
Postsettlement
Compliance
and
Future
Negotiations
are not always
one
discrete,
Negotiations
time events (Mannix et al., 1995) but, rather, re
with agreements
and the pos
quire compliance
even
interaction.
if an
of
future
Thus,
sibility
is reached,
it may
fall through be
agreement
cause one or both parties ultimately
renege on
the terms of the agreement
&
1996).
(Barry Oliver,
We
that the relational
that
predict
dynamics
ne
the
will
affect
negotiation
transpire during
2006
Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
to comply with agree
willingness
gotiators'
in
ments, as well as their interest in engaging
in dyads
For example,
future negotiations.
will
is incongruent, negotiators
RSC
which
and
they may also gain considerable
ital over the long run.
in incongruent
negotiators
dyads will
more
emotions, have
negative
likely experience
more difficulty coordinating
action and develop
and
lower joint economic
ing trust, and achieve
in
of
result
should
all
which
relational
capital,
to agreements
reached
and
less commitment
in future negotiations.
less interest in engaging
that
These notions are consistent with research
is re
in groups
that incongruency
to lower commitment,
and
lated
motivation,
turnover (see Kristof-Brown,
1996, for a review),
as well as with research by Allred et al. (1997),
shown
found that negotiators who experience
neg
have less of
ative emotions during negotiations
a desire
in the
to interact with their partners
who
& Arnold, 2001).
future (see also O'Connor
in which RSC
is congruent, we ex
In dyads
to comply
that negotiators'
willingness
pect
in future negotia
and engage
with agreements
tions will be contingent on the amount of eco
as well
nomic and relational
capital achieved,
in the dyad.
the strength of RSC accessibility
In dyads with high RSC accessibility,
negotia
to comply
tors will be more satisfied and willing
to the extent
with
agreements
they have
even
if they
achieved
high relational
capital,
as
not achieved
capital.
significant economic
are in markets where oppor
If such negotiators
tunity costs and uncertainty about exploitation
with other partners are high, this accumulation
of relational
capital
early on may ultimately
have
to considerable
economic
gain over the
run
et
Tenbrunsel
al.,
1999).
(cf.
long
In contrast, in dyads with low RSC accessibil
ity, negotiators will be more satisfied and will
to the extent that
ing to comply with agreements
re
economic
have
achieved
capital,
they
high
of the relational capital
gardless
initially devel
re
Indeed, as noted by an anonymous
oped.
if there
cap
DISCUSSION
research, while
thriving, histori
Negotiation
an arela
as
has
been
criticized
having
cally
on
tional bias?focusing
autonomy,
primarily
rather than inter
rationality,
and
relationality. Yet,
cooperation,
dependence,
work has
little conceptual
with few exceptions,
competition,
is an
for ongoing
opportunity
economic
ulti
gain may
high
these negotiators more committed
tomaintaining
in order to reap
their connection
economic benefits (and possibly even
additional
strengthen RSC in these dyads), and, ultimately,
and
been done to specify the precise nature of the
or how it affects nego
construct of relationality
tiators' psychological
states,
tactics, and out
comes.
beyond abstract cri
a con
and to provide
tiques of arelationality
on the
crete agenda
for future research. Drawing
of the rela
literature on the social psychology
a more compre
tional self, we have advanced
We
have
sought
to move
in negotiation.
of relationality
model
to certain individual
that, in addition
argued
of
in chronic accessibility
and group differences
context can in
RSC, features of the negotiation
crease
of RSC, as
the temporary accessibility
hensive
We
as inhibit its use. We also delineated
how
to negotiators'
is linked
RSC
psychological
states (frames, judgments, and goals) and early
rela
and detailed
tactical
behavior,
unique
rela
tional dynamics?relational
satisficing,
well
tional
arelational
trading, and rela
can
occur
at
the
distancing?that
on
the dyadic composi
table based
negotiation
tion of RSC. Our account clearly shows that dif
ferent forms of negotiating
relationally
bring
tional
integrating,
distinct benefits and costs to the negotiation
in the pursuit
table, which need to be balanced
of relational and economic
capital.
lead
transactions,
mately make
relational
in
cussed,
viewer,
443
O'Brien
be
and to
to comply with agreements
less willing
coun
in
with
their
future
engage
negotiations
dis
to
As
relative
congruent
terparts
dyads.
has
Nishii,
Implications
for Theory and Research
has the po
Our model of RSC in negotiation
tential to expand negotiation
theory by opening
of looking at previous
research
up new ways
across
ar
and by illustrating
diverse
linkages
eas
in the field. For example, we have begun
to
areas such as negotiations
show how disparate
with close others, gender differences, and differ
ences across communication
can be seen,
media
at least in part, through a common
lens: the
relational
ation
search
self. Our model
theory by offering
on
age-old
also
new
phenomena.
expands
avenues
For
example,
negoti
for re
we
444
the focus on economic
in the field, to also
prioritized
expand
Academy
of Management
is
capital, which
a
on
include
focus
relational
capital.
Our model highlights
the critical need to de
of rela
velop and
incorporate
good measures
into negotiation
tional constructs
research. For
a number
there are
of existing
tunately,
measures
of RSC
that can readily be incorpo
rated into negotiation
research
(see Aron et al.,
et al., 2000; Kashima
et al,
1992; Cross
1995;
Kashima
& Hardie,
the creation
of
2000), and
new priming measures
of the relational
self
in this regard as well
would
(see
prove useful
Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto,
1991, for examples
of priming
the collective
self). Yet other rela
tional constructs
that we have advanced
that
are specific to negotiation
need further research
our model
attention. For example,
illustrates the
to the dimensions
need to assign
value
of rela
tional capital
that we have articulated
(mutual
mutual
liking, mutual
respect, and
knowledge,
in experimental
mutual
and field
commitment)
con
studies. Likewise,
relational aggression?a
a
struct that arguably
"downside"
of
represents
RSC?should
also be the focus of measurement
in negotiation.
Our discussion
the importance
of
highlights
constructs
negotiation
existing
lens. Future re
through an RSC
reexamining
and
theories
search
will benefit, for example,
from examin
in
the
of
vis-?
power
ing
negotiation
dynamics
vis RSC. Although
has
high power generally
been linked to self-interested behavior
(e.g., Kip
in conflicts
nis, 1972) and judgmental
inaccuracy
in
(Ebenbach & Keltner, 1998), power
negotiation
is likely to be used in a more socially responsive
This is consistent
way when RSC is accessible.
with research by Chen et al. (2001), who
found
in positions of power who had a
that individuals
orientation"
"communal
to the needs
were
more
responsive
itwould be
of others. Accordingly,
how RSC moderates
the
interesting to examine
effect of high power in negotiations.
We would
that having a high BATNA
predict, for example,
tactics among ne
likely influence
low
RSC
than nego
gotiators
accessibility
tiators with high RSC accessibility.
The latter
more
to
mention
be
their
BATNAs
reluctant
may
as leverage,
since this could thwart the devel
a rela
Likewise,
opment of relational
capital.
would
more
with
on cognitive biases
in nego
tional perspective
we
tiation might
fruitful.
Earlier
also
prove
how RSC might attenuate
discussed
fixed-pie
and
f?eview
April
devaluation
biases, but an equally
concerns whether
there are
question
reactive
important
that have heretofore not surfaced
unique biases
that might occur as a result of RSC accessibility.
As noted above, our model
illustrates
the im
of looking not only at individual-level
portance
in RSC at the dyadic
RSC but at congruency
level in negotiation
research.
there
Although
has been some research on congruency
in nego
tiation (e.g., McGinn
& Keros, 2002; Pinkley &
& DeHarpport,
Northcraft, 1994; Thompson
1998),
models
of negotiation
tend to focus on the indi
vidual
level of analysis.
For example,
the dual
concern model
&
of the
(Pruitt
Rubin, 1986)?one
most widely discussed
models
of conflict man
on a single
individual's
agement?focuses
ap
to conflict management.
Our analysis
the necessity
of looking not only at an
individual's
but
strength of RSC accessibility
proach
shows
also
the congruency
that exists (or lack thereof)
in order to better predict dynamics
and out
comes of negotiations.
Future
research would
also benefit from examining
factors that moder
ate the negative
effect of RSC
in
incongruity
in conditions
For example,
share
negotiators
superordinate
goals,
to overcome
the potentially
may be able
negotiation.
where
dyads
nega
tive effects of incongruity (Hunger & Stern, 1976;
in which both
Sherif & Sherif, 1969). Situations
have
few
alternative
negotiators
options
(e.g.,
each has a low BATNA) may also mitigate
neg
ative effects of incongruency,
since negotiators
towork together to find a
will be more motivated
good solution.
The theory also provides an alternative way to
individual
in negotia
understand
differences
tion.We have argued
that individual differences
are dynamic
and do not necessarily
translate
into behavior
if they are not relevant to the con
text. For instance, although women
are gener
we
in
RSC
than
have
men,
ally higher
argued
that RSC
will
be
inhibited
under
certain
condi
attenuate
should
differ
tions, which
gender
ences. Our focus shifts the discussion
of gender
in negotiation
differences
from stable
traits,
to differentiate males
which are typically used
to social
self-schemas
females,
cognition:
that are dynamically
accessible
and are context
Future research may benefit from an
dependent.
examination
of gender
and other individual
difference
variables
using a social
cognition
and
perspective
(Morris & Gelfand,
2004).
2006
Finally,
selective
RSC has
Gelfand,
Major,
Raver,
been
although we have necessarily
in our discussion
of the potential
that
an
for negotiation
RSC
research,
per
would be useful in the field of organi
behavior
Similar
(OB) more generally.
spective
zational
to the negotiation
literature
literature, the OB
has been criticized as having an arelational
fo
cus (Fletcher & lacques,
1999; see also Barry &
Crant, 2000, and Bradbury & Bergmann,
2000).
would ben
We believe
that an RSC perspective
efit a wide
For exam
range of OB phenomena.
to emotional
labor?
ple, RSC may be related
that is, the strain that people experience
in roles
to
meet
there is a constant
where
requirement
to others (e.g.,
the needs of and to be responsive
service
and
Nishii,
445
O'Brien
tion and has the potential
to enhance
negotia
tion training. For example,
the model
of RSC
and negotiation
delineates
conditions
that are
to
accentuate
either
expected
(e.g., negotiations
over
with friends) or attenuate
(e.g., negotiations
in negotiations.
lean media)
RSC
Just as nego
tiators can be taught strategies
for problem
that they can also be taught
solving, we believe
to be aware of the costs and benefits of various
in negotiation.
relational
For in
dynamics
trainers can highlight
the conditions
stance,
that may foster a relational
satisficing dynamic
and they can teach strate
among negotiators,
economic
in addition
gies fordeveloping
capital
to relational
Likewise,
capital.
they can high
1998; Hochschild,
1983;
providers; Gross,
with
accessible
RSC
1993). People
may
less strain than those with
generally
experience
low RSC accessibility
because
they are more
in dyads
light the impact of RSC
incongruency
and help negotiators
to over
develop
strategies
come these negative
More
dynamics.
generally,
we move beyond recommendations
to "separate
is also
accessible.
RSC
relevant
for the
of organizational
behaviors
citizenship
(Organ, 1988), since individuals with RSC acces
to engage
in interper
sible may be more willing
ing relational
capital as a goal of negotiations
that is on par with attaining
economic
capital,
we also emphasize
the importance of relation
Rafaeli,
in developing
relation
interested
genuinely
ships (cf. Pugh, 2002). At the same time, conflic
tual relationships
with customers or clients may
be the source of more stress among
those with
RSC
study
oriented
sonally
2002). RSC
is also
behaviors
helping
relevant
(Lee & Allen,
in or
for leadership
Researchers
and theorists have be
ganizations.
to
link
the
between
gun
investigate
leadership
and
followers'
(Lord & Brown,
self-concepts
that a rela
2004), and there is some evidence
tional connection with one's leader is important
for follower empowerment
&
(Kark, Shamir,
Chen, 2003), an effect that we would expect to be
for those with RSC accessible.
On
pronounced
the flip side, itwould also be interesting to ex
on spe
amine
the impact of RSC accessibility
cific behaviors
of leaders
(e.g., transformational
versus transactional
approaches).
in macro
Last, RSC may be implicated
phe
nomena,
such
as
organizational
culture.
For
ex
if the founder of a company
has high
ample,
we might expect that
chronic RSC accessibility,
a relational
the he or she may develop
culture
sen
that emphasizes
cooperation,
interpersonal
sitivity, and mutual
empowerment.
the people
from the problem"
(Fisher, Ury, &
Patton, 1991: 17) and, instead, delineate
specific
are fo
that can occur when people
dynamics
cused on relationality
in negotiation.
By includ
Implications
Our model
relational
to identify when and how
begins
issues become manifest
in negotia
a
should
about
legitimate
goal
be concerned.
Remarks
Concluding
in the nature of the self,
Our model, grounded
offers a distinctly relational view of negotiation.
It helps us to understand
in
diverse phenomena
new
raises
for
negotiation,
questions
empirical
investigation,
complex
and
dynamics
illuminates
the
ultimately
to negotiate
of what itmeans
relationally.
REFERENCES
C. L., Russell,
C. J.,& Werbel,
fit in the selection
The
process:
Personnel
gruence.
Psychology,
Adkins,
Allred,
K. G., Mallozzi,
influence
of anger
J.S., Matsui,
and
S. M.,
& Chen,
J.D. 1994. Judgments o?
con
role of work value
47: 605-623.
F., & Raia, C. P. 1997. The
on negotiation
per
and Human
Deci
compassion
Behavior
formance:
Organizational
sion Processes,
70: 175-187.
Andersen,
for Practice
as
ship maintenance
which negotiators
S.
2002.
interpersonal
social-cognitive
view,
109: 619-645.
The
relational
self: An
theory. Psychological
Re
D. 1992. Inclusion
of others in
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollman,
the self scale and
the structure of interpersonal
close
of Management
446 Academy
ness.
Journal
of Personality
and
Social
Review
63:
Psychology,
B. E., & Mael,
organization.
39.
identity theory and the
14: 20
of Management
Review,
F.
1989. Social
Academy
Bakan, D. 1966. The duality
con Press.
M. W.
Baldwin.
of social
information.
Bargh,
additive
1991. Contextualizing
of disputes
and
anthropology
and
of Personality
R.
on
and
sonality
S. G., Ward,
Barsade,
A. J.,Turner,
Chen,
in
Bazerman,
2000. Negotiation.
314.
J.A.
Benton,
A. A., & Druckman,
Review
D.
1973. Salient
and
solutions
the
of representatives
and nonrepre
3:
Tensions,
International
Journal of Group
behavior
bargaining
sentatives.
28-39.
S, &
on managing
teams in organiza
and
groups
4: 235-266. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
tions, vol.
Bottom, W.
P.
P., & Paese,
1997. False
consensus,
of integrative
the perception
of Applied
Social
Journal
and
cues,
gotiation.
1919-1940.
J. S.
64:
Review,
Brewer,
M.
Stereotypie
in ne
of collective
readiness.
1996. Who
identity and self representations.
71: 83-93.
and Social
Psychology,
1961. Interpersonal
attraction
and
attitude
P. L., & Morris,
self-construal
interdependent
of Personality
S.
and
and
L.
gender.
Cross.
of
M.
about
J. S. 2002. Thinking
self
relational-interdependent
Journal of Personality
cognition.
social
3: 399-418.
L. 2002. The O. Henry
A., & Ross,
norms and
pre
negotiations.
Paper
of Man
the annual
of the Academy
meeting
at
M.
Denver.
Conklin,
perspective
L., Smith,
taking
C. K. W.,
A., &
on
Luce,
the cognitive
of self and other.
A merging
persons:
and Social
Psychology,
De Dreu,
Self
122: 5-37.
The
ality
similar
the self:
Relational
sented
M.
of
Bulletin,
L., & Gore,
Psychology,
J. R., Neale,
effect:
1997. Models
Psychological
to know you: The
L. 2003. Getting
and well
relational
cognition,
29:
and Social
Bulletin,
Psychology
others:
and
Social
agement,
Levels
Journal
and
construal
Curhan,
relational
self-construal,
S. E., Morris,
oneself
L. 2000. The
and
M.
S. E., & Morris,
relational
M.
Journal
relationships.
78: 191-208.
Psychology,
Social
E., & Madson,
construals
Cross,
you say that: An electronic
and Gaming,
30: 23
Simulation
simulation.
S. E., Bacon,
Cross,
Psychological
is this "we"?
Sage.
at me when
1999. Look
negotiation
37.
Davis,
W.
Park, CA:
R.
Croson,
27:
123-152.
B., & Gardner,
Personality
Byrne, D.
perceptual
Kim, U., & Choi,
Newbury
and
1957. On
Social
of
S. H. 1993. Indigenous
analysis
In
A Korean
perspective.
representations:
U. Kim & J.W. Berry
(Eds.), Indigenous
psychologies:
in cultural
context:
193-210.
Research
and
experience
S.C
Personality
being.
512-523.
in orga
B. M. 2000. Relationality
Bradbury, H., & Bergmann,
between.
Or
the
research:
nizational
space
Exploring
11: 551-564.
Science,
ganization
Bruner,
and
Personality
collective
potential
Psychology,
representations.
A. Y., & Bargh,
S., Lee-Chai,
J.A. 2001. Relationship
as a moderator
of the effects of social power.
and Social
80: 173
Psychology,
Janicik, G.
Research
ap
theory-based
and transfer
representations
theories about
S. 2003. Psychological-state
significant
for the content and structure of sig
Implications
Cross,
2003. Getting
and
in-pace:
staying
for work
its implications
and
The
in-synch preference
E. Mannix,
& H. Sondak
In M. A. Neale,
(Eds.),
groups.
Blount,
representations
A
S. M., & Dollinger,
S. J. 1993. Photographic
depictions
Clancy,
con
in social
and age differences
of the self: Gender
Sex Roles,
29: 477-495.
nectedness.
K. L.
D. A., & Valley,
51: 279
of Psychology,
J.R., Moore,
Annual
in mental
perception:
187.
Choi,
45: 802-836.
M. H., Curhan,
76: 893
Psychology,
orientation
content: A model
of affective diver
2000. To your heart's
teams. Administrative
Science
sity in top management
Quarterly,
Cognition:
Associates.
nificant-other
A
negotiation:
and
Behavior
J.D. F., & Sonnenfeld,
effect:
interaction.
Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1285-1302
Psychology,
R. L. 1996. Affect in dyadic
Barry, B., & Oliver,
and propositions.
model
Organizational
67: 127-143.
Decision
Human
Processes,
chameleon
social
others:
of Per
negotiation.
74: 345-359.
integrative
Social
self
behav
social psychol
(Ed.), Cognitive
on the Legacy
and Future
Symposium
Erl
125-142. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
of Social
Chen,
characteristics
Journal
in social
ogy: The Princeton
baum
communication
relation
Barry, B., & Crant, M. J. 2000. Dyadic
in organizations:
An attribution
ap
expectancy
ships
11: 648-664.
Science,
proach. Organization
1998. Bargainer
Social
to significant-other
proach
ence.
In G. B. Moskowitz
the
zerman, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard,
(Eds.), Research
on negotiation
in organizations,
vol. 3: 165-199. Green
wich, CT: JAI Press.
R. A.
to human
1999. The
role of theories
their use
and
In M. H. Ba
negotiations.
S. 2001. The
Chen,
Social
Notes
conflict:
and
1981. Attention
link and
and
62: 713?
Psychology,
910.
J.,& Tota, M. E. 1986. The
sources
of
and
temporary
of chronic
Barry, B., & Friedman,
and
distributive
F.
J.A.
perception-behavior
W.
Journal
accessibility.
50: 869-878.
Psychology,
S.
M.
Scheier,
T. L, & Bargh,
Chartrand,
and
Psychological
construct
Barley,
Bea
the processing
3: 461-484.
Bulletin,
sch?mas
R. N., Lomabardi,
nature
Boston:
S., &
Social
A control theory approach
regulations:
ior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
The
1992. Relational
J.,Bond,
existence.
of human
C.
Carver,
and
of Abnormal
ity. Journal
715.
596-612.
Ashforth,
April
& Carnevale,
C.
1996. Effect
70: 713-726.
P. J.2003. Motivational
of
of
representation
Journal of Person
bases
2006
social
Raver,
Major,
in negotiation
strategy
in Experimental
Social
and
processing
conflict. Advances
of information
and
Gelfand,
or loss
gain
tional Journal
Interna
behavior.
negotiation
of Conflict
3: 115-132.
Management,
and
Social
Psychology,
and
justifications"
"Implicit
Journal of Organizational
group allocations.
18: 3-16.
K. A.
Diekmann,
serving
havior,
D.
Ebenbach,
1997.
H., &
judgmental
cognitive
20: 7-21.
R., Ury, W.,
ating
D.
Keltner,
and
without
emotion,
self
Be
and
the
Motivating
Social
Psychology,
conflict:
Applied
to yes: Negoti
1991. Getting
in (2nd ed.). New York:
B.
& Patton,
agreement
1998. Power,
in social
accuracy
miser.
Basic
giving
Penguin.
1991. Social
cognition
(2nd ed.).
Work
J.K. 1996. Relational
theory in the workplace.
The
in Progress
No. 77, Stone
Center,
Series,
paper
for Women,
Centers
College,
Wellesley
Wellesley
MA.
Wellesley,
Fletcher,
R.
J. K., &
An
1999. Relational
practice:
Jacques,
its significance
for or
stream of theory and
for
No. 2, Center
studies. Working
paper
ganizational
of
in Organizations,
School
Graduate
Gender
Simmons
emerging
Boston.
Management,
Fry, W.
and outcome
process
ples: Do lovers lose?
ogy, 4: 1-16.
Gabriel,
W.
S., & Gardner,
L. 1999. Are
types of interdependence?
in collective
differences
dence
sonality
stereotype
Decreasing
bility, and
and
The
versus
implications
relational
Psychology,
"hers"
of gender
cognition.
77: 642-655.
B. 2000. Perspective-taking:
accessi
stereotype
expression,
Journal
78: 708-724.
of Personality
social
In M. Ruderman,
M. Hughes-James,
& S. E.
on team diversity:
53
research
Center
for Creative
Leadership/
and
&
Realo,
accountability
Applied
Psychology,
A.
Thousand
CA:
Oaks,
Sage.
R. W.
1993. The effect of relation
L., & Gilkey,
on negotiators'
and
tactics.
cognitions
2: 167-186.
Decision
and Negotiation,
orientation
ship
Group
field of emotion
J. 1998. The emerging
review. Review
of General
Gross,
integrative
271-299.
Gruder,
C.
L.
1971. Relationship
1999.
J. 1992. The
Halpern,
negotiations.
Journal
of
An
2:
Journal
partner
Resolu
on bargaining:
Ex
effect of friendship
of personal
transactions.
business
studies
perimental
of Management
Academy
68.
Best
Higgins,
and
E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy:
affect. Psychological
Review,
Higgins,
E. T.
E. T.
plicability
1989. Knowledge
and suffering
Paper
(Eds.), Social
133-168. New
Kruglanski
E. T., & Brendl,
Some
bility:
Journal
64
Proceedings:
A
theory relating
94: 319-340.
and
accessibility
from unconscious
self
activation:
sources.
In
thought: The
75-123. New
Press.
1996. Knowledge
and
salience.
principles:
M.
"activation
of Experimental
activation:
ap
Accessibility,
T. Higgins
& A. W.
of basic
Handbook
psychology:
York: Guilford
Press.
In E.
1995. Accessibility
and applica
rules"
influencing
judgment.
Social
31: 218-243.
Psychololgy,
con
E. T., & King, G.
1981. Accessibility
of social
Higgins,
structs:
Information
of indi
consequences
processing
In N. Cantor
vidual
and contextual
& J.Kihl
variability.
(Eds.),
interaction:
Individualism-collectivism
in intergroup
84: 721-736.
and
opponent
of Conflict
with
bargaining.
regulation:
Psychology,
tion, 15: 403-416.
strom
APA.
M.,
166-185.
process:
Greenhalgh,
Higgins,
Gelfand,
Negotia
D. I. 1998. Negotiator
relation
L., & Chapman,
of
and demonstration
measurement,
ships: Construct
their impact on processes
and outcomes
of negotiation.
7: 465-489.
and Negotiation.
Decision
Group
P. 1996. The effects
M., Kuhn, M., & Radhakrishnan,
on social
of value differences
interaction
and
processes
formanag
in organizations:
job outcomes
Implications
NC:
The
of Sociol
D. 1.1995. Joint decision-making:
L. & Chapman,
Greenhalgh,
In
The inseparability
of relationships
and negotiation.
as a
& D. M. Messick
R. M. Kramer
(Eds.), Negotiation
York: Guilford
Gelfand,
Selected
Journal
in negotiation.
L. 1987. Relationships
Greenhalgh,
tion Journal, 3: 235-243.
Higgins,
ing diversity.
structure:
social
and
American
performance.
& J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended
limits of awareness,
intention, and control:
W.
(Eds.)
Jackson
71. Greensboro,
higher
the
Using
of negotiation
B. 1994. The gender-based
foundations
B. H. Sheppard,
& R. Bies
(Eds.),
theory. In R. J. Lewicki,
on negotiation
in organizations,
vol. 4: 3-36.
flesearch
CT: JAI Press.
Greenwich,
L. 2002. When
L., Gabriel,
S., & Hochschild,
you
I are
The
and
role of
"we," you are not threatening:
in social
Journal of Person
comparison.
self-expansion
82: 239-251.
ality and Social
Psychology,
Gardner,
way:
Gray,
Subjectivity
J.S. Uleman
G.
favoritism.
in-group
Social
there "his" and
interdepen
Journal of Per
for affect, behavior,
and
and Social
Psychology,
A. D., & Moskowitz,
Galinsky,
to achieve
1985. Economic
M.
Airlines
Southwest
of embeddedness.
problem
ogy, 91: 481-510.
in mixed-motive
D. 1983. Negotiation
I. J.,& Williams,
cou
of stranger dyads and dating
Social
Basic and Applied
Psychol
R., Firestone,
The
2003.
of relationships
power
New York: McGraw-Hill.
theory
Harvard
Psychological
MA:
Cambridge,
Greenhalgh,
S. T., & Taylor, S. E.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske,
Fletcher,
J. H.
Gittell,
and
1989. Stereotypes
controlled
components.
voice:
development.
Press.
Granovetter,
Their automatic
prejudice:
and
56: 680-690.
P.
Devine,
Fisher,
on
frame
1982. In a different
women's
University
De Dreu, C. K. W., Emans, B. J.M., & van de Vliert, E. 1992. The
and other's
communicated
of own cognitive
influence
447
O'Brien
C.
Gilligan,
and
35: 235-291.
Psychology,
and
Nishii,
Personality,
69-121. Hillsdale,
cognition,
NJ: Lawrence
and
social
Erlbaum
As
sociates.
Higgins,
E. T., Shah,
J.,& Friedman,
R.
1997. Emotional
re
448
to goal
sponses
as a moderator.
attainment:
Journal
focus
Strength of regulatory
and Social
of Personality
Psy
A. R.
Hochschild,
of California
University
Berkeley:
feeling.
&
assessment
1976. An
L. W.
Stern,
the
of
con
in reducing
19: 591-605.
of the superordinate
goal
of Management
Journal,
functionality
flict. Academy
outcomes,
group
International
development.
in diversity: More
growth
9-24. New
B., & Chen,
Kark, R., Shamir,
and
Empowerment
leadership:
88: 246-255.
of Applied
Psychology,
formational
Journal
E. A.
E., & Hardie,
Kashima,
Asian
(RIC) scale.
self-aspects
ogy, 3: 19-58.
Journal
Psychol
M. J.,
S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand,
Y., Yamaguchi,
& Yuki, M. 1995. Culture,
gender, and self: A perspective
of
research.
from individualism-collectivism
Journal
and
Social
interaction
basis
J. 1970. Social
others.
beliefs
about
competitors'
A.
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski,
and
of cooperators'
and
Social
of
representations
Social
Psychology,
in Experimental
the self. Advances
16: 66-91.
Psychology,
1984. Mental
N.
J. F., & Cantor,
Kihlstrom
69: 935-937.
Psychology,
17: 2-48.
J.F., & Klein, S. B. 1994. The self as a knowledge
of
In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook
structure.
Kihlstrom,
King, W. C
1994. The
on
relationship
and outcomes
power
Kipnis, D. 1972. Does
and Social
Psychology,
Kolb,
of sex and
influence
preferences,
in a negotiation
corrupt?
24: 33-41.
J.W.
Kramer,
Journal
R. M., & Messick,
New
CA:
Oaks,
MA:
the table.
In
L.,
ing over
62: 241-251.
Markus,
H. R.
information
and processing
and Social
of Personality
Psychol
1977. Self-sch?mas
the self. Journal
about
35: 63-78.
ogy,
the self:
and
S. 1991. Culture
R., & Kitayama,
for cognition,
emotion, and motivation.
Psy
98: 224-253.
Review,
chological
H.
Markus,
Implications
Markus,
of
and malleability
1986. Stability
and Social
of Personality
A.
H. R., & Kunda,
the self concept.
Journal
51: 50-71.
chology,
Psy
D. 1988. Gender
and thought: The
H. R., & Oyserman,
In M. Crawford
& M. Hamilton
role of the self-concept.
and thought: 100-127. New York: Springer
(Eds.), Gender
Jansen,
study
K.
H. R., Smith,
Markus,
fit: An
measurement
and
49:
J., & Colbert,
of the simultaneous
K. L., & Croson,
mean
Thousand
ness.
In M.
1-49.
A. E.
2002. A
effects
of fit
E.
psychological
38: 299-337.
chology,
R. L. 1985. Role
of others.
perception
Social
H. R., & Wurf,
media
integrative
im
and
J.,& Moreland,
in the social
social
McGinn,
L.
A.
M. 1995. Negotiat
E. A., Tinsley, C. H., & Bazerman,
to integrative
solutions.
Or
time: Impediments
Decision
Processes,
and Human
Behavior
ganizational
Mannix,
as a social
Sage.
policy-capturing
group negotiation,
5: 343-368.
flict Management,
concept
theory and
on Negotia
Program
1995. Negotiation
in theory and research.
review
Kristof-Brown,
The effects of power,
again?
in
the scope of future interaction
/nfernafional
Journal of Con
and
small
Personality
D. M.
1996. Person-organization
of its conceptualizations,
Personnel
Psychology,
plications.
Kristof,
A.
trends
norms,
distribution
ve-lag.
exper
of Personality
at
1991. Her place
G.
& Coolidge,
Breslin & J. Z. Rubin
(Eds.), Negotiation
process:
and
Asso
we meet
1994. Will
E. A.
Mannix,
Markus,
D. M.,
261-277. Cambridge,
practice:
Law School.
tion, Harvard
assess
20: 605-624.
of Management,
iment. Journal
processes
Erlbaum
Leadership
NJ: Lawrence
Markus,
T. D.
& Hinson,
sensitivity
equity
ment of opponent,
NJ: Lawrence
1: 153-208. Hillsdale,
vol.
cognition,
Associates.
Erlbaum
social
J. 2004.
identity. Mahwah,
ciates.
Kashima,
Personality
D.
& Brown,
follower
dependency.
of Social
R. G.,
Lord,
and
development
and collective
individual,
of the relational,
validation
Journal
exchanges.
74: 1238-1251.
behav
N. J. 2002. Organizational
citizenship
deviance:
ior and workplace
The role of affect and cog
87: 131-142.
nitions. Journal of Applied
Psychology,
The
2000.
knowledge:
York: Plenum
Lee, K., & Allen,
of trans
two faces
2003. The
G.
human
New
in interpersonal
Social
Psychology,
responsiveness
and
of Personality
Press.
York: Guilford
and
1989. Lay epistemics
bases.
motivational
and
ner
for understanding
perspective
In J. V. Jordan
(Ed.), Women's
the
Stone Center:
from
writings
1997. A relational
J.V.
women's
matter?
goals
1083-1095.
mastery
personal
Journal of Applied
Psy
P. R. 1998.
J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco,
as
an
of
The
process:
importance
interpersonal
Intimacy
and perceived
self-disclosure,
part
partner disclosure,
Man
of Conflict
Journal
congruence
the fit between
Does
Laurenceau,
8: 287-305.
agement,
A.
Kruglanski,
Cognitive
Press.
S. M. B. 1997. To agree
C, & Thatcher,
Jehn, K. A., Chadwick,
individ
or not to agree: The effects of value
congruence,
conflict on work
and
ual demographic
dissimilarity,
Jordan,
86:
chology,
J. D.,
of Applied
Journal
C. K. 2001. Goal
A. L., & Stevens,
teams:
in project
and performance
Commercializa
Press.
Hunger,
jobs, groups, and organizations.
87: 985-993.
with
Kristof-Brown,
heart:
1983. The managed
tion of human
April
Psychology,
72: 515-525.
chology,
Review
of Management
Academy
1987. The
perspective.
do
Gelfand
negotiation
University
Press.
&
culture:
334-349.
Palo
K. L., & Keros, A. 2002. Improvisation
in embedded
negotiations.
exchange
47: 442-473.
Science
Quarterly,
McGinn,
W.
communication
of social aware
A question
of
J. Brett (Eds.), The handbook
for negotiators?
and
McGuire,
A
self-concept:
of Psy
Review
dynamic
Annual
R. 2004. What
of
1494-1512.
49:
Psychology,
of the self
Journal
J.,McGuire,
C. V., & Cheever,
Alto, CA:
Stanford
and the logic of
Administrative
J. 1986. The
self in
2006
Gelfand,
Raver,
Major,
on the sense
context
society: Effects of social
24: 259-270.
British Journal of Social
Psychology,
of self.
in
J.M., Parker,
J.C, & Pruitt, D. G. 1997. Escalation
versus
indi
to persistent
annoyance:
response
Group
and
viduals
and gender
effects. Journal of Personality
72: 151-163.
Social
Psychology,
R. H., Peppet,
winning.
MA:
Harvard
D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson,
to success
and
short routes
Long
L., & Morris,
mediated
negotiations:
brations.
Organizational
77: 22-43.
M. W.,
Morris,
M.
& Gelfand,
J. 2004. Culture
M. W.,
social
D.
& Keltner,
tion in negotiation.
T. M.
Newcomb,
estate:
real
M. A.
1987. Experts,
K. M.,
J. A.
& Arnold,
& Smith,
M.,
choices,
Organ,
D. W.
T.
Parsons,
and
R.
1990. Dimensions
theory:
modern
sociology.
Journal
Pure
frame:
Disputant
Psychol
Grove,
University
in work
Psychology,
R. E., & Ybarra,
ideology
of Personality
and
Journal
settings.
83: 919-929.
2000. Cultural
O.
and
sch?mas,
against
prejudice
and Social
Psychology,
out
79:
M. C. 1998. Linking
service
of service
perceptions
quality:
Journal of Applied
Psychology,
S., & Paul,
customer
of a causal
social psychology
of
York: Academic
Press.
relational
cues
Social
J.,Nisbett,
and
New
Protestant
and
City.
1975. The
to relational
model.
150-163.
D., & Wood,
Schoeninger,
and ad hoc mixed-sex
Journal
W.
1969. Comparision
of married
a division
negotiating
of Experimental
Social
P.
CA:
Shah,
dyads
of a
5:
Psychology,
E. T., & Friedman,
R. S. 1998. Performance
J.,Higgins,
incentives
and means:
How regulatory
focus influences
and Social
goal attainment.
Psy
74: 285-293.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W.
P. O.
1993. The
effects
of
in an
interdependent
2: 135?
and Negotiation,
J. 1993. Negotiation
Brooks/Cole.
American
York:
E. J. 1982. Does
the concept
of the
In A. J.Marsella
& G. M.
cross-culturally?
of mental
health and
(Eds.), Cultural
conceptions
therapy:
J. B.
97-137.
Dordrecht:
1998. Buyer-seller
management,
15: 3-21.
Marketing,
tionship
Stillinger, C,
"reactive
paper,
Stanford
A. F., & Walters,
Stuhlmacher,
Psychology,
W.
Reidel.
relationships:
and
quality.
M., Keltner,
Epelbaum,
barrier
devaluation"
Working
Swann,
New
vary
in negotiation
in social
psychology.
R. A., & Bourne,
person
White
Smith,
1969. Social
& Row.
Harper
in
Its origins and applications
Review
22: 1-24.
of Sociology'
capital:
Annual
& Carnevale,
Pacific
A
dilemma:
Ann Arbor:
Lake
Salt
J. 2002.
B., White,
Shweder,
in negotiation.
choice
1983. Strategic
Behavioral
27: 167-194.
Scientist,
conflict.
1965. Prisoner's
negotiation.
relational
reward.
and
of Applied
Pruitt, D. G.
Pruitt, D. G.,
and
chology,
of conflict
M. A., & Glenn,
1998. Social
contact
2: 175-211. Greenwich,
vol.
A.
B. R.
Brown,
Sanchez-Burks,
83:
The
behavior:
citizenship
MA: Lexington
Books.
and
relationships
justifications
allocation
task. Group Decision
148.
A.
J. Z., &
of Personality
Test
Social
of customer
behavior
cooperation.
Management,
climate
frames of refer
Pinkley, R., & Northcraft, G. B. 1994. Conflict
ence:
for dispute
and outcomes.
processes
Implications
of Management
Journal, 37: 193-205.
Academy
Portes,
in the work
as a situational
L. 2002. Gender
phe
Riley, H., & Babcock,
nomenon
in negotiation.
at the 15th
Paper
presented
of the International
Association
for
annual
conference
Schneider,
Lexington,
in sociological
1949. Essays
York: Free Press.
J.T., Neale,
Lord,
483-499.
of conflict.
interpretations
ogy, 7 S: 117-126.
Polzer,
study in conflict and
of Michigan
Press.
groups. Journal
174-189.
spirals:
role of dispu
and Human
and
A. R., & Chammah,
Rapoport,
styles,
New
applied.
Pinkley,
syndrome.
and
In R. G.
consequences.
(Eds.), Emotions
& R. Kanfer
1993. Dress
(in)attention
P. L. 2003. Testing
the relationships
orientations,
strategy
1988. Organizational
soldier
good
and
and management,
marketing
CT: JAI Press.
101-117.
39:
Psychology,
in individuals
regulation
costs
In T. A. Swartz,
A framework
for analysis.
employees:
in services
D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown
(Eds.), Advances
Sanchez-Burks,
attrac
perspective
Behavior
of Experimental
A.
Rafaeli,
bargaining
2001. Distributive
motivational
negotiators'
and outcomes.
Journal
among
Emotional
2002.
the structure and role of emotions
Understanding
place:
in organizational
behavior:
147-182. San Francisco:
Jos
Rubin,
39: 84-97.
Processes,
S. D.
Conflict
cogni
amateurs,
and the moderating
impasses
Negotiation
tant self-efficacy.
Behavior
Organizational
84: 148-176.
Decision
Processes,
Olekalns,
and
anchoring-and-adjustment
pricing decisions.
Organizational
Decision
The
in negotia
22: 1-50.
An
on property
and Human
O'Connor,
emotions
of interpersonal
prediction
11: 575-586.
Psychologist,
B., & Neale,
G.
work:
1991. Rationality
York: Free Press.
New
Palo
45-70.
1956. The
tion. American
Northcraft,
cognitive
J. Brett (Eds.),
M. H.
M. A., & Bazerman,
1999.
and
expression
Behavior,
in Organizational
tions, flesearch
Neale,
2000. How
of emotional
functions
and
sey-Bass.
in electronically
and good vi
affiliations
Group
and Human
Decision
Behavior
in negotiation.
In M. Gelfand
&
dynamics
culture:
of negotiation
and
The handbook
Press.
Alto, CA: Stanford University
Morris,
M.
conflict: Escalation,
J. Z. 1986. Social
House.
settlement.
New York: Random
& Rubin,
Causes,
dyads:
R. J.Klimoski,
University
Moore,
Processes,
A. S. 2000. Beyond
Press.
S. R., & Tulumello,
Cambridge,
Pruitt, D. G.,
Pugh,
449
O'Brien
stalemate,
Mikolic,
Mnookin,
and
Nishii,
B.
outcomes:
D., & Ross,
to conflict
University,
A. E.
Similarity,
Psychology
Stanford,
1999. Gender
A meta-analysis.
rela
and
L. 1990. The
resolution.
CA.
differences
Personnel
52: 653-677.
1987.
Identity
negotiation:
Where
two roads
450 Academy
meet.
of Personality
Journal
and
Social
of Management
53:
Psychology,
Review
W. C,
Swap,
& Rubin,
J. L. 1991. The
J.F.
conflict.
Kaplan,
(Eds.), Women's
of intergroup
Psychology
cago: Nelson-Hall.
M.
Tedeschi,
M. H.
7-25. Chi
(2nd ed.):
York
T. V.
experimental
Aldine.
study
K. A., Moag,
and
L., & Hastie,
J.,& Bazerman,
Valley,
of
heart
1990. Social
Behavior
Organizational
47: 98-123.
Processes,
the negotiator.
perception
and Human
in negoti
Decision
L., Medvec,
face,
ogy, vol.
3: 139-163.
L., Neale,
Thompson,
of cognition
and
Oxford:
biases
of cognition,
In M. Gelfand
emotion.
of negotiation
Stanford University
and
book
Thompson,
ation:
L., Peterson,
An
M.
2004. The
evolution
in negotiation
An ex
research:
social
motivation,
perception,
amination
and
Blackwell.
M., & Sinaceur,
&
J. Brett
culture:
7-44.
(Eds.),
Palo
The
hand
Alto,
CA:
Press.
S. E. 1996. Team negoti
and distributive
integrative
and Social
of Personality
Psychol
E., & Brodt,
examination
Journal
bargaining.
ogy, 70: 66-78.
Mich?le
tional
of
and
tests of
the collec
Psychology,
Social
E.
to integrative
Communication
J.,& Betancourt,
C.
J.Gelfand
at
H.
1984.
1992. Being
at
organizational
37:549-579.
Quarterly,
1988. Communication
processes
to joint
Three
paths
15: 360-380.
1974. Judgment under uncer
185: 1124-1131.
Science,
D.
and
III.
A.,
of
and
agreements:
Hesearch,
A., & Kahneman,
biases.
M. A., & Mannix,
K. L, Neale,
in differing
96: 506-520.
behavior
of Hispanics.
Journal
47: 1363-1375.
Psychology,
F., & Roloff, M.
in organizations,
negotiation
Van
R. B., Maddux,
Baaren,
C,
& van
E.
1995. Friends,
5: 65-93.
vol.
Behavioral
A.
consequences
and Social
Personality
Van
W. W., Chartrand,
Knippenberg,
lovers,
Greenwich,
2003.
T. L., de Bouter,
It takes
two
of self-construals.
84:
Psychology,
to mimic:
Journal
of
1093-1102.
P. A. M. 1999. The pursuit of joint outcomes
and
Lange,
in outcomes:
An
model
of social
integrative
equality
orientation.
value
and Social
Psy
77: 337-349.
chology,
Walters,
A. E., Stuhlmacher,
A. F., & Meyer, L. L. 1998. Gender
A meta analysis.
Orga
Decision
76:
Processes,
and
negotiator
competitiveness:
Behavior
nizational
and Human
1-29.
Weingart,
cesses
L. R., & Olekalns,
in negotiation:
In M. Gelfand
phases.
negotiation
and
University
Press.
Weingart,
culture:
M. 2004. Communication
pro
and
sequences,
Frequences,
& J. Brett (Eds.), The handbook
of
143-157.
Palo
Alto, CA:
L. R., Prietula,
Knowledge
A Markov
and
chain
Experimental
psychology
Social
CT: JAIPress.
V. H., Seiden,
S. 2001.
V., & Kopelman,
rave: Myths
rant and
and
face, and
smiley
in negotiation.
emotion
In M. Hogg
realities
about
&
in social psychol
handbook
S. Tindale
(Eds.), Blackwell
Thompson,
Poker
self and
and strangers:
The effects of relationships
colleagues,
on the process
and outcome
of dyadic
In
negotiations.
on
R. J.Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard,
& R. Bies (Eds.), Research
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
R.
Foundation.
1991. Some
Review,
Marin, G., Lisansky,
as a cultural
script
tainty: Heuristics
incompatibility,
tions. Basic and
Thompson,
ation.
social
T. D., & O'Reilly,
S., Egan,
Relational
demography
tachment. Administrative
Science
leading
benefits.
80: 252-283.
Processes,
1998. The mind
River,
self and
Psychology
A.
Tversky,
T. 1998. Relationships,
L., & DeHarpport,
goal
in negotia
and communal
orientation
Social
20: 33-44.
Applied
Psychology,
Thompson,
Tsui,
of interper
Behavior
Saddle
1989. The
Personality
Tutzauer,
Relation
Thompson,
H. C,
Simpatia
1973. Conflict,
process:
negotiation
matching
selection.
partner
Organizational
Decision
the private
of Personality
and
contexts.
cultural
Times
and
L.
between
different:
1999. The
ships
and Human
Upper
relations
A. E., Wade-Benzoni,
Tenbrunsel,
H. C.
Triandis,
identity
theory
& W. G. Austin
(Eds.),
B. R., & Bonoma,
and games:
The
power,
sonal
relations.
Chicago:
Sage
S. G.
1959. Cognitive
and
similarity
interpersonal
in industry. Journal of Applied
Psychol
ogy, 43: 321-326.
of
February
J.T., Schlenker,
Russell
& Goto,
H. C.
Triandis,
CA:
social
to be mean.
New
just want
24: 24-29, 40, 58, 64-65.
2002. Girls
Magazine,
33-47. Monterey,
In S. Worchel
behavior.
York:
H. C,
60: 649-655.
Triandis,
Turner,
intergroup
relations:
J. 1986. The
in
communication
integrative
theory of inter
Austin
& S. Worschel
(Eds.),
G.
D., Triandis,
tive self. Journal
growth
51-66. New
context
1995. Social
In
information-processing
perspective.
as a social
& D. Messick
(Eds.), Negotiation
the distinction
in
Center:
L.
An
5-36. New
process:
1979. An
In W.
of intergroup
Psychology
Brooks-Cole.
Talbot,
of interper
Social
Psy
Press.
H., & Turner,
Tajfel,
and
theory of women's
J. B. Miller,
Jordan, A. G.
J. L. Surrey
from the Stone
Writings
York: Guilford
H., &
A
"self-in-relation":
&
connection:
group
of Personality
negotiation:
R. Kramer
Trafimow,
In J.V.
development.
I. P. Stiver,
Tajfel,
1983. Measurement
Journal
44: 208-219.
chology,
Surrey,
J. Z.
orientation.
sonal
E., & Kray,
L., Peterson,
Thompson,
1038-1051.
April
is an associate
(mgelfand@psyc.umd.edu)
the University
of Maryland.
She received
Stanford
M. J.,Hyder, E., & Genovese,
C. 1999.
the sequential
of negotiation:
processes
of response-in-kind.
Journal of
analysis
Social
Psychology,
professor
her Ph.D.
35: 366-393.
of organiza
in social/or
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
from the University
psychology
ganizational
on cross-cultural
and
research
focuses
behavior,
negotiation
organizational
and harassment.
and discrimination
Her
justice,
Gelfand,
Smith Major
Virginia
sultant and executive
primary
areas
development,
and
Her
Jana L. Raver
Shantz
Research
(vmajor@sbcglobal.net)
coach. She received
of research
and
Lisa
H. Nishii
at Cornell
conflict,
University.
from the University
variation
resource
O'Brien
Psychology
psychology
vocational
workplace
She
at
is an
her Ph.D.
include
is an
Her
is an assistant
her Ph.D.
of Maryland.
and
O'Brien
con
organizational
development
of Maryland.
from the University
work-life
integration,
assistant
Her
their relationship
and
cross-cultural
research
with
from Loyola
be
organizational
resource
of human
professor
in industrial
and organizational
studies
psy
on diversity,
dimen
in
issues
and multilevel
focuses
HRM,
management.
is an associate
(kobrien@psyc.umd.edu)
professor
the University
of Maryland.
received
her
She
development
leadership
and E. Marie
professor
at Queen's
of Business,
School
in industrial
and organizational
psychol
research
interests
include
interpersonal
diversity,
received
and
behavior
her Ph.D.
of Maryland.
(lhn5@cornell.edu)
human
Karen
received
Nishii,
practice
conflict.
(JRaver@Business.QueensU.Ca)
in organizational
Fellow
chology
sions of cultural
strategic
and
and
negotiation
She
Queen's
University.
ogy from the University
aggression
havior.
Raver,
Major,
in Chicago.
University
of at-risk populations,
Her
research
including
women
in the Department
of
in counseling
Ph.D.
interests
and
include
people
the
of color.

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in

Transcription

Similar documents

88TH RSC HOW TO GUIDE FOR DTS INVITATIONAL

and Print - RSC Custom Graphics

RSC Project Prospect

OPEN TO INTERNAL AND NON-REPRESENTED MEMBER STATES CANDIDATES Resettlement Support Center (RSC)

St Benedict`s Newsletter - St. Benedict`s Catholic High School

NEWS&CLUES “All the news that doesn’t break”

American Portwell PQ7-M102XL

7278 RSC BIO Segment Sheets_Municipalities.indd

Record of Site Condition # 213151 Record of Site

Report Form for the Direct Award of CChem