After the fall: Regulatory focus, trust and negotiators’ responses to a crisis

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2016.1268057
Plia Vaisman Caspi, Mara Olekalns, D. Druckman
{"title":"After the fall: Regulatory focus, trust and negotiators’ responses to a crisis","authors":"Plia Vaisman Caspi, Mara Olekalns, D. Druckman","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2016.1268057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In two experiments, we evaluated how negotiators’ intra- and interpersonal risk preferences influenced their actions following a crisis during their negotiation. To establish differences in risk preferences, we manipulated negotiators’ regulatory focus (intrapersonal risk) and trust in their opponent (interpersonal risk). In Experiments 1 and 2, we showed that negotiators who were in fit (promotion focus, affect-based trust; prevention focus, cognition-based trust) were more likely to favor the more risky option of continuing to negotiate with a new strategy than negotiators who were not in fit (promotion focus, cognition-based trust; prevention focus, affect-based trust). In E2, we also compared benign and adversarial environments by manipulating trust level (low vs high). Trust level, rather than influencing strategy following a crisis, influenced negotiators’ willingness to take risks to reach agreement: Distance from agreement did not influence negotiators’ willingness to take risks when trust was low but, when trust was high, willingness to take risks increased as distance from agreement increased. Finally, we showed that the importance of reaching a favorable agreement was influenced by both trust level and distance from agreement when negotiators had a promotion focus but not when they had a prevention focus. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2016.1268057","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1268057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

ABSTRACT In two experiments, we evaluated how negotiators’ intra- and interpersonal risk preferences influenced their actions following a crisis during their negotiation. To establish differences in risk preferences, we manipulated negotiators’ regulatory focus (intrapersonal risk) and trust in their opponent (interpersonal risk). In Experiments 1 and 2, we showed that negotiators who were in fit (promotion focus, affect-based trust; prevention focus, cognition-based trust) were more likely to favor the more risky option of continuing to negotiate with a new strategy than negotiators who were not in fit (promotion focus, cognition-based trust; prevention focus, affect-based trust). In E2, we also compared benign and adversarial environments by manipulating trust level (low vs high). Trust level, rather than influencing strategy following a crisis, influenced negotiators’ willingness to take risks to reach agreement: Distance from agreement did not influence negotiators’ willingness to take risks when trust was low but, when trust was high, willingness to take risks increased as distance from agreement increased. Finally, we showed that the importance of reaching a favorable agreement was influenced by both trust level and distance from agreement when negotiators had a promotion focus but not when they had a prevention focus. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
秋季之后:监管重点、信任和谈判代表对危机的反应
摘要在两个实验中,我们评估了谈判人员在谈判过程中的内部和人际风险偏好如何影响他们在危机后的行动。为了建立风险偏好的差异,我们操纵了谈判者的监管重点(个人内部风险)和对对手的信任(人际风险)。在实验1和2中,我们发现,与不适合的谈判者(促进重点,基于认知的信任;预防重点,基于情感的信任)相比,适合的谈判者更有可能选择风险更大的继续谈判新策略。在E2中,我们还通过操纵信任水平(低与高)比较了良性和对抗性环境。信任水平并没有影响危机后的战略,而是影响了谈判代表为达成协议而冒险的意愿:当信任度低时,与协议的距离不会影响谈判代表冒险的意愿,但当信任度高时,冒险的意愿会随着与协议距离的增加而增加。最后,我们发现,当谈判者以促进为重点,而不是以预防为重点时,达成有利协议的重要性受到信任水平和与协议的距离的影响。讨论了对理论和实践的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1