Skip to main content
Publications
Journal Article
Journal of Management
Martin Schweinsberg, Stefan Thau, Madan M. Pillutla (2021)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
impasses, negotiations, agreements, conflict resolution, bargaining
Although impasses are frequently experienced by negotiators, are featured in newspaper articles, and are reflected in online searches, and can be costly, negotiation scholarship does not appear to consider them seriously as phenomenon worth explaining. A review of negotiation tasks to study impasses reveals that they bias negotiators towards agreement. We systematically organize past findings on impasses and integrate them in the impasse type, cause, and resolution model (ITCR model). Our fundamental assumption is that a positive bargaining zone does not imply symmetric preferences for an agreement. One or both negotiators may prefer an impasse over an agreement despite a positive bargaining zone. We argue that it is beneficial for management research to distinguish between three impasse types: if both negotiators perceive benefit from an impasse, they are wanted; if one negotiator perceives benefits from an impasse, they are forced; and if both do not perceive benefits from the impasse, they are unwanted. We review structural (e.g., bargaining zone, communication channels), interpersonal (e.g., tough tactics, emotions) and intrapersonal (e.g., biases, available information, and framing) factors as the likely antecedents of the three impasse types. We also examine evidence which suggests that wanted impasses can be resolved by changing the negotiation structure for both parties, forced impasses can be resolved through persuasion, and unwanted impasses can be overcome by debiasing both parties. Finally, we review current methodological guidance and provide updated recommendations on how scholars should deal with impasses in both study designs and data analyses.
With permission of SAGE Publishing
Journal Article
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 165: 228–249
Martin Schweinsberg, Michael Feldman, Nicola Staub, Olmo R. van der Akker, Robbie C.M. van Aert, Marcel A.L.M. van Assen, Yang Liu et al. (2021)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Crowdsourcing data analysis, scientific transparency, research reliability, scientific
robustness, researcher degrees of freedom, analysis-contingent results
In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists’ gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for organizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
With permission of Elsevier
Volume
165
Journal Pages
228–249
Journal Article
Psychological Bulletin 146 (5): 451–479
Justin Landy, Miaolei Jia, Isabel Ding, Domenico Viganola, Warrent Tierney, Martin Schweinsberg, Eric Uhlmann et al. (2020)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Crowdsourcing, scientific transparency, stimulus sampling, forecasting, conceptual replications, research robustness
Volume
146
Journal Pages
451–479
ISSN (Online)
1939-1455
Journal Article
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 87: 103943
Michael Schaerer, Martin Schweinsberg, Nico Thornley, Roderick I. Swaab (2020)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Negotiation, first offer, framing, satisfaction, power, reservation price
In distributive negotiations, people often feel that they have to choose between maximizing their economic outcomes (claiming more value) or improving their relational outcomes (having a satisfied opponent). The present research proposes a conversational strategy that can help negotiators achieve both. Specifically, we show that using an offer framing strategy that shifts offer recipients' attention to their reservation price (e.g., “How does my offer compare to your minimum price?”) leads to both (a) an assimilation effect whereby recipients make more favorable counteroffers (economic benefit) as well as (b) a contrast effect whereby recipients feel more satisfied with the negotiation (relational benefit). We find evidence for the effectiveness of this conversational strategy across four experiments (N = 1522) involving different negotiation contexts (real estate, restaurant sale) and participant samples (MBAs, sales agents, online participants), and also document negotiator power as an important boundary condition. Overall, our research suggests that economic and relational benefits do not have to be mutually exclusive in distributive negotiations, that the perceived extremity of an offer is subjective and can be strategically influenced, and that assimilation and contrast effects can operate simultaneously when they relate to separate outcomes.
With permission of Elsevier
Volume
87
Journal Pages
103943
Journal Article
European Journal of Social Psychology 49 (1): 47–62
Shira Mor, Claudia Toma, Martin Schweinsberg, Daniel Ames (2019)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Accuracy, social projection, cultural values, collectivistic vs. individualistic value
Volume
49
Journal Pages
47–62
ISSN (Online)
1099-0992
Journal Article
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 148 (September): 87–100
Alice J. Lee, David D. Loschelder, Martin Schweinsberg, Malia F. Mason, Adam D. Galinsky (2018)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Anchor precision, negotiation entry, barriers-to-entry, first offers, social attribution, decision making
Precise first offers strongly anchor negotiation outcomes. This precision advantage has been previously documented only when the parties were already engaged in a negotiation. We introduce the concept of negotiation entry, i.e., the decision to enter a negotiation with a particular party. We predict that precise prices create barriers-to-entry, reducing a counterpart’s likelihood of entering a negotiation. Six studies (N=1,580) and one archival analysis of real estate sector data (N=11,214) support our barrier-to-entry prediction: Potential negotiators were less likely to enter a negotiation with precise versus round first offers. Using both statistical mediation and experimental-causal-chain analyses, we establish that perceptions of offer maker inflexibility underlie the precision barrier. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this inflexibility mechanism of precision is distinct from the mechanism (being offended) that creates barriers-to-entry for extreme first offers. The discussion theoretically integrates research on first-offer precision and extremity by offering the Precision-Extremity Model of First Offers.
With permission of Elsevier
Volume
148
Journal Pages
87–100
Journal Article
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41
Warren Tierney, Martin Schweinsberg, Eric Luis Uhlmann (2018)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Crowdsourcing science, reproducibility
The widespread replication of research findings in independent laboratories prior to publication is suggested as a complement to traditional replication approaches. The pre-publication independent replication approach further addresses three key concerns from replication skeptics by systematically taking context into account, reducing reputational costs for original authors and replicators, and increasing the theoretical value of failed replications.
© Cambridge University Press 2018
Volume
41
ISSN (Online)
1469-1825
ISSN (Print)
0140-525X
Journal Article
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 115 (1): 96–117
Michael Schaerer, Martin Schweinsberg, Roderick I. Swaab (2018)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Negotiation, alternatives, power, first offer, mental simulation
The present research demonstrates that negotiators can act powerfully without having power. Researchers and practitioners advise people to obtain strong alternatives prior to negotiating to enhance their power. However, alternatives are not always readily available, often forcing negotiators to negotiate without much, or any, power. Building on research suggesting that subjective feelings of power and objective outcomes are disconnected and that mental simulation can increase individuals' aspirations, we hypothesized that the mental imagery of a strong alternative could provide similar psychological benefits to having an actual alternative. Our studies demonstrate that imagining strong alternatives causes individuals to negotiate more ambitiously and provides them with a distributive advantage: negotiators reached more profitable agreements when they either had a strong tendency to think about better alternatives (Study 1) or when they were instructed to mentally simulate an attractive alternative (Studies 3-4). Mediation analyses suggest that mental simulation boosts performance because it increases negotiators' aspirations which translate into more ambitious first offers (Studies 2-4), but only when the simulated alternative is attractive (Study 2b). Our findings further show that mental simulations are only beneficial when there is sufficient room in the negotiation to reach a profitable agreement, but backfire in settings where negotiators' positions are difficult to reconcile (Study 5). An internal meta-analysis of the file-drawer produces effect size estimates free of publication bias and demonstrates the robustness of the effect. Our findings contribute to research on social power, negotiations, and mental simulation.
Copyright © 2018 American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission.
Volume
115
Journal Pages
96–117
ISSN (Online)
1939-1315
ISSN (Print)
0022-3514
Journal Article
Social Psychological and Personality Science 8 (6): 706–714
Jeremy A. Yip, Martin Schweinsberg (2017)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Negotiations, emotion, conflict, selfishness, timing, communication, social norms, impasses, anger
Prior research has focused on the influence of emotional expressions on the value of negotiated outcomes. Across three studies, we demonstrate that people interacting with angry counterparts become more likely to walk away from a negotiation, resulting in an impasse. In Study 1, participants who encountered counterparts expressing anger were more likely to choose an impasse, relative to those with neutral counterparts. In Study 2, building on the emotion-as-social-information model, we found that inferences of selfishness mediate the effect of angry expressions on impasses. In Study 3, we found that timing moderates the relationship between angry expressions and impasses. Furthermore, we demonstrated that perceptions of inappropriateness mediate the interactive effect of timing and angry expressions on impasses. Taken together, our work reveals that expressing anger is risky in negotiations because people infer that angry counterparts are selfish and become more likely to exit negotiations.
With permission of SAGE Publishing
Volume
8
Journal Pages
706–714
ISSN (Online)
19485514
ISSN (Print)
19485506
Journal Article
Scientific Data 4 (170028)
Kurt Andrew DeSoto, Martin Schweinsberg (2017)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Crowdsourcing science, replication, reproducibility
Researchers agree that replicability and reproducibility are key aspects of science. A collection of Data Descriptors published in Scientific Data presents data obtained in the process of attempting to replicate previously published research. These new replication data describe published and unpublished projects. The different papers in this collection highlight the many ways that scientific replications can be conducted, and they reveal the benefits and challenges of crucial replication research. The organizers of this collection encourage scientists to reuse the data contained in the collection for their own work, and also believe that these replication examples can serve as educational resources for students, early-career researchers, and experienced scientists alike who are interested in learning more about the process of replication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC-BY.
Volume
4
ISSN (Online)
2052-4463
Journal Article
Scientific Data 3
Warren Tierney, Martin Schweinsberg, Jennifer Jordan, Deanna M. Kennedy, Israr Qureshi, S. Amy Sommer, Nico Thornley et al. (2016)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Decision making, ethics, psychology, research management
We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory’s research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science.
Volume
3
ISSN (Online)
2052-4463
Journal Article
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 (5): 55–67
Martin Schweinsberg, Nikhil Madan, Michelangelo Vianello, Amy S. Sommer, Jennifer Jordan, Warren Tierney, Eli Awtrey et al. (2016)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Crowdsourcing science, replication, reproducibility, research transparency, methodology, meta-science
This crowdsourced project introduces a collaborative approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific research, in which findings are replicated in qualified independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. Our goal is to establish a non-adversarial replication process with highly informative final results. To illustrate the Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) approach, 25 research groups conducted replications of all ten moral judgment effects which the last author and his collaborators had “in the pipeline” as of August 2014. Six findings replicated according to all replication criteria, one finding replicated but with a significantly smaller effect size than the original, one finding replicated consistently in the original culture but not outside of it, and two findings failed to find support. In total, 40% of the original findings failed at least one major replication criterion. Potential ways to implement and incentivize pre-publication independent replication on a large scale are discussed.
With permission of Elsevier
Volume
66
Journal Pages
55–67
Journal Article
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (1): 226–231
Martin Schweinsberg, Gillian Ku, Cynthia S. Wang, Madan M Pillutla (2012)
Subject(s)
Human resources management/organizational behavior
Keyword(s)
Anchor, first offer, impasse, negotiation
Volume
48
Journal Pages
226–231