Content area
Full Text
Previous research suggests a barrier to conflict resolution whereby negotiators inflate their valuation for offers they make due to the psychological process of cognitive dissonance reduction. Research outside of the negotiation context indicates that cognitive dissonance is induced either by being forced to choose among relatively equal options, or by having to justify a counter-attitudinal position. A negotiation involves both choice and justification, so it is unclear which process is responsible for inducing preference inflation. We present two studies in which we examine the independent effect of choosing an opening offer, as well as the additive effect of justifying that choice on preference inflation. Findings suggest that both processes induce negotiator preference change and that justification has an additive effect beyond choice alone. We discuss implications of these results for cognitive dissonance theory and the practice of negotiation.
Conventional wisdom assumes that individuals negotiate to get what they want. That is, individuals enter negotiations with a fixed set of preferences and the pro- cess of negotiation involves identifying goods and services that all parties are will- ing to accept. However, researchers theorize that preferences for negotiation out- comes are in fact dynamic (Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, & Wade-Benzoni, 1998; Curhan, Neale, & Ross, 2004). For example, in a recent experiment by Curhan et al. (2004), individuals who were engaged in an active, face-to-face negotiation generally in- flated valuation for offers they made themselves, and devalued offers received from their counterparts. These results suggest that the negotiation process involves the parties changing what they want as much as obtaining what they want.
Such changes in preferences not only run counter to rational choice theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944), but also potentially create barriers to the resolution of conflicts. If negotiators devalue offers they receive and inflate valuation for offers they make, then the exchange of offers could widen, rather than narrow, the "gap" to be bridged between the negotiating parties. The wider the perceived gap between the value of the offer proposed and the value of the offer received, the harder it is for the parties to reach an agreement (Curhan et al., 2004).
Although a considerable body of research has examined why individuals devalue offers they perceive to have been generated by their counterparts in...