To Match or Not to Match? Reactions to Turning Points in Negotiation

Departures or turning points are clear and self-evident changes from earlier events or patterns (Druckman and Olekalns 2013b). They are salient incidences within the negotiation that potentially alter its course by causing negotiators to change their strategy, the perception of and the relationship with the counterpart, or the negotiation outcome (Druckman et al. 2009; Olekalns and Smith 2005). Departures vary in their level of abruptness and may consist of procedural changes, incorporation of new ideas, or abandoning a give-and-take pattern (Druckman 2001). They typically occur after a period of little or no progress that leaves the parties prone to face an impasse (Druckman 1986) which may precipitate a turning point. In the present study, the turning point consists of a multi-issue offer that signals a willingness to come closer and marks a departure from competitive bargaining with the potential to introduce a new pattern favorable for both parties.

It is important to distinguish between a departure and its consequence. Whereas the departure refers to the event or action per se, the consequence takes into account the direction of the negotiation as a result of the action. The direction can be a progression toward or away from an agreement (Druckman and Olekalns 2013b). Griessmair et al. (2015) have shown that in order to progress toward an agreement, it is crucial that the counterpart respond in kind and matches the turning point offer. Accordingly, in the present study, we explore reactions to a proposed mutually beneficial turning point offer.

Summarizing Druckman’s (2001) model, turning points are clear departures from earlier patterns in the negotiation process that are initiated by precipitants and that lead to a consequence (see Fig. 1). However, turning points are neither initiated nor concluded by a single negotiator (Griessmair et al. 2015): the parties are highly dependent on each other for achieving their goals (Lewicki et al. 1999). When a negotiator introduces a departure, the other party may choose to incorporate or ignore the proposed changes. Prior research shows that negotiators’ reactions depend on the psychological and social dynamics of the negotiation (Druckman 2004; Druckman and Olekalns 2013b) (see Fig. 1). Thus, a central question is why some negotiators embrace the departure and direct the negotiation toward an agreement whereas others fail to seize the opportunity.

Two studies have addressed the ways that substantive events or actions produce change in the negotiation process. Investigating reactions to a crisis, Druckman and Olekalns (2013a) show that negotiators with unattractive alternatives are more likely to reframe the issues whereas negotiations with high transaction costs increase the preference for continuing the talks. Shared identity, on the other hand, creates a robust relationship that is not affected by crises. This study highlights the importance of the context in which a crisis occurs. Similarly, focusing on initiating the turning point (left-hand side of Fig. 1), Druckman et al. (2009) ask the question why certain precipitants trigger departures while others do not. They find that crises result in more movement when the social climate is characterized by high trust and low power dependency.

Both studies show that positive change is contingent on psychological and social dynamics affecting negotiators’ interpretation of and reaction to substantive events. As a result, these investigators conclude that in order to better understand turning points, social and psychological processes embedded in the negotiation process need to be considered. Extending this research, the present study addresses the right-hand side of Fig. 1 by investigating the extent to which the process frame and the salience of the departure promote or hinder obtaining a mutually beneficial departure.

The importance of negotiators being “in sync” or “out of sync” with each other has been demonstrated in various domains including strategies and tactics, goals, linguistic styles, and nonverbal behavior (Maddux et al. 2008; Olekalns and Smith 2000; Taylor and Thomas 2008; Weingart et al. 1999). Although synchronized responding to the turning point offer can propel negotiators towards an agreement (Druckman 2004; Griessmair et al. 2015), studies have also shown that negotiators may engage in mismatching. Negotiators tend to make high demands and low concessions when the counterpart’s behavior is interpreted as conciliatory—the larger the counterpart’s concessions, the smaller the negotiator’s own concessions (Bateman 1980; de Dreu et al. 1994; Druckman and Bonoma 1976; Druckman et al. 1972; Pruitt and Syna 1985). Based on aspiration theory (Siegel and Fouraker 1960), the rationale behind mismatching is that conciliatory negotiators are likely to appear soft, hence, the other party can place high demands without risking an impasse (Van Kleef et al. 2004a).

The choice to match or mismatch, however, may depend on the context of the negotiation (Allen et al. 1990; Carnevale and Pruitt 1992; Kleef et al. 2010). Notably, (mis)matching is not necessarily rooted in the counterpart’s actual behavior (e.g., concessions) but rather in the negotiator’s interpretation of the counterpart’s behavior (de Dreu et al. 1994; Van Kleef et al. 2004a). Allen et al. (1990) showed that a negotiator’s willingness to reciprocate a conciliatory offer depended on whether the concession is perceived as a sign of cooperation. If this is the case, the “norm of reciprocity is more likely to surface” (Allen et al. 1990: 92) and negotiators are more likely to respond in kind. Following this reasoning, we suggest that the likelihood that bargainers will match a turning point offer depends on whether it is proposed within a distributive-competitive or integrative-cooperative process frame.

A distributive-competitive negotiation frame is characterized by an emphasis on one’s own goals regardless of the counterpart’s needs (Putnam 1990) and increases the prominence of a negotiator’s relative gains approach to bargaining (Griessmair and Seferagic 2014). This competitive focus also increases negotiators’ fear that the counterpart may possibly exploit them. On a communicative level, the interaction focuses on arguments to substantiate one’s own position, direct negative reactions, threats, reference to power, and the use of pressure tactics (Weingart et al. 2004). When the departure is proposed within such a frame, the counterpart is less likely to interpret it as a genuine attempt to match concessions but rather allege selfish motivation and strategic behavior (cf., Kleef et al. 2010). As a result, s/he should also be more likely to continue with the previous offer pattern and not adapt his/her behavior to the proposed departure, despite the fact that the turning point offer would result in positive consequences for both.

An integrative-cooperative negotiation frame is characterized by a joint problem solving orientation that focuses on the identification of shared objectives and similarities (Putnam 1990). The emphasis is on the underlying interests of both parties, highlighting mutuality, and engaging in conciliation and constructive exploration (Weingart et al. 2004). Moreover, the exchange of information focuses on priorities rather than positions (Weingart et al. 2004), which has a positive impact on the negotiators’ relationship by generating trust (Liu et al. 2010). This integrative-cooperative frame steers a negotiator’s attention toward working together for a mutually beneficial outcome (Gelfand et al. 2006; Griessmair and Seferagic 2014). Thus, a counterpart’s new offer is more likely to be assessed in light of possible mutual gains and areas of agreement. Furthermore, an integrative-cooperative frame also increases negotiators’ perceived fairness (Griessmair and Seferagic 2014) which, in turn, increases the likelihood that negotiators exhibit reciprocal behavior and engage in matching rather than mismatching (Pruitt and Syna 1985; Smith et al. 1982). When the turning point offer is proposed within an integrative-cooperative as opposed to a distributive-competitive frame, it is more likely that the suggested departure is interpreted as a genuine attempt to turn the negotiation around and the counterpart responds in kind (cf., Allen et al. 1990).

Further support for the idea that the process frame influences how individuals interpret and react to departures is provided by relational order theory (ROT) (Donohue 1998; Donohue and Hoobler 2002; Donohue and Roberto 1993). ROT posits that negotiators continuously create and tacitly negotiate relational orientations with implications for the substantive negotiation process (Donohue 1998). Depending on the degree of conveyed affiliation and interdependence, they establish a relational context of ‘moving toward/with’ or ‘moving against/away’ (Donohue and Roberto 1993). By its joint problem solving orientation and focus on shared objectives, an integrative-cooperative process frame signals affiliation, thus establishing a moving towards/with relational context. Conversely, a distributive-competitive emphasis on one’s own goals, regardless of the counterpart’s needs, is more likely to create a moving against/away relational context.

Most importantly, according to ROT, the relational context constitutes the groundwork for substantive negotiation behavior. Moving toward or with facilitates crafting integrative solutions whereas moving against or away leads negotiators to “experience significantly more difficulty in reaching satisfying agreements” (Donohue 1998: 80). Thus, ROT suggests that the relational context created by an integrative-cooperative (as opposed to a distributive-competitive) process frame creates a conducive foundation for departures in the negotiation.

Thus, we hypothesize that proposing the turning point offer within an integrative-cooperative frame increases the likelihood that the turning point offer is seen as a genuine attempt to turn the negotiation around. This then increases the likelihood that the counterpart will respond in kind to the mutually beneficial departure. Two hypotheses are suggested.

A defining feature of turning points is that they are clear and self-evident departures from previous events and patterns (Druckman and Olekalns 2013b), that is, the involved parties have to be aware that they have occurred. Accordingly, Druckman points out that the “key element is that change, often initiated by one of the parties, is manifest in the interaction process” (2004: 191). This requires that the negotiators keep track of the negotiation process in order to detect deviations from previous negotiation patterns and stay alert to concessions that require adjustments. Also, awareness of the counterpart’s strategy shift is necessary to adjust to the shift (Druckman et al. 1983). A number of studies suggest that this might not necessarily be the case during the actual negotiation process (e.g., Keysar et al. 1995; Boven et al. 2003; Vorauer and Claude 1998). Hence, a clear departure such as proposing a trade-off that increases the value for both parties after a period of competitive bargaining may go unnoticed by the counterpart and, as a result, not lead to a beneficial consequence.

Negotiators have limited information about their counterpart’s needs and interests but commonly “know what they want and assume the other party wants the opposite (the fixed-pie bias)” (Adair and Brett 2005: 35). An accurate understanding of the counterpart’s priorities and needs is crucial in mixed-motive negotiations. Being aware of the other’s preference structures is not only relevant for proposing trade-offs and concessions but also for recognizing them as such. Kersten et al. (2000) note that an offer intended by one party as a concession may be perceived by the other party as a reverse concession (see, also, Wachowicz and Wu 2010). Although this can be ameliorated by effective information exchange (e.g., Adair et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2010; Thompson 1991), a number of studies show that negotiators do not communicate as effectively as they think they do (e.g., Keysar et al. 1995; Boven et al. 2003; Vorauer and Claude 1998). Rather than addressing the informational needs of their counterpart when making an offer, negotiators tend to overestimate the transparency of their goals and behave as if the counterpart has access to their privileged information. For instance, Boven et al. (2003) show that business students experienced in negotiation overestimated their success in communicating information about their preferences and Vorauer and Claude (1998) find that negotiators have the tendency to overestimate the extent to which their counterpart can discern their joint problem solving approach. Similarly, Bazerman and colleagues conducted a series of studies (e.g., Bazerman and Carroll 1987; Keysar et al. 1995; Samuelson and Bazerman 1985) showing that negotiators failed to include information about their counterpart’s access to information in their assessment of his or her decision.

Both negotiators’ limited information about the counterpart and ineffective information exchange hinders negotiators from detecting deviations from established patterns. As a result, a beneficial offer with the potential to redirect the negotiation after a period of slow progress may go unnoticed by the counterpart and not lead to the intended consequence. Previous research has shown that a higher degree of communication clarity during the negotiation process enables the involved parties to better understand each other’s interests, preferences, and priorities which, in turn, aids negotiators to develop more options and find mutually beneficial solutions (Liu et al. 2010). Accordingly, a higher degree of clarity results in superior negotiation outcomes and more cooperative responses (e.g., Adair et al. 2004; Lindskold et al. 1986; Liu et al. 2010; Thompson 1991). Similarly, Allen et al. (1990) highlight the critical function of communication in bargaining. In particular, they emphasize conveying the cooperative intent of an accommodating and conciliatory offer in order to induce reciprocal behavior in the counterpart. Thus, we expect that making the departure salient by clearly articulating the intent, content, and function of the offer increases the likelihood that it will be interpreted as intended and reciprocated by the counterpart. Two hypotheses are suggested.

As discussed in the previous section, an integrative-cooperative frame increases negotiators’ perceived fairness of the process and the counterpart, steers their attention toward the cooperative potential of the negotiation, and fosters the motivation to work together to find a mutually beneficial outcome. As a consequence, individuals negotiating within an integrative-cooperative frame should be more receptive to a message highlighting mutual benefits. Thus, we expect that the effects of salience are stronger in the integrative-cooperative frame as summarized by the following hypothesis.

This section is divided into five parts: participants and design, tasks, procedures, independent variables, and dependent variables.

Following the checks on the manipulations, we evaluate the hypotheses on process frame and the salience of the turning point offer.

The results confirm the individual level hypotheses H1a and H2a. Both negotiating within an integrative-cooperative process frame and making the turning point offer more salient with a respective message increases the likelihood that negotiators interpret the departure as an opportunity to turn the negotiations around. Furthermore, it also increases the likelihood that negotiators respond in kind by matching the integrative pattern of the turning point offer confirming the interaction level hypotheses H1b and H2b. Notably, negotiators that embraced the turning point did not change the overall payoffs. They did not concede and lose value for themselves but adapted to the counterpart’s turning point offer by increasing their concessions on the issue the alleged counterpart signaled as being high priority and compensating with a large concession on the low-priority issue of price. Thus, our results show that the process frame and salience of the departure influence individual level as well as interactive level dynamics when negotiators enact the turning point.

The findings have implications for turning point as well as (mis)matching research and provide further support for ROT. It adds to our knowledge about departures by highlighting the important roles played by attention and the social context: the same offer can result in different reactions from the counterpart depending on the process frame established and the salience of the offer. Turning points may be missed in a flurry of activity surrounding the negotiation. Attending to the departure is critical (Druckman 2004). But, attention is insufficient to produce a matching response. It needs to be accompanied by a cooperative frame leading to an interpretation of the offer as a genuine attempt to turn the negotiation around. A key to this finding is the trade-off potential in the offers. Our research has highlighted this element of integrative bargaining. Further research should explore other types of integrative agreements in a variety of negotiating environments.

Our results also contribute to the literature on (mis)matching by emphasizing the crucial role of social context in influencing negotiators’ concession behavior. Earlier research focused primarily on negotiators’ reactions to demands and concessions showing that they tend to exploit soft opponents that claim little (e.g., Bateman 1980; Druckman and Bonoma 1976; Yukl 1974b). This mismatching behavior, however, is attenuated by information about the counterpart’s limits and information about the outcomes that the counterpart achieves from the available alternatives (Liebert et al. 1968; Pruitt and Syna 1985; Yukl 1974a). Knowledge about the counterpart’s limits and preferences allows the negotiator to identify equal outcomes for both parties and decreases the likelihood of mismatching (Pruitt and Syna 1985). In absence of this information, negotiators have to rely on other cues for their counteroffers (Pietroni et al. 2008; Van Kleef et al. 2004a).

The findings extend previous research on (mis)matching behavior by identifying the process frame and salience as additional critical source of information affecting negotiators’ choice to match or mismatch. Negotiators may not be willing to exchange full information about their limits and preferences increasing the likelihood for mismatching. Other factors may compensate for this lack of disclosure. We have shown that salience and an integrative process frame promotes matching without full information. This is particularly important in the context of turning points. Synchronized responding to the departure can propel negotiators towards an agreement (Druckman 2004; Griessmair et al. 2015) while mismatching a conciliatory turning point offer may forfeit this opportunity.

More generally, our results provide evidence of the role of integrative-cooperative communication on the effectiveness of soft- as opposed to hardline bargaining. Results of meta-analyses conducted by Allen et al. support aspiration theory’s prediction of mismatching behavior and “the hardline bargaining strategy as the most effective for maximizing individual payoffs” (1990: 100). Yet, the authors stress that the superiority of this strategy may be a result of the experimental conditions, namely, distributive settings with no possibility to communicate, rather than the ineffectiveness of softball strategies and matching per se. They argue that “(s)oftline bargaining designed to induce a reciprocity norm needs open communication to persuade the other that the bargainer is conceding ... from a desire for more cooperative interaction” (Allen et al. 1990: 101). Both the integrative-cooperative process frame and salience communicated the intention to cooperate and, as a result, negotiators tended to reciprocate rather than exploiting the cooperative offer as suggested by aspiration theory. Thus, our findings provide initial evidence for the proposition that, when paired with appropriate communication, soft-line strategies induce reciprocity and may be more effective than hardline strategies.

This is in line with relational order theory (ROT) (Donohue 1998; Donohue and Hoobler 2002; Donohue and Roberto 1993). Both ROT and our findings suggest that it may be necessary to establish the appropriate frame before engaging in the talks. Donohue and Roberto (1993) conclude that police negotiators in hostage negotiations need to build a conducive relational context in which affiliation and interdependence are promoted before substantive proposals are made; a premature agreement may place the hostages at risk. Similarly, our findings show that introducing a turning point offer is more likely to be embraced by the counterpart and direct the negotiation toward a mutually beneficial agreement when the appropriate process frame has been established. Taken together, the present and previous studies support the idea that the effectiveness of specific negotiation behavior—proposing resolutions in hostage negotiations, introducing a turning point offer, or employing soft line strategies—is contingent on the communicative context or frame that has been established beforehand.

The findings also have practical implications for negotiators. Previous research has shown the benefits of employing integrative bargaining strategies (Olekalns et al. 2003; Olekalns and Weingart 2003; Weingart and Olekalns 2004; Weingart et al. 2004) and increasing the clarity of communication (Liu et al. 2010). The present study further confirms the value of these strategies for negotiators and extends it to the context of process frames and turning points. The process frame can be actively shaped and influenced by the negotiators. By creating a positive process frame, negotiators can lay the groundwork for successful departures that ultimately increase the odds for reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. An integrative-cooperative process frame may have additional benefits not considered in our experimental study. For instance, an integral part of integrative strategies is asking for and giving information about priorities and issue preferences (Weingart et al. 2004). Thus, employing integrative strategies should increase knowledge about the counterpart’s utility structure and promote the awareness required for identifying and reacting to process changes and departures. Similarly, an integrative-cooperative frame may increase mutual trust between the parties, which has proven to be an important facilitator for successfully enacting departures (Druckman et al. 2009).

Finally, many turning points studies have been conducted using retrospective case studies (for notable exceptions, see, Druckman and Olekalns 2013a; Druckman et al. 2009). This bolsters external validity as analyses are performed on real, often high level negotiations. As noted by Druckman and Olekalns, however, the “lack of control over events renders the analysis limited in terms of providing explanations for the occurrence of turning points” (2013b: 336). Our experimental design allowed us to control for the type, timing, and context of the departure as well as keeping the turning point offer constant in all treatments, thereby strengthening the arguments for causality However, the simulated counterpart comes at the cost of the external validity gained with the analyses of cases as it prevents a natural interaction to unfold. Since the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches are complementary, Druckman and Olekalns (2013b) suggest that experimental studies of turning points should be complemented by retrospective case studies and vice versa. Thus, investigating the role of awareness, salience, and process frames in field settings may be a fruitful avenue for future research.