Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in
Transcription
Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in
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 [email protected]. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 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? 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 Journal of Personality 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 Journal of Personality 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 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 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 Journal of Personality 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, 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 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' Journal of Personality 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, 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 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 Journal of Personality 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: 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 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 Journal of Personality 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 ([email protected]) 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, 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 Gelfand, Smith Major Virginia sultant and executive primary areas development, and Her Jana L. Raver Shantz Research ([email protected]) 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 ([email protected]) 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. ([email protected]) human Karen received Nishii, practice conflict. ([email protected]) 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. 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