关键词: 谈判情境, 谈判者角色, 知觉到的馅饼, 权力, 交流策略

Abstract: In real life, negotiations occur in specific social contexts where negotiators always play certain roles. The current study explored how negotiators’ roles influence their bargaining outcomes in buy-sell transactions. Based on Neal, Huber, & Northcraft (1987), we proposed that the buyer-seller role induces framing effect (s), and that negotiators’ perceived bargaining pie (or the total value of the resources they are considering) mediates negotiators’ roles and outcomes. In buy-sell bargaining settings, the buyer’s role typically induces a loss frame, whereas the seller’s role evokes a gain frame. Thus, buyers are more risk-seeking than sellers. These dynamics prompt buyers to perceive their pie as larger than sellers’, and thus the former outperform the latter.
Two hundred and four undergraduate students participated in two single-issue buy-sell simulated negotiation exercises. In both experiments, the power of the two parties was set to be equal by manipulating their number of best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA). In experiment 1, we explored how negotiators’ roles influenced their bargaining outcomes. Eighty-two undergraduate students, i.e., 41 dyads, were randomly designated as buyers or sellers. The item for exchange was an eye-protection lamp. The result of experiment 1 showed that the buyers outperformed the sellers, and that the perceived size of the pie mediated the effect of negotiation role on bargaining performance. Moreover, the communication strategies used by the buyers and the sellers did not contribute to their performance, which means that the behavioral differences among the buyers and the sellers did not account for their contrasting performance.
In experiment 2, we explored why negotiators’ roles influenced negotiators’ perceived size of the bargaining pie. One hundred and twenty-two participants i.e., 61 dyads, were randomly assigned to the experimental group (20 dyads), control group 1 (20 dyads), and control group 2 (21 dyads), respectively. In the experimental group, participants played the role of buyers and sellers, similar to experiment 1. In control group 1, participants played the role of “chief of a tribe” and “civilized man.” The role of caciques was similar to buyers, except they held shells, rather than money to complete the exchange. And the civilized men were similar to sellers, except they exchanged items for shells, rather than money. Participants in control group 2 played the role of “buyers” and “sellers” as in the experimental group, while the medium of exchange was shells as in the control group 1. Each seller (civilized man) held a watch as the item for exchange. The reservation price of buyers (caciques) and sellers (civilized men) was set to be equal to avoid the confounding caused by the difference of the reservation price between the two parties. Results of Experiment 2 showed that in the experimental condition, buyers’ perceived size of the pie was larger than sellers’, whereas no differences in perceived pie size were observed in the two control groups. These results suggest that the perception difference between buyer and seller can only be accounted for by buyer-seller roles, only when money was used as the medium of exchange.
These findings reveal how negotiators’ roles influence their bargaining outcomes via their perceptions about the size of the pie. This research also suggests that the function of role may be independent of negotiators’ power differentials and communication strategies. Practical implications of this research include the following: Although negotiation practitioners realized that their respective roles exerted some influence on their performance, they did not specifically understand the role of those context features in negotiation nor did they try to modify or manage them. Also, this study suggests that buyers and sellers could be aware that they are acting in accord with the loss (for buyer) or gain (for seller) frame, while the other party is behaving according to the opposite frame. Therefore, negotiators could adjust their perceived pie intentionally to avoid the influence of this cognitive bias.

Key words: negotiation context, negotiator’s role, perceived pie, power, communication strategies