Research Details

Abstract

Under what conditions do intricate pre-planned arguments enable negotiators to dominate the conversation and ultimately the outcome? We proposed the advantage occurs when the communication media involves the expectation of rapid turn-taking, because counterparts cannot generate rebuttals in time and end up making concessions. In an experiment with a negotiation task, sellers were provided with either intricate or simple arguments to support a competitive tactic and negotiated via either a quick-tempo (Instant Messaging) or slow-tempo (E-mail) medium. As predicted, intricate (versus simple) arguments enabled sellers to claim more value in the quick (Instant Messaging) but not the slow (E-mail) medium. Mediational analyses traced this effect through two process measures: the extent to which sellers enacted the competitive strategy (coded from transcripts), and the extent to which buyers consequently felt at a loss (measured by self-reports). We discuss the theoretical and practical consequences of these findings for negotiations.

Type

Article

Author(s)

Agnish Chakravarti, Jeffrey Loewenstein, Michael W. Morris, Leigh Thompson, Shirli Kopelman

Date Published

2005

Citations

Chakravarti, Agnish, Jeffrey Loewenstein, Michael W. Morris, Leigh Thompson, and Shirli Kopelman. 2005. At a loss for words: Dominating the conversation and the outcome in negotiation as a function of intricate arguments and communication media. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.(1): 28-38.