We examine dishonest behavior in the face of potential uncertain gains and losses in three pre-studies (N = 150, N = 225, N = 188) and a main study (N = 240). Ample research has shown that people cheat when presented with the opportunity. We use a die-under-cup paradigm, in which participants could dishonestly report a private die roll and thereby increase the odds to obtain a desired outcome. Results showed that the framing of the uncertain situation mattered: Participants who lied to decrease the likelihood to experience a loss used major lies (i.e., reporting a ‘6’), while those who lied to increase the chance to achieve an equivalent gain used more modest lies.

Relatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this conflict management style composition may be pivotal given the strong task focus rather than establishing norms to guide or manage conflict. Therefore, we examined whether conflict style asymmetry within short-term project groups affects the link between intragroup conflict and the performance of groups. Data were collected among short-term project groups and the results suggest that asymmetry in both forcing and the problem-solving conflict management styles moderates the negative effect of task, relationship, and process conflicts on the performance of groups. We offer a discussion of the implications of these findings.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine two opposing approaches to the effects of power on negotiation: a "collaborative approach" of power and a "competitive approach" of power. Accordingly, the authors state oppositional hypotheses based on each approach. This study further investigates the mediating role of the perceived threat of the negotiation and the moderating role of negotiation topic (i.e. topics that touch on one's power position versus topics that are related to the tasks one needs to perform) in this relationship. Finally, the authors state a moderated mediation hypothesis where they expected that the negotiation topic would moderate the indirect effect of power on negotiation strategies. Design/methodology/approach A vignette study (N= 279) and a negotiation game (N= 138) were conducted where the power within dyads was manipulated. Findings Study 1 showed that powerholders prefer collaborative strategies, whereas powerless negotiators prefer competitive strategies. Perceived threat of the negotiation mediated this effect. Furthermore, both Studies 1 and 2 showed that the negotiation topic moderates the effect of power on negotiation strategies providing further support for the collaborative approach of power. Finally, Study 1 provided partial support for the moderated mediation hypothesis. Research limitations/implications Both Studies 1 and 2 are experimental studies. A field study should try to replicate these results in the future. Practical implications This study illuminates the effects of power on negotiation and addresses inconsistent findings in the negotiation literature. The results might be of great importance to large organizations where power asymmetries constitute an integral part of the employee/manager interactions. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to show the moderating role of negotiation topic in the relationship between power and negotiation.

Abstract Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve. There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate. Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation. Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations.

While organizations strive for ethical conduct, the activity of negotiating offers strong temptations to employ unethical tactics and secure benefits for one’s own party. In four experiments, we examined the role of constituency communication in terms of their attitudes towards (un)ethical and competitive conduct on negotiators’ willingness and actual use of unethical tactics. We find that the mere presence of a constituency already increased representatives’ willingness to engage in unethical behavior (Experiment 1). More specifically, a constituency communicating liberal (vs. strict) attitudes toward unethical conduct helps negotiators to justify transgressions and morally disengage from their behavior, resulting in an increased use of unethical negotiation tactics (Experiment 2–3). Moreover, constituents’ endorsement of competitive strategies sufficed to increase moral disengagement and unethical behavior of representative negotiators in a similar fashion (Experiment 4ab). Our results caution organizational practice against advocating explicit unethical and even competitive tactics by constituents: it eases negotiators’ moral dilemma towards unethical conduct.

In this paper we experimentally explore how lying changes when its consequences are not certain. We argue that, when consequences are not certain, lying is morally less costly because the action of lying does not mechanically result in the obtainment of the benefit and this produces a lower feeling of responsibility in case the benefit is obtained. Moreover, we argue that the smaller the impact of lying on the probability to obtain the benefit the lower is the feeling of responsibility. We test our predictions using a modified die-under-the-cup task where misreporting, rather than delivering a higher payoff, increases the likelihood to get a prize. Overall we have four treatments where the reported outcome affects the probability to get a prize to a different extent. Contrary to our prediction, we do not observe any treatment difference suggesting that lying is independent to the extent to which it increases the probability to get a benefit. This result suggests that the willingness to lie to secure a benefit and the willingness to lie to marginally increase the probability to obtain a benefit are very similar.

Prosocial behavior (PSB) is increasingly becoming necessary as more and more individuals experience exclusion. In this context it is important to understand the motivational determinants of PSB. Here we report two experiments which analyzed the influence of dispositional (prosocialness; rejection sensitivity) and motivational variables (prosocial self-efficacy; prosocial collective efficacy; trust; anger; social affiliation motivation) on PSB under neutral contexts (Study 1), and once under inclusion or exclusion conditions (Study 2). Both studies provided evidence for the predicted mediation of PSB. Results in both neutral and inclusion and exclusion conditions supported our predictive model of PSB. In the model dispositional variables predicted motivational variables, which in turn predicted PSB. We showed that the investigated variables predicted PSB; this suggests that to promote PSB one could (1) foster prosocialness, prosocial self and collective efficacy, trust in others and affiliation motivation and (2) try to reduce negative feelings and the tendency to dread rejection in an attempt to reduce the negative impact that these variables have on PSB. Moreover, the few differences that emerged in the model between the inclusion and exclusion contexts suggested that in interventions with excluded individuals special care emphasis should be placed on addressing rejection sensitivity and lack of trust.

espanolEn dos experimentos diferentes se analiza la influencia de la inclusion frente a la exclusion en el comportamiento prosocial. En el Estudio 1, se hallo evidencia en favor de la hipotesis de la reconexion social. En el Estudio 2, se observa un efecto de interaccion cruzada: los individuos excluidos tienden a mostrar comportamientos mas prosociales cuando se ve afectada su competencia que cuando se ve afectada su popularidad. No obstante, los individuos incluidos se muestran mas prosociales que los excluidos cuando se influye en su popularidad, pero son menos prosociales que aquellos cuando se cuestiona su competencia. Ademas, en el Estudio 2 se demuestra que la motivacion de afiliacion ejerce un efecto mediador en la influencia de la exclusion sobre el comportamiento prosocial, y por tanto: (1) los individuos excluidos muestran menores niveles de afiliacion con aquellas personas que los rechazan que los individuos incluidos respecto a las personas que los han incluido; y (2) los individuos con niveles elevados de motivacion de afiliacion adoptan comportamientos mas prosociales cuando estos comportamientos estan dirigidos hacia personas con quienes tienen la posibilidad de reconectar, pero no ocurre lo mismo cuando el comportamiento esta dirigido a personas con quienes no existe la posibilidad de una afiliacion futura. EnglishTwo experiments analysed the influence of inclusion versus exclusion on prosocial behaviour. In Study 1, evidence for the social reconnection hypothesis was found. In Study 2, a cross-over interactive effect is demonstrated: excluded individuals tended to be more prosocial when their competence was affected than when their popularity was affected. However, included people were more prosocial than excluded people when their popularity was affected, but they were less prosocial when their competence was highlighted. Besides, Study 2 has shown that affiliation motivation mediates the effect of exclusion on prosocial behaviour, and thus: (1) excluded individuals endorse lower levels of affiliation motivation with their rejecters than included individuals do with individuals who have included them; and (2) individuals with higher levels of affiliation motivation engage in higher prosocial behaviour levels when the behaviour is oriented to people with whom the chance to reconnect exists, but not when it is oriented to people with whom there is no possibility for future affiliation.

Two experiments analysed the influence of inclusion versus exclusion on prosocial behaviour. In Study 1, evidence for the social reconnection hypothesis was found. In Study 2, a cross-over interactive effect is demonstrated: excluded individuals tended to be more prosocial when their competence was affected than when their popularity was affected. However, included people were more prosocial than excluded people when their popularity was affected, but they were less prosocial when their competence was highlighted. Besides, Study 2 has shown that affiliation motivation mediates the effect of exclusion on prosocial behaviour, and thus: (1) excluded individuals endorse lower levels of affiliation motivation with their rejecters than included individuals do with individuals who have included them; and (2) individuals with higher levels of affiliation motivation engage in higher prosocial behaviour levels when the behaviour is oriented to people with whom the chance to reconnect exists, but not when it is oriented to people with whom there is no possibility for future affiliation.

Two experiments analysed the influence of inclusion versus exclusion on prosocial behaviour. In Study 1, evidence for the social reconnection hypothesis was found. In Study 2, a cross-over interactive effect is demonstrated: excluded individuals tended to be more prosocial when their competence was affected than when their popularity was affected. However, included people were more prosocial than excluded people when their popularity was affected, but they were less prosocial when their competence was highlighted. Besides, Study 2 has shown that affiliation motivation mediates the effect of exclusion on prosocial behaviour, and thus: (1) excluded individuals endorse lower levels of affiliation motivation with their rejecters than included individuals do with individuals who have included them; and (2) individuals with higher levels of affiliation motivation engage in higher prosocial behaviour levels when the behaviour is oriented to people with whom the chance to reconnect exists, but not when it is oriented to people with whom there is no possibility for future affiliation.

espanolEn dos experimentos diferentes se analiza la influencia de la inclusion frente a la exclusion en el comportamiento prosocial. En el Estudio 1, se hallo evidencia en favor de la hipotesis de la reconexion social. En el Estudio 2, se observa un efecto de interaccion cruzada: los individuos excluidos tienden a mostrar comportamientos mas prosociales cuando se ve afectada su competencia que cuando se ve afectada su popularidad. No obstante, los individuos incluidos se muestran mas prosociales que los excluidos cuando se influye en su popularidad, pero son menos prosociales que aquellos cuando se cuestiona su competencia. Ademas, en el Estudio 2 se demuestra que la motivacion de afiliacion ejerce un efecto mediador en la influencia de la exclusion sobre el comportamiento prosocial, y por tanto: (1) los individuos excluidos muestran menores niveles de afiliacion con aquellas personas que los rechazan que los individuos incluidos respecto a las personas que los han incluido; y (2) los individuos con niveles elevados de motivacion de afiliacion adoptan comportamientos mas prosociales cuando estos comportamientos estan dirigidos hacia personas con quienes tienen la posibilidad de reconectar, pero no ocurre lo mismo cuando el comportamiento esta dirigido a personas con quienes no existe la posibilidad de una afiliacion futura. EnglishTwo experiments analysed the influence of inclusion versus exclusion on prosocial behaviour. In Study 1, evidence for the social reconnection hypothesis was found. In Study 2, a cross-over interactive effect is demonstrated: excluded individuals tended to be more prosocial when their competence was affected than when their popularity was affected. However, included people were more prosocial than excluded people when their popularity was affected, but they were less prosocial when their competence was highlighted. Besides, Study 2 has shown that affiliation motivation mediates the effect of exclusion on prosocial behaviour, and thus: (1) excluded individuals endorse lower levels of affiliation motivation with their rejecters than included individuals do with individuals who have included them; and (2) individuals with higher levels of affiliation motivation engage in higher prosocial behaviour levels when the behaviour is oriented to people with whom the chance to reconnect exists, but not when it is oriented to people with whom there is no possibility for future affiliation.

Ample research has shown that social value orientations influence unethical behavior, and deception in particular: Proselfs (or individuals with situationally induced selfish motives) are often found to use more deception than prosocials (or individuals with induced cooperative goals). Previous research, however, has often focused on self-interest as the main motive for using deception, and overlooked prosocial motives for lying, like ingroup-favoring dishonesty or lies which aim at reaching fair outcomes. An instrumental perspective on deception [18], stating that bargainers select the most effective means to reach their goals, contends that deception by proselfs varies with the availability of alternative means, that proselfs and prosocials may deceive, but that they do so to reach different goals, and that the expectation of a counterpart's social motive is a crucial predictor of whether deception is an effective means to reach one's goals.

In light of the current relevance of analyzing the motivational determinants of prosocial behaviors, an experimental design was applied to examine the influence of rejection sensitivity, affective states, and trust on prosocial behavior in the included versus excluded context. The research was performed at a Spanish university with a sample of 118 students. The results confirm that excluded individuals are more prosocial than included individuals only when they see reconnection as possible (hopeful excluded individuals). The inclusion/exclusion experience moderated (1) the links between rejection sensitivity and both affective states and prosocial behavior, and (2) the mediation of trust between affective states and prosocial behavior. Finally, a predictive model of prosocial behavior moderated by the type of inclusion or exclusion was partially supported. Results indicate the relevance of promoting different variables in included individuals, hopeful excluded individuals, and hopeless excluded individuals for prosocial behavior.

It is a common belief that high offers are more readily accepted than low offers. In contrast to this general notion, the current set of studies shows that there is a limit to the beneficial effects of making high offers and that becoming too generous may backfire. This paradoxical finding is observed when offers are made in an ambiguous situation of asymmetric information. In three studies, we found that when bargaining opponents had private information over the total amount that was to be distributed, participants became suspicious about high offers (i.e., offers that were beneficial to themselves), but not about low or equal offers. Due to suspicion, participants rejected high offers more often than equal offers.