Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making

By Gerben A. van Kleef, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Davide Pietroni, A. S. R. Manstead. 2006

402 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17e49c59165d17210aa443a1058beda839769054

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The ability to influence others via emotion displays (2011, background): “…et al., 2004a; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2006, Study 2), and inferences about a negotiation opponents’ interpersonal sensitivity explained the effect of displays of guilt, regret, disappointment, and worry on the impressions observers form about opponents (van Kleef et al., 2006, Study 1).”
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status (2008, background): “In negotiations, high‐power parties typically respond less to their counterparts’ emotional displays than do low‐power parties (Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006 ).”
I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power (2010, background): “That is, a happy negotiator does not seem tough, but rather satisfied (Van Kleef et al., 2004a; Wall, 1991); thus, the counterpart need not work so hard (in the form of additional concessions) to please him or her.”
Social power makes the heart work more efficiently: Evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat (2012, neutral): “Social power leads to CV-processes indicative of a more efficient mobilization of energy during motivated performance (see also Van Kleef et al., 2008).”
Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations (2014, background): “Second, the effect should be mediated by perceived negotiation power, which we define as a customer’s perceived ability to influence a price negotiation (van Kleef et al. 2006).”
Status Conflict in Groups (2012, background): “Although the protagonists’ status may impact the strategies used and outcomes of the conflicts (Mannix and Neale 1993, Van Kleef et al. 2006), their relative status positions are not the substance of the conflict.”
Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. (2008, background): “Similarly, power immunizes negotiators from the influence of their opponents’ emotional displays, with low-power negotiators conceding more to an angry opponent compared with high-power negotiators ( Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006 ).”
Emotion is for influence (2011, background): “As summarised in Table 1 , expressions of anger elicit concessions in negotiation when they are deemed appropriate and the target is motivated to consider the implications of the anger, whereas they backfire when they are perceived as inappropriate and/or the target is not motivated to process the ”
Disappointed in you, angry about your offer: distinct negative emotions induce concessions via different mechanisms (2011, background): “Disappointment is associated with weakness (Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989; Van Dijk & Zeelenberg, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2006), and disappointed bargainers may thus not be seen as very ambitious and demanding.”
Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future (2008, background): “…to a negotiated agreement (Sinaceur and Tiedens 2006; Van Kleef et al. 2004b) or has high power stemming from other sources, such as support from management or a prominent position in the organization (Van Kleef et al. 2006), then the expresser’s anger is unlikely to have an effect on the target.”
Get angry, get out: The interpersonal effects of anger communication in multiparty negotiation (2008, background): “By now a series of studies have demonstrated that relatively powerless individuals tend to concede in response to a counterpart's communicated anger, whereas relatively powerful negotiators tend to be impervious to their opponent's emotions (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006; Van Kleef et al., 2004b, 2006).”