Affiliation:
1. University of Kassel , Mönchebergstraße 1, 34125 Kassel, DE
Abstract
Abstract
This study departs from common conjecture by challenging the preference for deliberation or intuition, or both, in negotiations. In contrast to prior negotiation studies considering judgment precision, this study builds on underlying personality traits. Therefore, the findings are valid beyond the experimental context. This study conceptualizes and experimentally tests the impact of preference for intuitive and deliberate decision-making during negotiations in Chinese, German, and Polish cultures. Contrasting an emotional with a neutral setting, the paper evaluates the impact preference for intuition and deliberation have on negotiation outcome. The results challenge the frequent assumption made in negotiation analysis: Deliberative negotiators are superior.
Reference59 articles.
1. Albers, W., Selten, R., Pope, R., & Vogt, B. (2000). Experimental evidence for attractions to chance. German Economic Review, 1(2), 113.10.1111/1468-0475.t01-1-00007
2. Bamberger, P. (2008). From the editors: Beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 839–846. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2015954410.5465/amj.2008.34789630
3. Barclay, D. W., & Bunn, M. D. (2006). Process heuristics in organizational buying: starting to fill a gap. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.08.00310.1016/j.jbusres.2005.08.003
4. Bazerman, M. H. (2006). The Mind of the Negotiator: In Negotiation, Think Before You “Blink”. Negotiation, 9(10), 1-3.
5. Bazerman, M. H., & Malhotra, D. (2006, July 21). When Not to Trust Your Gut. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5465.html