Using Self-regulation to Successfully Overcome the Negotiation Disadvantage of Low Power

Abstract

A plethora of studies has demonstrated that low-power negotiators attain lower outcomes compared to high-power negotiators. We argue that this low-power disadvantage can be conceptualized as impaired goal attainment and that self-regulation can help to overcome it. Three experiments tested this assertion. In Study 1, low-power negotiators attained lower profits compared to their high-power opponents in a face-to-face negotiation. Negotiators who set themselves goals and those who additionally formed if-then plans prior to the negotiation overcame the low-power disadvantage. Studies 2 and 3 replicated these effects in computer-mediated negotiations: Low-power negotiators conceded more than high-power negotiators. Again, setting goals and forming additional if-then plans helped to counter the power disadvantage. Process analyses revealed that negotiators' concession-making at the start of the negotiation mediated both the low-power disadvantage and the beneficial effects of self-regulation. The present findings show how the low-power disadvantage unfolds in negotiations and how self-regulatory techniques can help to overcome it.

Keywords: if-then plans; negotiation; power; self-regulation; setting goals.

FIGURE 1

Mean point difference between the low-power and the high-power negotiator as a function of self-regulatory condition in Study 1. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

FIGURE 2

Study 2: Final offers as a function of power and self-regulatory technique (higher values indicate fewer concessions). Low-power negotiators made lower final offers than high-power negotiators and low-power negotiators with self-regulatory help. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

FIGURE 3

Study 2: Mediation of the self-regulation effect by initial and subsequent concessions. The indirect path through initial concessions reaches significance, the path through subsequent concessions does not. Total effect of self-regulation before inclusion of mediators in parentheses.

FIGURE 4

Study 3: Absolute Limits as a function of power and self-regulatory technique (higher values indicate higher limits). Low-power negotiators had lower absolute limits (implying lower final outcomes) than high-power negotiators and low-power negotiators with self-regulatory help. Error bars indicate ±1 SEM.

FIGURE 5

Study 3: Mediation of the power effect by initial concessions and subsequent concessions. The indirect path through initial concession is significant, the path through subsequent concessions is not. Total effect of power before inclusion of mediators in parentheses.

FIGURE 6

Study 3: Mediation of the self-regulation effect by initial concessions and subsequent concessions. The indirect path through initial concession is significant; the path through process concessions is not. Total effect of self-regulation before inclusion of mediators in parentheses.