Moments in time: metacognition, trust, and outcomes in dyadic negotiations.
This research tested the relationships between turning points, cognitive and affective trust, and negotiation outcomes. After completing a simulated negotiation, participants identified turning points from videotape. Turning points were then classified as substantive (interest, offer), characterization (positive, negative), or procedural (positive, negative). Prenegotiation affective trust predicted subsequent turning points, whereas prenegotiation cognitive trust did not, suggesting that different cues influence the two types of trust. Postnegotiation cognitive trust was increased by the occurrence of interest, positive characterization, and positive procedural turning points and decreased by negative characterization turning points. Affective trust was increased by positive procedural turning points. Finally, interest turning points resulted in higher joint outcomes, whereas negative characterization turning points resulted in lower joint outcomes. We conclude that there are two paths to building trust and increasing joint gain, one through insight and one through signaling good faith intentions.
Olekalns
Mara
M
Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. m.olekalns@mbs.edu
Smith
Philip L
PL
D000328:Adult; D000339:Affect; D003071:Cognition; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017008:Negotiating / Q000523:psychology*; D011582:Psychological Theory; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012456:Salaries and Fringe Benefits; D012938:Social Perception; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D035502:Trust; D014743:Videotape Recording