Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olekalns, M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Olekalns, M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 12, 1696-1707 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167205278306
© 2005 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Moments in Time: Metacognition, Trust, and Outcomes in Dyadic Negotiations

Mara Olekalns

Philip L. Smith

University of Melbourne

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.

Key Words: turning points • dyadic negotiation • trust • negotiators’ frames • value creation • joint gain


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
C. K. W. De Dreu, E. S. Kluwer, and A. Nauta
The Structure and Management of Conflict: Fighting or Defending the Status Quo
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 331 - 353.
[Abstract] [PDF]