Abstract
The present paper explores the way in which groups cognitively represent information framed as danger and the way in which such collective cognitive representations influence group performance during inter-group negotiations. One hundred and two participants were distributed over 34 three-person groups and were involved in a negotiation game developed by Lewicki et al. (1999, Negotiation: readings, exercises and cases. McGraw-Hill, Boston). The groups were organized in 17 pairs and each pair played the negotiation game in two rounds. The game rules and the available resources were the same for both groups, but one of the groups in each pair received the game information framed as “danger”, while the other group in the pair received a neutral framing. The groups with a “danger” frame developed a more defensive strategy during negotiations, adopted more often a collaborative approach and had a significantly lower performance as compared to the groups in the non-framing condition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C and Vohs KD (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol 5(4): 323–370
Bazerman MH, Curham JR, Moore DA and Valley KL (2000). Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol 51: 279–314
Curşeu PL (2003). Formal group decision-making. A social cognitive approach. ASCR Press, Cluj-Napoca, RO
Curşeu PL (2006). Emergent states in virtual teams. A complex adaptive systems perspective. J Inform Technol 21(4): 249–261
Dunegan KJ (1993). Framing, cognitive modes and image theory: toward an understanding of a glass half full. J Appl Psychol 78: 491–503
Druckman D (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation. A Meta-analysis. J Conflict Resolut 38(3): 507–556
Eden C and Ackerman F (2001). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis Negotiat 10: 119–140
Elliot M, Gray B and Lewicki R (2002). Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In: Lewicki, R, Gray, B, and Elliot, M (eds) Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, pp 409–436. Island Press, Washington, DC
Fiske ST and Taylor SE (1991). Social cognition, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, NewYork
Gray B (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14: 166–176
Gingerenzer G, Hoffrage U and Kleinbölting H (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswickian theory of confidence. Psychol Rev 98: 506–528
Hanke R, Gray B, Putnam L (2002) Differential framing of environmental disputes by stakeholder groups. Academy of Management Conflict Management Division 2002 Meetings, No. 13171. http://ssrn.com/abstract=32036. Accessed 1 Apr 2004
Hinsz VB, Tindale RS and Vollrath DA (1997). The Emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121(1): 43–64
Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith KN and Cacioppo JT (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J Pers Soc Psychol 75(4): 887–900
Ito TA and Cacioppo JT (2005). Various on a human universal: Individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cogn Emot 19(1): 1–26
Jarymowicz M and Bar-Tal D (2006). The dominance of fear over hope in the life of individuals and collectivities. Eur J Soc Psychol 36: 367–392
Jou J, Shanteau J and Harris RJ (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: the role of causal schemas in decision-making. Mem Cogn 24: 1–15
Kühberger A (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 75(1): 23–55
Lamm H (1988). A review of our research on group polarization: Eleven experiments on the effect of group discussion on risk acceptance, probability estimation and negotiation positions. Psychol Rep 62: 807–813
Larrick RP and Blount S (1997). The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. J Pers Soc Psychol 72: 810–825
Levin IP, Schneider SL and Gaeth GJ (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proces 76(2): 149–188
Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM and Minton JW (1999). Negotiation: readings, exercises and cases. McGraw-Hill, Boston
Lupfer MB, Weeks M and Dupuis S (2000). How pervasive is the negativity bias in judgments based on character appraisal?. How pervasive is the negativity bias in judgments based on character appraisal? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(11): 1353–1366
Miclea M and Curşeu PL (2003). Framingul si mecanismele de apărare (Defence mechanisms and the framing effect) (in Romanian language). Cognitie, Creier, Comportament VII(4): 383–392
Olekalns M (1994). Context, issues and frame as determinants of negotiated outcomes. Br J Soc Psy 33: 197–210
Olekalns M (1997). Situational cues as moderators of the frame-outcome relationship in negotiation. Br J Soc Psychol 36: 191–209
Olekalns M (2002). Negotiation as a social interaction. Austr J Manage 27: 39–46
Olekalns M and Smith PL (2005). Cognitive representations of negotiation. Austr J Manage 30: 57–76
Paese PW, Bieser M and Tubbs ME (1993). Framing effects and choice shifts in group decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 56: 149–165
Pinkley RL (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: disputants interpretations of conflict. J Appl Psychol 75: 117–126
Rohrbaugh CC and Shanteau J (1999). Context, process and experience: research on applied judgment and decision-making. In: Durso, F (eds) Handbook of applied cognition, pp 115–139. Wiley, New York
Sinaceur M and Neale M (2005). Not all threats are created equal: how implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations. Group Decis Negotiat 14: 63–85
Stasser G and Titus W (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48: 1467–1478
Stasser G and Titus W (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of information during the group discussions. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 81–93
Stuhlmacher AF and Champagne MV (2000). The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decis Negotiat 9: 471–491
Tversky A and Kahneman D (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458
Weingart LR, Olekalns M and Smith PL (2004). Quantitative coding of negotiation behavior. Int Negotiation 9: 441–455
Wolfe RJ and McGinn KL (2005). Perceived power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decis Negotiat 14: 3–20
Yzerbyt VY and Leyens JP (1991). Requesting information to form an impression: the influence of valence and confirmatory status. J Exp Psychol 27: 337–356
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Curşeu, P.L., Schruijer, S. The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17, 347–362 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9098-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9098-2