Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

There is a mix of advice concerning the role of emotion in negotiation. Both the prescriptive and descriptive negotiation literatures toil with the questions of whether it is advisable to be emotional in a negotiation, whether a negotiator should play on the opponent's emotions, and whether it is better to display positive or negative emotions throughout a negotiation. Our review of the research literature identifies three distinct perspectives on the role of emotion at the bargaining table. These perspectives, which we label the rational negotiator, the positive negotiator, and the irrational negotiator, give rise to very different prescriptive advice. First, we review these three perspectives on emotion and critically examine the prescriptive advice that flows from each of these perspectives. Subsequently, we expose the assumptions and biases that underlie this advice. Finally, we suggest directions for future research. According to this perspective, the negotiator is best advised to neither feel nor express emotion at the bargaining table, as emotion is a weakness. Emotion is a signal that one has departed from rational analysis and is vulnerable to losing one's power or share of the bargaining zone. According to the economic model of negotiations, a rational actor – unburdened by emotions – is considered to be in a better position at the negotiation table. There are few, if ... log in or subscribe to read full text