Purpose

Negotiators are offered limited advice on how to overcome adverse events. Drawing on resilience and coping literatures, this study aims to test the impact of three cognitive processing strategies on negotiators’ subjective and economic value following adversity.

Design/methodology/approach

Participants completed two negotiations with the same partner. The difficulty of the first negotiation was manipulated and tested how cognitive processing of this experience influenced subjective and economic outcomes in the second negotiation.

Findings

Subjective and economic outcomes were predicted by negotiators’ affect, their cognitive processing strategy and negotiation difficulty. In difficult negotiations, as positive affect increased, proactive processing decreased self-satisfaction. As negative affect increased, affective processing increased satisfaction with relationship and process.

Research limitations/implications

Cognitive processing of adversity is most effective when emotions are not running high and better able to protect relationship- and process-oriented satisfaction than outcome-oriented satisfaction. The findings apply to one specific type of adversity and to circumstances that do not generate strong emotions.

Originality/value

This research tests which of three cognitive processing strategies is best able to prevent the aftermath of a difficult negotiation from spilling over into subsequent negotiations. Two forms of proactive processing are more effective than immersive processing in mitigating the consequences.

中文翻译：

---

认知过程和影响力预测谈判者的逆境后主观和经济结果

目的

就如何克服不良事件向谈判人员提供了有限的建议。这项研究旨在利用适应力和应对文献，测试三种认知加工策略对谈判者在逆境后的主观和经济价值的影响。

设计/方法/方法

参加者与同一个伙伴完成了两次谈判。操纵了第一次谈判的难度，并测试了这种经验的认知过程如何影响第二次谈判中的主观和经济结果。

发现

谈判者的影响，他们的认知加工策略和谈判难度是对主观和经济结果的预测。在艰难的谈判中，随着积极影响的增加，主动处理降低了自我满意度。随着负面影响的增加，情感处理增加了对关系和过程的满意度。

研究局限/意义

当情绪不高时，逆境的认知处理最有效，并且比以结果为导向的满意度更能保护以关系和过程为导向的满意度。这些发现适用于一种特殊类型的逆境，也适用于不会引起强烈情绪的情况。

创意/价值

这项研究测试了三种认知处理策略中哪一种最能防止困难谈判的后果蔓延到后续谈判中。在减轻后果方面，两种形式的主动处理比沉浸式处理更有效。