The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining.
Abstract
A series of studies found that the personality dimension of unmitigated communion (H. L. Fritz & V. S. Helgeson, 1998) leads negotiators to make concessions to avoid straining relationships. Results indicate that even within the population of successful business executives, this dimension of relational anxiety can be identified distinctly from more general relational orientations, such as agreeableness, and that it distinctly predicts accommodating tendencies in everyday conflicts. In economic games, unmitigated communion predicts giving in contexts in which the relational norm of reciprocity applies, but not in contexts tapping instrumental or altruistic motives for cooperation. In distributive negotiations, the effect of unmitigated communion in lowering a negotiator's outcome is mediated by prenegotiation anxieties about relational strain and plans to make large concessions if needed to avoid impasse (lower reservation points). In integrative negotiations, high unmitigated communion on both sides of the negotiation dyad results in relational accommodation, evidenced by decreased success in maximizing economic joint gain but increased subjective satisfaction with the relationship.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 · Cited by 1,127
Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001 · Cited by 857
Cited by
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1153260 · Cited by 682
A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133193 · Cited by 255
Willing to Pay More, Eager to Pay Less: The Role of Customer Loyalty in Price Negotiations
Wieseke, J., Alavi, S., & Habel, J. (2014) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.13.0104 · Cited by 149
Weep and get more: When and why sadness expression is effective in negotiations.
Sinaceur, M., Kopelman, S., Vasiljevic, D., & Haag, C. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038783 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W., & Curhan, J. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 723-738
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2016254816
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 29.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0012612
- The paper
- Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W., & Curhan, J. R. (2008). Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012612
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.