Cited by 73Conflict Management and NegotiationBehavioral Health and InterventionsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Promoting integrative bargaining: mental contrasting with implementation intentions

Kirk, Dan, Oettingen, Gabriele, Gollwitzer, Peter M.·2013·International Journal of Conflict Management

Abstract

Purpose The present experiment aimed to test the impact of a self‐regulatory strategy of goal pursuit – called mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) – on an integrative bargaining task. Design/methodology/approach Participants were randomly assigned to dyads and negotiated over the sale of a car. Before negotiating, participants were prompted to engage in MCII, or one or the other of its two component strategies: to contrast mentally achieving success in the integrative bargaining task with the reality standing in the way of this success (MC), to form implementation intentions on how to bargain (i.e. if‐then plans) (II), or both to contrast mentally and form implementation intentions (MCII). Findings The strategy of mental contrasting with implementation intentions led dyads to reach the largest joint agreements, compared to dyads that only used mental contrasting or if‐then plans. Moreover, participants who mentally contrasted formed more cooperative implementation intentions than participants who did not mentally contrast, mediating the effect of condition on joint gain. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that the self‐regulatory strategy of mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) leads to higher joint gain, and that this effect is mediated by mental contrasting's promotion of cooperative planning. More research should be done to understand the specific negotiation behaviors engendered by MCII, as well as its applicabi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/10444061311316771

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Combining mental contrasting with implementation intentions is more effective in goal pursuit than either mental contrasting or implementation intentions.

    “Both laboratory experiments and field studies have shown that combining mental contrasting with implementation intentions is more effective in goal pursuit than either mental contrasting or implementation intentions (Adriaanse et al., 2010; Kirk et al., 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirk, D., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
Venue
International Journal of Conflict Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2013-04-19
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
148-165
ISSN
1044-4068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077166379
Cited by
73
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
19.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Conflict Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
mental contrasting with implementation intentions, integrative negotiation, self-regulation, goal pursuit, implementation intentions, if-then planning, collaborative planning, joint gains, negotiation outcomes, dyadic negotiation

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