Satisfaction, Guaranteed: My Perceptions of You Are More Predictive of Negotiation Satisfaction Than Your Actions Devin E. Howington and Sara D. Hodges Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 116 same-sex dyads (63 female, 53 male dyads) made up of university students participated. Ps rated 10 small consumer items (pens, gum, Emergen-C), which they rated based on their preferences. Ps then told they were going to play a negotiation game with context manipulated between-dyad: Compete Ps are told they win if they get the set of items with the highest value (based on their own ratings). Cooperate Ps are told they win if they come to a mutually agreeable solution. Ps negotiate the distribution of items. The negotiation is over once both Ps indicate they are finished (usually within a few minutes). Ps fill out a post-negotiation questionnaire that included measurements of negotiation satisfaction, trust, and self- and other-ratings of truthfulness along with individual differences in Machiavellianism. “How truthful do you think your partner was during the conversation?” “How truthful were you during the conversation?” “How much did you trust your partner?” (Measured on 7-point Likert-scale) Results Getting to a Satisfying Negotiation Outcome How does trust affect subjective satisfaction with outcomes when we take into account the interdependence of a negotiation? Does satisfaction vary between competitive and cooperative contexts? Does context interact with gender to affect satisfaction? Our results suggest that trusting one’s negotiation partner is important for subjective satisfaction, whereas how much one is trusted did not predict satisfaction, supporting and extending Curhan et al.’s (2006) findings. We also found that cooperative negotiations created greater satisfaction than competitive ones. Interestingly, this does not interact with trust or with gender, meaning there is an overall main effect of context that is not explained by either of those variables. However, context is not a significant predictor of trust, which suggests more exploration is needed to determine the role cooperative contexts play in determining satisfaction. One interesting finding was that actor’s Machiavellianism affected how much an actor trusted their partner, whereas their partner’s actual Machiavellianism did not influence actor’s trust. Machiavellian actors may be more likely to distrust the motives of others based on their own pro-self motives (Pierce et al., 2013). We did not find any significant partner effects in these analyses, which suggests the subjective satisfaction of a negotiated outcome could be mostly in the mind of the negotiator themselves, and have less to do with their partner. However, there are many more potential negotiation behaviors and perceptions that could influence their partner’s perceptions, and we advocate continuing to use APIM analyses in negotiation research to more appropriately examine these questions. Using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) we examined the relative contributions of each P to examine negotiation satisfaction Included gender and negotiation context at the dyad level. All predictors were grand-mean centered. Women and the competitive condition were the comparison groups. Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta- analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. (2013). From glue to gasoline: How competition turns perspective takers unethical. Psychological Science, 24(10), Stöckli, P. L., & Tanner, C. (2014). Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest ‐ based versus value ‐ based issues on negotiator satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2010). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, Turel, O. (2010). Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decision and Negotiation, 19, Satisfaction with a negotiated agreement is an important subjective outcome in a negotiation, above and beyond the actual negotiation terms, and may actually have a longer-lasting impact than the objective value of a deal (Curhan et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2010). Satisfaction is positively associated with perceptions of trust during a negotiation (Curhan et al., 2006; Kong et al., 2014), however, those studies have not examined the potential influence negotiators have on each other. The dyadic nature of negotiations means that the actions of one negotiator may affect the actions of the other, and not accounting for this interdependence may bias the results (Turel, 2010). We will extend this work by examining each person’s contribution to satisfaction. Framing negotiations in more relational terms increases satisfaction (Stöckli & Tanner, 2014), so we are examining competitive and cooperative contexts as well as dyad gender, and any interactions between those variables. Table 2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Predicting Trust of Partner Variables Estimat eSEt Intercept *** Actor Effects Perceptions of Partner’s Truthfulness *** Own Truthfulness Machiavellianism *** Partner Effects Perceptions of Partner’s Truthfulness Own Truthfulness Machiavellianism Dyad-Level Variables Gender Context Table 1 Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Predicting Subjective Satisfaction Variables Estimat eSEt Intercept *** Actor Effect Trust of Partner *** Partner Effect Trust of Partner Dyad-Level Variables Gender Context ** What predicts satisfaction? The significant actor effect shown in Table 1 indicates that trusting someone was predictive of satisfaction with the outcome. The partner effect was not significant, suggesting that partner’s trusting behavior was not an important factor for subjective satisfaction. This model shows that context also mattered for satisfactory outcomes: people in the cooperative context were significantly more satisfied than those in the competitive group. Gender did not significantly affect subjective satisfaction, and no interactions were significant. What predicts trust? Table 2 presents a second model examining the predictors of trust. The significant actor effect of perceptions of partner as truthful and the non-significant partner effect of actual truthfulness together suggest that perceptions of truthfulness are more important than actual truthfulness when it comes to trusting in a negotiation. Interestingly, the actor’s Machiavellianism was negatively associated with trust, but not the partner’s. Neither gender nor context was predictive of trusting behavior. Research Questions: Discussion *** p <.001, no interactions were significant References Method *** p <.001, ** p <.01, no interactions were significant