Export Publication

The publication can be exported in the following formats: APA (American Psychological Association) reference format, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) reference format, BibTeX and RIS.

Export Reference (APA) 
Simões, E. (2011). Outcome and process accountability in negotiation: a motivated processing  approach. Psychologica. 55, 351-368
Export Reference (IEEE) 
J. E. Silva,  "Outcome and process accountability in negotiation: a motivated processing  approach", in Psychologica, no. 55, pp. 351-368, 2011
Export BibTeX 
@article{silva2011_1716065181745,
	author = "Simões, E.",
	title = "Outcome and process accountability in negotiation: a motivated processing  approach",
	journal = "Psychologica",
	year = "2011",
	volume = "",
	number = "55",
	doi = "10.14195/1647-8606_55_18",
	pages = "351-368",
	url = "https://www.uc.pt/fpce/psychologica"
}
Export RIS 
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Outcome and process accountability in negotiation: a motivated processing  approach
T2  - Psychologica
IS  - 55
AU  - Simões, E.
PY  - 2011
SP  - 351-368
SN  - 0871-4657
DO  - 10.14195/1647-8606_55_18
UR  - https://www.uc.pt/fpce/psychologica
AB  - Past research indicate that negotiators under outcome accountability, compared to non-accountable ones, are more prone to competitive behavior which leads to suboptimal agreements, even when there is the possibility of obtaining higher joint gain. However, recent research showed that negotiators under process accountability made more accurate estimates of the other party’s preferences and interests and obtained higher joint gain than the non-accountable counterparts. Moreover, there’s some evidence that equality in gain sharing may be moderated by social motives. The current study with professional negotiators (N = 88) focus on the effects of both outcome and process accountability on the negotiation processes in a prosocial climate. Results indicate that accountable negotiators tend to maximize the agreement’s value, thus suggesting a positive influence of the interaction of these two variables on the negotiation’s outcomes and processes. Non-accountable negotiators and negotiators held accountable only for outcome tend to get lower gains than those obtained by the negotiators under process accountability, although they are prone to divide gains more equitably. Theoretical implications of these results as well as its consequences for the negotiation practice in organizations are discussed.
ER  -