Trade-offs hurt, compromises as well: How value-driven conflicts impact negotiation behaviors, outcomes, and subjective evaluations

Value conflicts have been shown to impair negotiation behavior and outcomes (Harinck & Ellemers, 2014). Positions on values may be perceived as more incompatible than positions interests in utility-driven conflicts because incompatible values typically induce identity threat and a trade-off aversion. In two preregistered experiments (N=176/310), we test whether value-driven versus utility-driven conflicts impact behaviors, outcomes, and subjective evaluations even in a setting in which the motives behind the positions (values or utility) are structurally similarly compatible. We further tested whether the provision of information (compared to no provision) about the counterpart’s motives would have opposite effects in value-driven and utility-driven conflicts. Our findings corroborate that a value motive leads to an increased aversion against trade-offs, to more compromise offers (Study 1 and 2), and to lower individual and joint outcomes (Study 2). Across multiple dimensions (i.e., instrumental outcome, process, relationship, and in Study 1, self), subjective evaluations were more negative in value-driven conflicts than in utility-driven conflicts. Contrary to our predictions, providing information about the counterpart’s motives did not affect behaviors, outcomes, or subjective evaluations, possibly because it neither improved objective understanding of the other nor increased perceived discrepancy between counterparts. The results are discussed regarding theoretical implications for value-driven conflicts, and practical implications for information exchange as a facilitator in integrative negotiations.