do not exhibit dominance behavior, as elevated power leads to increased attention to rewards and decreased inhibition-related tendencies (Keltner et al., 2003). As such, dominance expressions may not change the perceived power balance within a dyad to the same extent when the relatively powerful negotiator expresses dominance. Dominance expressions from a relatively powerful negotiator may not communicate that the negotiator has any power beyond what is already perceived by both negotiators. Dominance expressions from a relatively powerless negotiator, by contrast, would be more likely to lead negotiators to question the power balance. Acting dominantly may therefore be less likely to affect the high-power negotiators’ senses of power within the negotiation than it is to affect negotiators’ senses of power. We offer: Hypothesis 1: Only relatively powerless negotiators will come to feel more powerful after receiving instructions to act dominantly. Consistent with theory proposing that perceived negotiator power can influence value claiming by altering negotiator and counterpart behavior (Kim et al., 2005), negotiators who are perceived as having greater power than their counterparts typically claim a larger share of the value than do their counterparts (Komorita & Leung, 1985; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007; Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994; Schaerer, Loschelder, & Swaab, 2016). If expressing dominance improves relatively powerless negotiators’ senses of power and perceived power increases value claiming, expressing dominance should be particularly likely to improve relatively powerless negotiators’ abilities to claim value. If high-power negotiators’ dominance expressions do not change the perceived power balance in the dyad, it is unclear whether those expressions would have yielded more or larger concessions than the high-power negotiator
do not exhibit dominance behavior, as elevated power leads to increased attention to rewards and decreased inhibition-related tendencies (Keltner et al., 2003). As such, dominance expressions may not change the perceived power balance within a dyad to the same extent when the relatively powerful negotiator expresses dominance. Dominance expressions from a relatively powerful negotiator may not communicate that the negotiator has any power beyond what is already perceived by both negotiators. Dominance expressions from a relatively powerless negotiator, by contrast, would be more likely to lead negotiators to question the power balance. Acting dominantly may therefore be less likely to affect the high-power negotiators’ senses of power within the negotiation than it is to affect negotiators’ senses of power. We offer: Hypothesis 1: Only relatively powerless negotiators will come to feel more powerful after receiving instructions to act dominantly. Consistent with theory proposing that perceived negotiator power can influence value claiming by altering negotiator and counterpart behavior (Kim et al., 2005), negotiators who are perceived as having greater power than their counterparts typically claim a larger share of the value than do their counterparts (Komorita & Leung, 1985; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007; Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett, 1994; Schaerer, Loschelder, & Swaab, 2016). If expressing dominance improves relatively powerless negotiators’ senses of power and perceived power increases value claiming, expressing dominance should be particularly likely to improve relatively powerless negotiators’ abilities to claim value. If high-power negotiators’ dominance expressions do not change the perceived power balance in the dyad, it is unclear whether those expressions would have yielded more or larger concessions than the high-power negotiator
Draft%203-1.docx