An introductory look at the role and impact of emotions in business-like negotiations. Within the paper, two studies are analyzed: One of them provides a general argument for emotional intelligence in negotiations; the other presents a particular emotion (disappointment) and its impact. And, while these studies present contradictory findings, they revolve around a similar thesis: emotions affect negotiations.

1. Running header: WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL…
When Business Becomes Personal: The Role of Emotions in Negotiations
Jesus Vega-Cerda
Keiser University – Lakeland Campus
International Negotiations and Transactions (GEB 4358)
Dr. T. Whitfield
February 1, 2018

2. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 2
Introduction
Oftentimes, some people argue that emotions have no place in negotiations; the insertion of
feelings into a process of substantive give and take will most definitely be detrimental to its
outcome, individuals may posit. “This is business,not personal,” is the conventional wisdom used
to explain these positions and justify the absence of emotion in negotiations. This assertion is
partly accurate in the sense that the personal aspect of the business scenarios heretofore
implicitly considered – company negotiations, sales,andthe like – extends only to the interaction
between persons. They are not essentially personal, however; rather, distributions of tangible
resources. But, can emotions influence the outcomes of these distributions in a positive way?
Various researchers suggest they can.
Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Kleef, & Van Beest (2013) describe emotions as “social tools that
facilitate and coordinate social decision making” (p. 605). Certainly, negotiations are social
encounters, and decision making is a critical part of these processes; it determines whether a
bargaining will take place, how the parties will proceed once a negotiation begins, and if they
agree with a settlement proposed by their counterparts. Thus, studying the tools that facilitate
and coordinate this process proves the relevance of in-depth research on emotions in
negotiations. As a result, Lelieveld and his colleagues (2013) develop the discussion even further.
They study the effects that disappointment, an inherently negative emotion, may have in
negotiation outcomes. In doing such research and in agreement with other literates, they stress
that using emotions reactively, as opposed to strategically, will very likely produce suboptimal
outcomes. Additionally, they are aware of the influence individual scenarios may have on

3. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 3
emotions. Therefore, if negotiators wish to employ emotions in their dealings, they must possess
a high degree of emotional intelligence.
Kim, Cundiff, & Choi (2015) agree with other researchers in correlating positive emotions
in a negotiation with win-win agreements, satisfaction, and the desire to stay in the relationship
(Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Baron, 1990; Hollingshead & Carnevale, 1990; Forgas, 1998; Lawler &
Yoon, 1995), and negative emotions with impasses, less flexibility in thinking and joint gain
(Allerd, 1999; Allerd, et al., 1997). From that, two connections become apparent: (1) positive
emotions are related to integrative negotiations and (2) negative emotions, with distributive
bargaining.
Emotional Intelligence
It is imperative that negotiators are in control of their feelings at the bargaining table; they must
manage their emotions effectively, as well as possess the ability to identify and interpret the
other parties’ (Goleman, 1995; Kim, Cundiff, & Choi, 2015). This is the essence of emotional
intelligence.
Kim, Cundiff, and Choi (2015) hypothesize that individual emotional intelligence will have
a positive associationwith individual gainand the opponent’s trust level, negotiation experience,
and desire to work in the future; additionally, adyad emotional intelligence(i.e., both negotiating
parties being emotionally intelligent)will have a positive associationwith joint gain.To test these
theories, they conducted an experiment involving 284 upper-level undergraduate business
students, who were divided into pairs and assigned different positions in a job contract
negotiation: one was assignedthe role of a personnel manager and the other, the role of the new

4. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 4
employee. The negotiation itself included three types of negotiation issues: distributive (salary
and medical coverage), logrolling (annual raises and vacation time), and compatibility (starting
date) issues.
The results showed that “when negotiators worked with emotionally intelligent
opponents, they felt that their opponents were honest, reliable, and trustful … [and] felt that
they wanted to work with the same opponents in the future” (p. 490). It is important to note,
however, that “[negotiators] ranking high in emotional intelligence (individual and group) did not
achieve high individual and joint gains,respectively”(p.490). The authors attribute this to several
factors. First, they found an inverse correlation between individual emotional intelligence and
individual gain,which implies “that those with higher emotional intelligencemay have a tendency
to make more concessions in order to avoid tension and to maintain positive feelings between
the negotiating parties” (p.490). Additionally, they are aware of the critical role time plays in
these discussions. Negotiators had 25 minutes to bargain, and the authors posit that the time
constraint may have affected the results on that matter.
Disappointment and the Importance of Guilt
Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Kleef, & Van Beest (2013) present a more specific approach to
understanding the emotional link in negotiations. They attempt to determine how
disappointment, an inherently negative emotion, is related to the results of a bargaining
situation. They argue that communicating disappointment can produce guilt from the other
party. Guilt, various researchers assert, presents a critical role; it “improves relationship quality,
reduces competition, and motivates people to make amends” (Baumeister, Stillwell, &

5. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 5
Heatherton, 1994; Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Kleef, & Van Beest, 2013,
p.606). Further, more important and pertinent to this paper, “in negotiation settings, guilt
stimulates concessions” (Ketelaar & Au, 2003; Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, Steinerl, & Van
Kleef, 2011; Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef, 2012, 2013). However, these views base
the results of a negotiation on a negative emotion (guilt) that is, itself, based on the expression
of weakness that results from another negative emotion (disappointment). Moreover, the type
of negotiation – whether an individual is negotiating her personal interests or those of a
constituency – must be considered as well when determining disappointment’s effects. To test
this relationship, Lelieveld and his colleagues (2013) designed four negotiation simulations
surrounding a similarscenario: the ultimatum bargaining game, in which two players must decide
how to distribute a certain amount of chips. The allocator then makes a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer
to the recipient. If the recipient accepts, the chips will be distributed accordingly. However, if the
recipient rejects the offer, both parties receive nothing. The experiments yielded interesting
results.
First, “when disappointment was communicated by an ingroup member [a student of the
same university], it evoked guilt… when disappointment was communicated by an outgroup
member [a student from another university], participants felt less guilty” (p. 610). It is important
to note that the amount of chips offered was proven to be causedby the degree of guilt the other
party felt. Second, “when participants negotiated as representatives, they felt less guilty toward
disappointed opponents than when they negotiated for their own outcomes” (p. 613). These
findings stress the importance of the evocation of guilt and the factors surrounding the
negotiation when determining whether to employ disappointment or not.

6. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 6
Conclusion
These studies and others stress the importance and relevance of researching further the effects
of emotions in negotiation strategies and outcomes. Certainly, the Kim, Curdiff, & Choi (2015)
experiment should be repeated with a different time-frame, to definitively rule out the influence
of limited time on the previous study. Additionally, the research by Lelieveld and his colleagues
(2013) should explore other bargaining scenarios that do not involve a take-it-or-leave-it
strategy.
The two studies discussed present interesting findings. They confirm a link between the
employment of emotions in negotiations with their outcomes, yet the authors of the two studies
differ in suggesting that negative emotions exclusively lead to less-than-optimal outcomes or
distributive-like negotiations. The study authored by Lelieveld, Van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef
(2013) concludes that disappointment, a negative emotion that relates to weakness, in certain
negotiations, may lead to a better outcome than is expected by the disappointed party.

7. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 7
References
Allerd KG (1999) Anger and retaliation: toward an understanding of impassioned conflict in
organizations. In: Bies RJ, Lewicki RJ, Sheppard BH (eds) Research on negotiation in
organizations, vol 7. JAI, Greenwich, pp 27–58
Allerd KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F, Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on
negotiation performance. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 70:175–187
Baron RA (1990) Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task
performance, negotiation, and conflict. J Appl Soc Psychol 20:368–384
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243
Carnevale PJ, Isen AM (1986) The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery
of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 37:1–
13
Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator, cognition
and bargaining strategies. J Personal Soc Psychol 74:565–577
Goleman D (1995) Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books, New York
HollingsheadAB, Carnevale PJ (1990) Positive affectand decision frame in integrative bargaining:
a reversal of the frame effect. Paper presented at the 50th annual meeting of the
academy of management, San Francisco
Ketelaar, T., & Au, W. T. (2003). The effects of feelings of guilt on the behavior of uncooperative
individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation

8. WHEN BUSINESS BECOMES PERSONAL… 8
of the role of emotion in social interaction. Cognition & Emotion, 17, 429–453.
doi:10.1080/ 02699930143000662
Kim, K., Cundiff, N., & Choi, S. (2015). Emotional Intelligence and Negotiation Outcomes:
Mediating Effects of Rapport, Negotiation Strategy, and Judgment Accuracy. Group
Decision & Negotiation, 24(3), 477-493. doi:10.1007/s10726-014-9399-1
Lawler EJ, Yoon J (1995) Structural power and emotional processes in negotiation. In: Kramer RM,
Messick DM (eds) Negotiation as social process. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 143–165
Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal
conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 1–37
Lelieveld, G., Van Dijk, E., Van Kleef, G. A., & Van Beest, J. (2013). Does Communicating
Disappointment in Negotiations Help or Hurt? Solving an Apparent Inconsistency in the
Social-Functional Approach to Emotions. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology,
105(4), 605-620. doi:10.1037/a0033345
Lelieveld, G.-J., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why anger and
disappointment affect other’s bargaining behavior differently: The moderating role of
power and the mediating role of reciprocal and complementary emotions. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1209–1221. doi:10.1177/0146167212446938
Lelieveld, G.-J., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., Steinel, W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). Disappointed in
you, angry about your offer: Distinct negative emotions induce concessions via different
mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 635–641. doi:10.1016/j.jesp
.2010.12.015