Social Comparison and Fairness in Negotiations
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Professionalism & Career Development
How does social comparison influence perceptions of fairness?
In determining what is fair, the nature of the relationship between the parties is particularly important.
A negotiator will subconsciously undertake a process known as social comparison, which evaluates the negotiator's social standing with regard to the other party. That is, we subconsiously ask, "is the counterparty a colleague (or equal in status), superior, or subordinate?"
A negotiator may take on a more needs-based approach in negotiations with superiors and subordinates.
Negotiations with individuals of equal status are often marked by the equity rule.
It may give rise to increased competition or tension in the negotiation with the objective of improving one's position in relation to another.
Next Article: What is the effect of mood and emotions in negotiation? Back to: NEGOTIATIONS
How can the effect of social comparison on perceptions of fairness be mitigated?
A negotiator in a superior social position may seek to reduce this emotional response to the disparity in a number of manners:
Alter the Inputs - Alter any of the factors identified as affecting the negotiation. This may include altering the context of the negotiation, the timing, etc. If the negotiator is unable to actually alter the inputs, she may seek to alter the counterparty's perception.
Alter the Outcomes - Alter the negotiation process and potential results of the negotiation. This may include altering (for oneself of the counterparty) the interests at stake (mixed-motive or move to an integrative situation), the objectives (target point and optimal outcome), the alternatives (the resistance point and ZOPA), or the need for adjustment or concessions.
Cognitively Distort Inputs or Outcomes - If the negotiator is unable to actually alter the inputs or potential outcomes, she may seek to alter the counterparty's perception of the inputs or potential outcomes. This may be done through any effort that affects the counterparty's cognition, such as logic or emotion. For example, convincing the other party that common sense dictates an outcome or appealing to the counterparty's emotion (through empathy or sympathy).
A negotiator who is unable to either remove or reduce the source of inequity (or the perception of inequity) in a situation, as influenced by social comparison, may find it difficult to effectively negotiate a distributive situation.