Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information Leadership, Fifth Edition

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zetik, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Stuhlmacher, A. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Goal Setting and Negotiation Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Deborah C. Zetik

DePaul University

Alice F. Stuhlmacher

DePaul University, astuhlma{at}depaul.edu

We review, through meta-analysis, the effects of goals and goal attributes on the outcomes received by negotiators. Despite a long-standing interest in aspirations and goals in negotiation, researchers have not fully integrated aspiration theory and goal setting theory in group activities such as negotiation. Results of 22 research reports indicated that negotiators who held optimal (i.e. specific and challenging) goals consistently achieved higher profits than negotiators with suboptimal or no goals. Goal difficulty had a strong, positive influence on profit outcomes. More difficult goals led to higher outcomes than less difficult goals. The effect of goals was stronger in the cases where (a) the negotiator’s opponent did not have a strong goal, (b) there were rewards for performance, (c) negotiations were not face-to-face, and (d) the negotiator had task experience. Also, as predicted by goal setting theory, no effect was found for participation in goal setting. Additionally, it is proposed that the interactive and interdependent nature of the negotiation task provides grounds for further development of goal setting and aspiration theory.

Key Words: aspiration • bargaining • goal setting • meta-analysis • negotiation

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, 35-52 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430202005001537
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
W. Steinel, A. E. Abele, and C. K. W. De Dreu
Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and Performance in Negotiations
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 533 - 550.
[Abstract] [PDF]