Whatever we negotiate is not what I like: How value-driven conflicts impact negotiation behaviors, outcomes, and subjective evaluations

I share because of who I am: values, identities, norms, and attitudes explain sharing intentions

To promote sustainable consumption, predictors of individuals' intentions need to be understood. Focusing on the example of collaborative consumption, we look at facilitating and inhibiting factors in a preregistered correlational study (N = 378). We hypothesized the Value-Identity-Personal norm (VIP) model to explain variance in sharing intention. In addition, we expected sharing intentions to be linked to attitudes about (de-)ownership. We also hypothesized self-extension into an object to be a barrier to sharing this object. The results supported all hypotheses: The VIP model and de-ownership orientation were related to sharing intentions. Moreover, self-extension into a car was significantly higher among subsamples of car owners than car sharers. Exploratory findings show that the value-intention link predicted by the VIP can be found for biospheric as well as altruistic values if sharing intentions are assessed with items framed to match these respective values. We discuss implications for attempts to promote sustainable consumption.

Following Health Measures in the Pandemic: A Matter of Values?

Three studies (N = 887) tested the hypothesis that value consistency predicts intended coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) health behaviors and overrides other utility-based motivational factors. Accordingly, Study 1 showed that intentions of social distancing were higher if it was perceived as more value-consistent. The higher value consistency, the less self-interest inconsistency, and the perceived efficacy of social distancing mattered for intentions. On the other hand, Study 2 failed to induce value consistency experimentally. However, correlative results show a moderation pattern similar to Study 1 regarding social distancing intentions, policy support, and devaluation of transgressors. In Study 3, higher value consistency of vaccination reduced the experimental effect of prosocial efficacy but not the effect of self-interest efficacy of the vaccine. The findings are discussed regarding theoretical implications for the interplay of values and utility in motivation. In addition, implications for the potentially ambivalent effects of appealing to values to increase compliance are discussed.

From values to climate action

To mitigate anthropogenic climate change, it is important to know what motivates individuals to support and take climate action. Values reflect universal, general, desirable goals which guide individuals' preferences and actions. Stronger biospheric values (caring about the environment), in particular, predict stronger engagement in climate action. Although many individuals have strong biospheric values, contextual barriers can inhibit their climate actions. Notably, policies and contextual changes that reduce contextual barriers can motivate and enable individuals to act on their biospheric values. In addition, public participation may better engage public values in climate policies and actions as to increase their acceptability. Finally, correcting biases that others have weaker biospheric values than oneself may also motivate individuals to support and take climate action.

Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Transformative and mutually beneficial solutions require decision-makers to reconcile present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflicts over time) and to align them with those of other decision-makers (i.e., interpersonal conflicts between people). Despite the natural co-occurrence of intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability, both types of conflicts have been studied predominantly in isolation. In this conceptual article, we breathe new life into the traditional dialog between individual decision-making and negotiation research and address critical psychological barriers to the transformation toward sustainability. In particular, we argue that research on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be tightly integrated to provide a richer understanding of the interplay between these conflicts. We propose a novel, unifying framework of interdependent conflicts that systematically structures this interplay, and we analyze how complex interdependencies between the social (i.e., conflict between decision-makers) and temporal (i.e., conflict within a decision-maker) dimensions pose fundamental psychological barriers to mutually beneficial solutions. Since challenges to conflict resolution in the transformation toward sustainability emerge not only between individual decision-makers but also frequently between groups of decision-makers, we scale the framework up to the level of social groups and thereby provide an interdependent-conflicts perspective on the interplay between intra- and intergenerational conflicts. Overall, we propose simple, testable propositions, identify intervention approaches, and apply them to transition management. By analyzing the challenges faced by negotiating parties during interdependent conflicts and highlighting potential intervention approaches, we contribute to the transformation toward sustainability. Finally, we discuss implications of the framework and point to avenues for future research.

Negotiation is about entitlements, not interests

The psychological study of negotiation, influenced by economics, has long emphasized the interests of the bargaining parties as the main driver of the negotiation process. This remains the case, even though psychological research has shown that individuals do not behave in the manner predicted by classical economics. A main drawback of the concept of interests is that it is an individual-level construct and, therefore, does not tap directly into the interindividual nature of the negotiation process. In contrast, entitlements can serve as the key notion in the study of negotiation, both conceptually and epistemologically. I argue that at the heart of negotiation is a rule-making process through which parties define each other’s entitlements and duties. If we view negotiation in this way, we can study it as the primary vehicle for the explicit determination of social norms, obligations, and “ought” standards that permeate social life. This view has ramifications for the study of negotiation itself, for the social-psychological study of coregulation, and even for the function of society as a whole.