Abstract
Although negotiators need to build and sustain high‐quality relationships, relatively little attention has been given to how they might accomplish this. Negotiation researchers have focused largely on the role of trust and trust violations in dealmaking, neglecting the insights that relationship science can offer. In this article, I integrate research from the close relationships and marriage therapy literatures with negotiation research. Based on this integration, I identify three common themes—relationship history, shared meaning, and relationship work—and draw out nine lessons for repair following actions that disrupt a relationship between negotiators. Drawing on these three themes and their associated lessons, I conclude by identifying four guiding principles for developing strong positive relationships. The first principle highlights the importance of acting within a critical window. Using the opening moments of a negotiation to establish positive emotional tone and cognitive interdependence builds a constructive foundation. Reappraising temporary impasses as transformational opportunities and resetting positive affect immediately after a temporary impasse stabilizes relationships and returns them to a positive trajectory. The second principle highlights the role of pauses. Stepping back from the moment of a temporary impasse enables negotiators to neutralize negative emotions, creating the psychological space to positively reappraise the impasse as a transformational opportunity. The third principle draws attention to the benefits of creating a positive skew within relationships, that is, increasing the salience of positive moments in a relationship's history. Finally, the fourth principle draws upon the concept of positivity resonance to highlight the benefits of synchronicity: the alignment of cognitions and emotions in a way that establishes a shared perspective and a shared response to temporary impasses.
Introduction
Negotiators' relationships play an important role in how they go about crafting agreements. In their review of the negotiation literature, Brett and Thompson (2016) highlighted two streams of research that tease out this relationship. The first stream focuses on the nature of the relationship, specifically whether we negotiate with friends or strangers. Although the findings are not clear‐cut, the emerging view is that the closer the relationship, the more likely we are to suboptimize economic outcomes in order to protect it. The research of Danzinger, Disantek, and Shani (2017) concluded that individuals expected friends to be less competitive and more generous than strangers and acquaintances, and they remembered their interactions more negatively when these expectations were violated. The second stream places social capital as a “commodity” that accrues over a negotiation, alongside economic capital. Using Curhan, Elfenbein, and Xu's (2006) Social Value Inventory, investigators have shown that in ongoing relationships, the social capital accrued in one negotiation spills over to shape economic capital in subsequent negotiations (Curhan, Elfenbein, and Kilduff 2009; Curhan, Elfenbein, and Eisenkraft 2010).
More broadly, the view that cooperation and mutual benefit are aligned, and that a positive relationship is a prerequisite for cooperation, pervades negotiation theory and practice (Ebner and Kamp 2011). A corollary of this view is that, because they are two parts of the whole, untangling the quality of the relationship from the quality of a final deal is challenging. While negotiators may opt for a problem‐solving strategy that preserves and strengthens their relationships, strong positive relationships increase the likelihood of problem‐solving. This reciprocal connection between the nature of negotiators' relationships and their ability to reach mutually acceptable agreements highlights the importance of understanding how negotiators can build and sustain strong positive relationships.
Despite the field's recognition that the quality of relationships plays an important role in shaping outcomes, relationships have remained in the background of our theorizing (Ebner and Kamp 2011). We are yet to understand the nuances of when and how the quality of relationships contributes to high‐quality outcomes or the mechanisms by which this is accomplished. As Ebner and Kamp (2011) have written, it is time to “name it [the relationship] as a primary concept that affects conflict, strategy, [and] communication.…” (398). We must deepen our knowledge of how relationships are established, disrupted, and repaired.
Olekalns and Brett (2008) have highlighted a shift away from the mechanics of deal‐crafting and toward a greater understanding of how intangible factors shape our experiences at the negotiating table. One part of this attentional shift has been toward gaining greater insight into the impact of underlying relationships on deal‐crafting. Because of the importance of trust between negotiators, much of this attention has been on understanding the relationship between trust and negotiation outcomes. Importantly, the focus on trust highlights both the role of building strong positive relationships and the possibility that such relationships can be undone by trust violations. However, even this shift places relationships in a supporting role.
In this article, my goal is to move relationships to the foreground and deepen our understanding of negotiation relationships. Although negotiators benefit from strong positive relationships, little attention has been paid in the negotiation literature to how such relationships are built and how parties overcome the inevitable sticking points that occur as negotiations unfold. These questions have, however, received extensive attention in the close relationships literature, including marriage and family therapy literatures. Through this article, I hope to build bridges between the close relationships and negotiation literatures. In building these bridges, and teasing out implications for negotiators, I also draw on the resilience literature.
Three themes tie these literatures together. There is consensus that relationship history plays a critical role in how adverse events are appraised; that developing a shared understanding of adverse experiences builds the foundations for repairing and strengthening relationships; and, that interpersonal processes—relationship work—play a critical role in returning relationships to a positive state. While these themes are evident in both the close relationships and negotiation literatures, these literatures offer somewhat different perspectives on how relationships are built and how they are rebuilt in the aftermath of temporary impasses. By integrating these perspectives with the resilience literature, I offer insights into how negotiators can more mindfully manage their relationships and I identify new research paths.
Point of Departure: Turning Points as Triggers for Relationship Change
Turning points are pivotal moments that change the direction of a negotiation (Druckman and Olekalns 2013), and the role that they play in shaping the evolution of both negotiations (Druckman 1986, 2001) and relationships (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Thompson 1999) is well established. Described by Green and Wheeler (2004) as discontinuities that trigger relationship change, turning points create momentary rifts in relationships. According to relational turbulence theory, when relationships are disrupted—encounter turbulence—individuals respond to events more intensely than they do usually. As a result, turning points trigger high degrees of uncertainty: individuals experience a heightened sense of threat, doubt is seeded about partners' intentions, and individuals reduce their relationship maintenance efforts (Knobloch and Solomon 2002; Knobloch and Thiess 2010; Park 2010).
Negotiations, which are characterized by high levels of uncertainty, are primed to magnify the sense of relationship threat triggered by unexpected events. McGinn, Lingo, and Ciano (2004) describe these events as out‐of‐keeping acts, behaviors that stand out from the regular ebb and flow of the negotiation process. These out‐of‐keeping acts vary in scale from highly visible events that change the course of large‐scale sociopolitical and international negotiations (e.g., Druckman 1986, 2001) to microaggressions such as those described by Kolb (2004). Somewhere in the middle sit what I have described elsewhere as normal adversities (Neville, Caza, and Olekalns 2020), actions and events that are not unexpected but can nonetheless stall agreement. Hard tactics, strategic displays of anger, highly constrained bargaining zones, and shifts in the negotiation context are examples of the normal adversities that comprise the ebb‐and‐flow of negotiation. While not intense, these normal adversities nonetheless disrupt the flow of a negotiation and call an opponent's intentions into question.
In addition to disrupting the flow of negotiations, turning points disrupt underlying relationships. Kellas and her co‐authors (2008) highlight the ways in which turning points can redefine relationships, placing them on either a positive or negative trajectory. The post‐adversity relationship is linked to the emotions that are triggered by a turning point (Lopez‐Kidwell, Niven, and LaBianca 2018), as well as the stories that partners or teams tell each other about the event's impact on their relationship. Consequently, how negotiators interpret these adversities, the emotions that they evoke in the moment (state relational affect) (Lopez‐Kidwell, Niven, and LaBianca 2018), and the place that they take in negotiators' shared history all determine whether negotiators can capture the opportunities presented by moments of relational turbulence or whether these adversities trigger a downward spiral of worsening relationships, suspicion, and distrust (Olekalns, Caza, and Vogus 2020).
In the following four sections, I discuss the nine lessons that I have drawn from the close relationships, negotiation, and resilience literatures. These lessons are grouped around four central ideas that are evident across these literatures: the need to appraise events and their associated emotions in a positive way; the important role that a relationship's history plays in the interpretation of an adverse event; the central role that shared meaning plays in supporting relationship repair; and the interpersonal behaviors that enable negotiators to restore relationships in the wake of an adverse experience. In this context, it is worth considering the idea of positivity resonance. Positivity resonance is a “synthesis of positive affect, mutual care and concern and behavioral and biological synchrony” and highlights the interconnection of cognition and emotion (Fredrickson 2016). This interconnection is predictive of greater marital satisfaction (Otero et al. 2019) and suggests that negotiation relationships will be at their strongest when these multiple factors are aligned. Positivity resonance is a relationship‐specific example of the systemic resonance described by Coleman (2018)—shared emotion, cognition, and physical energy—that can enhance individuals' sense of congruence, purpose, and unity.
In the Frame: Cognitive and Affective Appraisal
The discontinuities that create relationship threats also present relationship opportunities. As the turning points literature recognizes, a discontinuity can either facilitate or impede progress toward settlement (Druckman 1986, 2001; Coleman 2000). A disruption's cognitive framing is critical to how the negotiation's path subsequently unfolds. Typically, in striving to understand such framing, researchers focus on the negotiation context: whether negotiations are viewed through a power/rights frame or an interest frame (Lytle, Brett, and Shapiro 1999), the renaming of disputes, and—particularly relevant here—reframing these disruptions as learning experiences (Druckman and Olekalns 2013). Viewing relationship rifts (and other life events) as learning moments resonates with themes in both the close relationships and resilience literatures. The close relationships literature, however, broadens our understanding of how the framing of disruptions can alter the trajectory of relationships by drawing attention to the need for both cognitive and emotional processing of relationship threats (Park 2010).
Lesson #1. Use Positive Cognitive Processing to Harness Normal Adversities and Create Momentum for Transforming and Strengthening the Relationship
Cognitive processing describes an appraisal process in which stressors, including relationship threats, are reinterpreted. Faced with a stressor, individuals may look backward and focus on potential harm or look forward and focus on opportunities for growth (Folkman et al. 1986; Olekalns and Smith 2021). In comparison to the cognitive framing undertaken by negotiators (and described above), the cognitive processing of stressors focuses not on stressors themselves but on how individuals interpret the consequences of stressors. The resilience literature shows that individuals who frame adverse events as learning moments, weaving the positive aspects of events into the partners' understanding of their relationship, place their lives on an upward trajectory (McAdams et al. 2001; Bauer, McAdams, and Sakaeda 2005). Extending this reframing, disruptions can act as transformational events that trigger ongoing rather than in‐the‐moment changes (Bauer, McAdams, and Sakaeda 2005). Analyzing on‐again/off‐again relationships, Dailey et al. (2013) describe a pattern—“capitalize‐on‐transitions”—in which relationship disruptions are used as a force for positive change. Likewise, families that view stress through the lens of overcoming adversity and working together to achieve common goals report greater satisfaction and cohesion than those that focus on chaos and threat (Kellas 2005). In sum, by capitalizing on the opportunities that an adverse event presents, individuals can leverage that event to strengthen and transform their relationships. Research, however, suggests that for this reframing to be effective it must be undertaken within a critical repair window (Sheppes and Merrian 2007), shortly after an adverse event.
There is evidence that one cognitive processing mechanism—benefit finding—enables negotiators to overcome the adversity created by a narrow or negative bargaining zone. Negotiators who employ this strategy are able to offset the impact of negative affect and report greater satisfaction in subsequent negotiations (Lewis et al. 2018; Olekalns and Smith 2021). While suggesting that cognitive reappraisal can benefit negotiators who encounter normal adversities, these findings also highlight a gap in our knowledge of how to manage the negotiation process. Most often, negotiators are advised to implement specific tactics such as those described by Kolb (2004) in response to normal adversities. Refocusing on the problem to be solved, taking a break from negotiations, and seeking more information from an opponent are examples of the tactics that can counteract adversities and restore balance to a negotiation. Cognitive processing strategies identify a different path for managing these adversities, one that highlights the potential not only to rebalance a negotiation but also to overcome relationship threat. Thompson et al. (2022) identify cognitive reappraisal as one of several resilience skills that can enhance hostage negotiators' effectiveness. These authors focus on how to support cognitive reappraisal and resilient practices such as remaining flexible in the face of changing demands and negative emotions. Drawing on the close relationships and resilience literatures suggests that cognitive processing offers negotiators a powerful tool for strengthening their relationships both in the moment and in the future.
Lesson #2. Take Rapid Action to Reset and Restore a Positive Emotional Tone after a Relationship Threat
Negotiators also need to engage in emotion processing. Whereas cognitive processing focuses on actions and events, emotion processing focuses on understanding and managing our emotions (Park 2010). The close relationships and marital therapy literatures suggest that emotion processing should be directed to regulating positive affect (Gottman and Levenson 2000; Brown et al. 2021). Although much has been written about emotion in negotiation, the focus is usually on how strategically expressing emotions such as anger benefits negotiators' economic outcomes (Druckman and Olekalns 2008; Olekalns and Rees 2020) rather than on how influencing our own and others' emotions (emotion regulation) (Gross 1998; McRae and Gross 2020) might benefit negotiators' ongoing relationships. The close relationships and marriage literatures nicely fill this gap. For example, John Gottman and his co‐authors have shed light on the role of positive and negative affect, and emotion regulation strategies, in predicting whether relationships dissolve or continue after conflict. Paralleling the critical repair window for positive cognitive processing, Gottman's research identifies a critical repair window for emotion regulation (e.g., Carrere and Gottman 1999). It may be unsurprising that the expression of negative affect early in a relationship predicts a short‐lived relationship, and that early attempts to reinstate a positive emotional tone enable successful relationship repair (Gottman and Leveson 2002; Gottman, Driver, and Tabares 2015). It is less intuitive that a lack of positive affect early in a relationship predicts a long, slow decline (Gottman and Leveson 2002). Set against this broad emotional arc, we would be wise to consider how positive affect can be restored in the moment. Close relationships research suggests that partners who can rapidly shift away from an emotionally laden topic increase positivity and restore relational cohesion in the aftermath of relationship threat (Griffith, Connelly, and Thiel 2014; Gottman, Driver, and Tabares 2015).
Curhan and Pentland (2007) have demonstrated the impact of conversational dynamics in a negotiator's opening moments on negotiators' economic outcomes. Close relationships research identifies a parallel relationship between initial emotional tone and the ability to withstand relationship threats. Negotiators can strengthen their ability to withstand setbacks and relationship threats by expressing or signaling positive affect in the opening moments of their negotiations. Specifically, negotiators might strengthen their relationships by expressing hope and optimism early in a negotiation. These emotions contribute to psychological capital which, in turn, increases altruism and supports prosocial behaviors (Youseff‐Morgan and Luthans 2015). It is plausible that, in negotiations, emphasizing these emotions will establish the positive relationship foundations that enable partners to overcome relationship threats. Negotiators can further buffer their relationships from threats that arise during a negotiation by stepping back from a moment of threat (i.e., self‐distancing) (Ayduk and Kross 2010) and using the disruption to shift to a more neutral stance. The close relationships literature highlights the importance of monitoring and managing the affective tone of negotiations in order to overcome relationship threat. Negotiators, for whom relationship threat can trigger strong emotions (Shapiro 1992), can harness these insights to buffer the impact of relationship threats and preserve their relationship.
Roadmap to (Dis)Satisfaction
Finkel et al.’s trajectory principle highlights the dynamic nature of relationships—partners constantly update their evaluation of a relationship and this reevaluation process triggers changes in relationship satisfaction and commitment. In the following sections, I discuss two features of relationship trajectories: direction and variability. Direction captures whether relationship evaluations are increasingly positive, stable, or increasingly negative. Variability describes the speed with which these evaluations change over time, the extent to which evaluations are stable over time, and the trigger points for changes in evaluations. Although it is self‐evident that these same dynamics will play out in negotiations, relatively little attention has been paid to tracing their trajectory. Negotiation researchers typically focus on how a single turning point alters a negotiation's trajectory (Druckman 1986; Coleman 2000; Putnam and Fuller 2014) rather than on mapping the negotiation's longer‐term trajectory. This is not to say that the question of time is neglected by negotiation researchers. Analyses of negotiation phases shed light on how the distribution of strategies over time influences outcomes (Olekalns, Brett, and Weingart 2003; Brett, Weingart, and Olekalns 2004) and analyses of negotiation sequences highlight the role that tactical reciprocity plays in pushing negotiators to settlement or impasse (Putnam and Jones 1982; Olekalns and Smith 2000). However, the emphasis in these analyses has been on the link between timing and economic outcomes. In this context, Donohue and Roberto's (1993; Donohue and Hoobler 2004) Relational Order Theory links disputants' movement through a two‐dimensional relationship space defined by affiliation and interdependence/power with the likelihood of agreement.
Lesson #3. The Accumulation of Positive and Negative Events over Time Shapes a Relationship's Trajectory and Predicts Relationship Cohesion and Trust
Close relationships research adds nuance to existing analyses of how negotiations unfold over time by providing a more developed typology of relationship trajectories linking them to positive relationship outcomes. Specifically, this research focuses on the direction of a relationship trajectory. Relationships are reset and placed on an upward trajectory when individuals use a relationship threat to bring about positive change (Dailey et al. 2013). Over time, harnessing the transformational potential of relationship threats leads to increasing commitment (Kellas et al. 2008), cohesion, and trust (Lopez‐Kidwell, Niven, and LaBianca 2018). In an upward trajectory, positive turning points outnumber negative turning points, and the ratio of positive‐to‐negative turning points determines the rate at which relational cohesion increases (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson 1999). The ratio of positive‐to‐negative turning points must be above a critical threshold for relationships to be placed on an upward trajectory. When that ratio fails to clear the threshold, relational commitment holds stable over time but trust is low (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson 1999; Kellas et al. 2008; Lopez‐Kidwell, Niven, and LaBianca 2018). Downward trajectories, in which the positive‐to‐negative ratio skews negative (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson 1999), show a steady decline in relationship commitment (Dailey et al. 2013; Kellas et al. 2008). When relationships are on a downward trajectory, partners may come to distrust and avoid each other (Lopez‐Kidwell, Niven, and LaBianca 2018). Limited research suggests that upward trajectories are established when positive events are at least three times more frequent than negative events (Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nicholson 1999; Gottman and Levenson 2000).
The role of turning points in shaping a relationship trajectory is informative for negotiators. Whereas negotiation researchers typically focus on how a single turning point impedes or facilitates settlement, the close relationships literature highlights the impact of accumulated turning points over time. A particularly salient finding is that the impact of an overall positive skew (more positive than negative turning points) is subtle and determined by the precise positive‐to‐negative ratio. Although there is evidence that trust is higher when negotiators report more positive than negative turning points (Olekalns and Smith 2005), the research suggests that negotiators reap this benefit to the greatest degree only where the positive skew is significant. Whereas any positive skew ensures that relationship commitment remains stable, protecting trust requires more. Negotiators should not allow the dominance of positive turning points in a negotiation to lull them into a false sense of security. Depending on the positive‐to‐negative ratio, negotiators may be retaining commitment but unwittingly eroding trust.
Lesson #4. The Degree of Temporal Synchrony in Individuals' Evaluations of, and Aspirations for, the Relationship Determine Relationship Strength and the Parties' Capacity to Respond to Relationship Threats
Trajectories are variable: evaluations grow, peak, and diminish as partners incorporate new relationship‐relevant information into them (Finkel, Simpson, and Eastwick 2017). This variability is influenced by three features of trajectories: shape, fluctuation, and threshold (Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson 2019). Individuals' evaluations of their relationships vary in the speed with which they rise and decline. There is also variability in the point at which a positive evaluation of a relationship peaks, that is, how strong the positive evaluation is before it begins to decline. Evaluations also differ in terms of stability. They fluctuate over time, and changes in evaluations may occur daily, monthly, or yearly. Finally, relationship evaluations are linked to behavioral threshold; positive evaluations start to decline when a partner violates expectations about appropriate behavior within the relationship. At one level, relationship trajectories are unique to the individual, reflecting their perceptions of the relationship. We can compare partners' trajectories to assess the extent to which their evaluations of the relationship are the same at any point in time. According to Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2019), a relationship will be evaluated more positively when partners' trajectories show a similar pattern. Arriaga, Hunt, and Agnew (2019), focusing on temporal synchrony, elaborate on the impact of similarity. They propose that temporal synchrony of trajectories increases relationship closeness and trust whereas asynchrony casts doubt on a partner's commitment to the relationship.
The Relationship Trajectory Framework (RTF) expands our understanding of how turning points might shape negotiators' relationships. First, given the important role that opening moments play in negotiation, negotiators may benefit from trajectories with steep ascents and slow descents. The steep ascent rapidly provides the relationship resources needed to respond to a relationship threat, and the slow descent ensures that these resources prolong the capacity to respond to a threat. Second, whereas retrospective analyses of turning points undertaken at the group level (e.g., Druckman 1986; Putnam and Fuller 2014) assume a shared recognition of turning points, the RTF highlights the possibility that individuals' perceptions of turning points may be asymmetrical. This asymmetry may be driven by different thresholds for specific behaviors, based on different expectations about how an opponent should behave. The proposition that asynchrony drives partners apart suggests that relationship threats need to be understood by both negotiators. To restore relational cohesion and trust, both negotiators need to acknowledge that a threat has occurred even if they evaluate its consequences differently. Finally, negotiators also benefit when their individual trajectories follow the same path. When the shape of and fluctuations in individual trajectories are synchronized, negotiators have a stronger foundation for withstanding relationship threats.
Banking it: Past Positive, Future Perfect
Finkel, Simpson, and Eastwick (2017) identify integration as a central component of relationships. By integration, they mean a sense of interdependence that merges partners' cognition, affect, and behavior into a single identity. Variations of this idea are woven throughout researchers' discussions of relationships and reflected in concepts such as shared narratives, shared meanings, and co‐created experience. In defining a related construct—dyadic relational identification—Thompson and Ravlin (2016) describe relationships in which partners view each other positively and focus on relationship goals, creating psychological safety (Carmelli and Gittell 2009) that enables partners to synchronize positive relationship behaviors. Taken more broadly, integration and dyadic identity suggest that partners—and negotiators—benefit from establishing shared meaning (e.g., Echterhoff, Higgins, and Levine 2009; Echterhoff and Higgins 2018). Shared experiences increase our sense of connection, improve emotional well‐being, and enable partners to capture the transformational momentum created by turning points (e.g., Tedeschi and Calhoun 2004; Kellas 2005). I have identified three themes from close relationships theory that reflect the integration principle: relationship capital, emotional capital, and cognitive interdependence.
Lesson #5. Create a Positively Skewed Relationship Bank Account by Highlighting Past Successes and Positive Moments in your Negotiation
A relationship bank account—relationship capital—refers to the accumulation of positive and negative interactions with a partner (Murray and Holmes 1999). As Murray and Holmes (1999) note, this bank account is positively skewed when couples have banked more positive than negative interactions. They show that couples who can enhance their partner's virtues and downplay their faults when facing relationship threat report higher levels of satisfaction than couples who are unable to adopt this perspective. Moreover, in close relationships, in‐the‐moment behavior assessments are shaped by whether the individuals' relationship history is positive or negative (Carrere et al. 2000). Relationships are less likely to fail if, in the aftermath of conflict, couples can recall past occasions in which they successfully overcame adversity and they can feel pride in having done so (Beuhlman, Gottman, and Katz 1992). A positively skewed relationship account increases the resources that are available to buffer the impact of relational threat (Neff and Broady 2011).
The relationship capital construct suggests that the salience of past positive (vs. negative) events—the ease with which they can be recalled—is as important to relationship repair as the positive‐to‐negative event ratio. It also suggests that, in moments of relationship threat, partners can actively increase the salience of positive events and virtues. One means for doing so is to recall past threats—in the current or previous negotiations—that have been overcome successfully. Making past positive experiences more salient increases the perceived positive skew of a relationship account, which in turn supports positive attributions about the relationship threat. Placing a negative event within the context of a broader positive relationship constrains its impact and enables negotiators to protect their overall positive evaluations of a partner (Murray and Holmes 1993, 1999). The positive skew that enables negotiators to recover from relationship threats can characterize a single negotiation or a series of linked negotiations within long‐term relationships. In either case, shifting the relational skew to highlight positive experiences and successes places a relationship threat within the broader positive context created by this skew. Negotiators who can make this shift are better able to withstand a relationship threat and to strengthen their ongoing relationships.
Lesson #6. Create a Positively Skewed Emotional Bank Account by Seeding and Reciprocating Positive Emotions
As partners accumulate a relational bank account, so do they accumulate an emotional bank account. Whereas their relational bank account accumulates positive and negative relationship behaviors, their emotional bank account accumulates positive and negative emotions. There is a strong positive association between premarital expressions of positive affect and marital satisfaction (Smith, Vivian, and O'Leary 1990), and Brown et al. (2021) show that shared positive affect is associated with greater marital satisfaction and shared negative affect with less satisfaction. These benefits are amplified if partners have a positively skewed emotional bank account, that is, one with more positive shared emotional experiences than shared negative emotional experiences (Feeney and Lemay 2012). Positive emotional skew is more likely to occur when there is a high level of cognitive interdependence (discussed in the next section). A communal orientation enables partners to build their emotional reserves (Afifi, Merrill, and Davis 2016) and is linked to a greater use of behaviors that generate positive emotions such as expressions of interest, affection, positive humor, and joy (Seider et al. 2009; Gildersleeve et al. 2017). Moreover, the ratio of positive‐to‐negative affect predicts relationship satisfaction (Gottman et al. 1998). Feeney and Lemay (2012) have shown that couples who build high emotional capital are better able to withstand relationship threat than those who do not (also see Olekalns, Caza, and Vogus 2020).
As is true of other relationships, negotiators need to build emotional capital along with relational capital. In part, the lessons for building relationship capital can be transferred to building emotional capital. Negotiators can highlight positive emotional experiences and try to mitigate relationship threats by expressing positive emotions when such threats arise. Over time, couples who move toward positive emotions are more likely to settle disputes (Olekalns, Brett, and Donohue 2010) than those who do not. As expressions of positive emotions facilitate settlement, reciprocating negative emotions impedes settlement (Friedman et al. 2004). Negotiators may thus mitigate the consequences of relationship threat if they reciprocate the expression of positive emotions but remain emotionally neutral when negative emotions are expressed. They also may benefit from harnessing emotional contagion, seeding positive affect early in the negotiation as a means of building positive emotional capital.
Lesson #7. Front‐Load Cognitive Interdependence, Engaging in Behaviors that Establish “We‐Ness” Early in the Negotiation
The concept of cognitive interdependence deepens our insight into the role that shared meaning plays in maintaining and strengthening relationships. Co‐created shared meaning, which establishes shared values and a shared understanding of events (including relationship threats) stabilizes relationship patterns, strengthens social bonds, increases commitment, and builds healthy relationships (Agnew et al. 1998; Andersen and Pryzbylinski 2018). Cognitive interdependence manifests itself in a sense of “we‐ness” that situates the individual within the relationship (Agnew et al. 1998) and leads to an emphasis on the relationship. We‐ness increases engagement and investment in a relationship, taking the other person's perspective, and openness to repair efforts in the aftermath of threat (Beuhlman, Gottman, and Katz 1992; Kellas et al. 2008; Gottman, Driver, and Tabares 2015; Afifi, Merrill, and Davis 2016). Carrere et al. (2000) have shown that the degree of marital bonding—of which we‐ness is a part—at the start of a marriage predicts its longevity. We‐ness shapes relational and emotional capital (Gildersleeve et al. 2017).
The idea of “we‐ness” is threaded throughout the negotiation literature. Emphasizing problem‐solving, working toward mutually beneficial results, fostering a cooperative orientation, and talking in terms of “us” rather than “me” are well‐known mechanisms for improving negotiators' outcomes (e.g., Simons 1993). Related to the idea of cognitive interdependence, Gelfand and her co‐authors (2006) describe relational self‐construal, an orientation that emphasizes connection with others (also see Cross, Morris, and Gore 2002). Although differences in self‐construal—how we conceptualize our relationships—are often presented as chronic (trait‐like), they can also be primed, suggesting that negotiators can shift how they represent their relationship with a partner. Increasing cognitive interdependence between negotiators creates a more robust relationship and is a critical prerequisite for weathering a relationship threat. Cognitive interdependence also lays the foundations for future‐proofing relationships against further threats; building relational capital and fostering positive emotions increases the positive skew of both relational and emotional capital and consequently the robustness of the relationship. Because it plays a foundational role in shaping negotiators' ability to withstand relationship threats, cognitive interdependence should be primed in the opening moments of a negotiation.
Putting in the Work
Beyond building strong foundations for their relationships, couples need to think and act in ways that support relationship repair. Finkel et al. (2017) identify a set of principles that define how relationships operate. According to these authors, relationship quality is determined by whether partners evaluate each other in a positive or negative light, are responsive to each other, and display behaviors that promote relational persistence. I identified two themes in the close relationships literature that elaborate on these principles: a focus on positive over negative events, emotions, and behaviors; and constructive interpersonal processes.
Lesson #8. Refrain from Seeding Negativity; Constructively Manage Negative Behaviors and Emotions
In discussing relational and emotional bank accounts, I highlighted the benefits of making salient a couple's shared positive experiences and shared positive affect. This suggestion is not as straightforward as it might seem. The negativity principle identified by Baumeister et al. (2001) underscores our bias for noticing—and reacting more strongly to—behaviors and events that are negative rather than positive (Parker, Gerbasi, and Porath 2013). This negativity bias suggests that partners—and negotiators—will not only be more attentive to negative events such as relationship threats that interrupt the flow of their interactions but will also scrutinize them more closely. For example, close relationships research shows that when relationships are stressed, they are more profoundly affected by negative behaviors than by positive behaviors (Rivers and Sanford 2018). This research also shows that in the aftermath of a relationship threat, partners benefit from focusing on positive feelings toward their partners rather than on doubts about their partner's positivity (Cate et al. 1995).
Because negative behaviors and emotions are salient, a first step toward protecting relationships (including negotiators') from threat is to limit negative interpersonal behaviors. Doing so increases partners' relationship satisfaction (Rivers and Sanford 2018). A second step in protecting relationships is to manage one's responses to a partner's negative behaviors and emotions. There is substantial empirical evidence that implementing and reciprocating negative interpersonal behaviors initiates destructive cycles in close relationships (Madhyastha, Hamaker, and Gottman 2011). Moreover, close relationships research shows that how partners respond to negative behaviors is more predictive of relationship quality than how they respond to positive behaviors (Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow 1986). Thus, negotiators will gain more relationship mileage by managing their opponents' negative displays rather than their positive ones.
Lesson #9. Relationship Repair is a Two‐Step Process: Threat Mitigation Behaviors Stabilize Relationships and Relationship Enhancement Behaviors Place them on an Upward Trajectory
My discussion of “positive over negative” focused on the broad behavioral processes that can support relationships. Relationships research also teases out the more specific behaviors that can restore relationships once they have been disrupted. As several authors have noted, constructive relationship dynamics can offset the impact of relationship threat and increase relationship satisfaction (Karney and Bradbury 1995; Li and Fung 2019). Partners can minimize a threat's potential harm and stabilize a relationship by attributing the relationship threat to external factors, expressing positive affect, showing support for each other, and reinstating joint problem‐solving (Ogolsky et al. 2017). However, while these actions stabilize relationships, they do not leverage the transformational potential of relationship threats. Partners need to harness constructive interpersonal behaviors to fully restore their relationships and to capitalize on the moment (Ren and Gray 2009). Partners can leverage threats to transform relationships by reestablishing benevolent perceptions of each other's behaviors and intentions, expressing concern about each other's feelings, being positive and reassuring toward each other, and using affiliative humor to reduce tension (Gottman, Driver, and Tabares 2015; Ogolsky et al. 2017). Establishing benevolent perceptions increases individuals' willingness to work collaboratively (Afifi, Merrill, and Davis 2016) and leads to long‐term relationship satisfaction (Vater and Schroder‐Abe 2015).
Negotiation research offers some insight into the impact of threat mitigation strategies. For example, Morris, Larrick, and Su (1999) have shown that, when faced with difficult partners, negotiators are most likely to make negative attributions about them. In her discussion of moves and turns, Kolb (2004) highlights two turns that offer threat mitigation: shifting attribution from the person to the situation and refocusing on problem‐solving. This discussion supports the idea that negotiators can stabilize their relationships by offsetting the impact of a relationship threat. However, my earlier discussion of relationship trajectories suggests that these behaviors, while stabilizing a relationship, may leave it with a trust deficit, an outcome that is especially consequential in negotiations. To transform their relationship and restore trust, negotiators need to add constructive interpersonal behaviors to their repertoire. Negotiators are most likely to implement these behaviors if they first reinstate cognitive interdependence—the sense of “we‐ness” that I described earlier.
Conclusion: Guiding Principles for Strong Relationships
Take Action in the Critical Window
The importance of acting in a critical window emerged across several themes. The first critical window is provided by the opening moments of a negotiation, which are known to play a critical role in setting the strategic tone for negotiations. My discussion also highlights the importance of the opening moments for building threat‐response capacity, that is, for establishing a relationship foundation that enables negotiators to withstand relationship threats. Negotiators who use these moments to build positive affect—make a significant deposit in their emotional bank account—and to establish cognitive interdependence create a more robust relationship. The second critical window opens immediately after a relationship threat. In this moment, negotiators have an opportunity not only to stabilize their relationships but also to place them on an upward trajectory characterized by growing cohesion and trust. Negotiators can reset their relationship trajectories by reappraising a relationship threat as a transformational moment, and by implementing emotion regulation strategies that reset positive affect.
Pause and Step Back
Many of the strategies discussed above require negotiators to pause rather than rush forward in the immediate aftermath of a relationship threat. Pausing creates the cognitive and emotional space to respond to a threat mindfully rather than impulsively and in ways that might amplify the threat. Ury (1991) calls this “going to the balcony,” that is, establishing emotional distance in order to regain objectivity. Likewise, Coleman (2018) highlights the importance of self‐regulation to inhibit “hot” emotional responses to conflicts. Kolb (2004) highlights the benefits of interruptions while negotiating: short breaks that can shift the negotiation's underlying tone and dynamic. In my discussion of emotional regulation, I highlighted the role that self‐distancing—stepping back to gain perspective—plays in buffering the emotional impact of a relationship threat. Because it enables negotiators to neutralize negative emotions, self‐distancing can also create the necessary cognitive space to reappraise the threat positively and implement relationship‐enhancing behaviors, thus placing the relationship on an upward trajectory.
Create Positive Skew
If positive turning points outweigh negative turning points across negotiators' relationship trajectory, they will respond to relationship threats more positively and constructively, leading to increased cohesion and trust. Because the negativity bias makes negative events more salient than positive events, an objectively positive skew may be overlooked. To offset this negativity bias, negotiators need to increase the salience of positive moments in the relationship: highlight past successes, draw attention to small wins within a negotiation, and highlight their negotiating partner's “virtues.” In parallel, negotiators need to create positively skewed emotional bank accounts by seeding positive affect, injecting constructive humor, and sidestepping a counterpart's expressions of negative emotions. Negotiators can continue to build a positive skew by focusing their energy on constructively mitigating negativity, that is, by engaging in behaviors that mitigate rather than enhance negative behaviors and emotions.
Search for Synchronicity
Extensions of the Relationship Trajectory Framework highlighted the role that synchronized trajectories play in building cohesion and trust, thus supporting threat‐response capacity. Cognitive interdependence—the sense of “we‐ness”—also exemplifies synchronicity: partners acting as one through their alignment of perceptions and interpretations of events. Paralleling cognitive interdependence is affective interdependence: a shared positive emotional climate that further enhances individuals' threat‐response capacity (Olekalns, Caza, and Vogus 2020). Negotiators who are aligned cognitively and emotionally, and whose evaluations of their relationship are aligned over time, have greater capacity to overcome relationship threats.