In a negotiation study, we investigated the efficacy of acknowledging an opponent's role in securing a concession made to that opponent. The study featured a face‐to‐face, one‐shot bargaining session between a student favoring marijuana legalization and a confederate playing the role of a legalization opponent. When the confederate acknowledged the student's putative influence in producing a concession by the confederate, the student perceived the magnitude of the concession to be greater and was more likely to accept it. The student negotiators also reported that they liked the other party more following acknowledgement, and our mediational analysis suggested that enhanced interpersonal sentiments played a role in facilitating agreement. In this article, in addition to documenting these findings, we also discuss their implications, both for theoretical analyses of conflict and negotiation and for the practical problem of settling disputes.

When you have a rational discussion of what to do with the Israeli settlements, how do you factor in the irrational, the deeply held beliefs of people with varying views? As we witnessed at the conference, when people speak about the Israeli settlements, they do so with emotion, using such phrases as “Messianic spirit,”“longing for homeland,”“compassionate revenge,” and “the destruction of dreams.” The land in question is precious to two different groups, who each imbue the land with their own narrative and fervor. In fact, at the very heart of what makes the settlements issue so complex and seemingly intractable is its psychological dimensions — the mental and emotional factors that permeate the discussion at every level.