Negotiation scholars know relatively little about how negotiators can overcome adverse circumstances and end negotiations with an enhanced sense of satisfaction. Using a series of two negotiations simulations, we tested whether cognitive reappraisal influences negotiators’ responses to adverse experiences. After completing a negotiation in which they either did – or did not – encounter difficulties, participants identified a challenging moment and wrote about either the benefits or harms they associated with that moment. They then completed a second negotiation and reported their post‐negotiation satisfaction using the Subjective Value Inventory. Compared to negotiators who did not encounter adversity, those negotiators who did encounter challenges and engaged in benefit finding reported higher levels of process and relationship satisfaction than those who engaged in harm finding. We also found that negotiators reported greater process and relationship satisfaction under adverse circumstances (hard negotiation or harm‐finding appraisal) when their partners used inclusive language (we, ours, us) in the second negotiation.

A number of studies have shown that certain events that occur during a negotiation can alter its course. Referred to as “turning points,” these events are precipitated by actions taken either outside or inside the talks that have consequences for outcomes. In this article, we report the results of two experiments designed to examine the impacts of two types of precipitating actions, external and internal. In the first experiment, which focused on external actions, we found that crises — as opposed to breakthroughs — produced more movement in negotiations in which parties viewed the social climate positively (high trust, low power). We found that parties achieved less movement in negative social climates (low trust, high power). In the second experiment, which focused on internal actions, we found that cooperative precipitants (factors inducing change) were more likely to occur when parties negotiated in the context of positive social climates. Negotiation outcomes were also influenced by the climate: we found better individual outcomes for negotiations that occurred in positive climates (high trust, cooperative orientations). Inboth experiments, the social climate of the negotiation moderated the effects of precipitating factors on negotiation outcomes. Perceptions of trust and power filter the way negotiators interpret actions that occur outside or are taken inside a negotiation, which can lead to agreements or impasses.