Integrative Agreements do Not Negotiate Implementation Effort

Across two studies we challenge the assumption that integrative agreements are indisputably superior. While integrative agreements represent an efficient allocation of resources, they do not ensure implementation effort—a necessary step to experience value from the deal. In Study 1 (N = 700), we presented participants with a conflict resolved with either a compromise or a variety of other integrative solutions inspired by Carnevale’s (2006) Agreement Circumplex. Participants felt subjectively better about the negotiation in the compromise agreement compared to the integrative conditions and perceived their counterpart to feel better about the agreement in the integrative conditions compared to the compromise condition. They also worked harder to implement the compromise vs. integrative agreement. In Study 2, we examined potential confounds by examining the effect of the source of the integrative agreement. One’s own proposal for an integrative agreement was seen to be beneficial to the self but unfair.