Making sense of persuasion: A taxonomy of negotiation rationales and their relational and economic consequences

Abstract: Negotiators often use rationales to persuade their counterparts to make concessions or accept their offers. Despite their ubiquity in negotiation practice, the full variety and effects of such rationales remain poorly understood. Drawing on data from simulated craigslist negotiations and online questionnaires, we developed a systematic taxonomy of six rationale types frequently used in price negotiations along with their prevalence (Study 1-3, NTotal = 710). We then conducted two high-powered vignette studies to test whether they produce diverging effects on economic (Study 4, N = 598) and relational (Study 5, N = 598) outcomes. Our results indicate that the most prevalent rationales (i.e., sellers praising their products) are suboptimal in terms of value claiming while preserving relationships, whereas less prevalent rationales (e.g., eliciting sympathy) realize economic gains at relational costs. Our findings highlight the importance of goal-consistent rationale use and offer implications for negotiation theory and organizational practice.

Keywords: negotiation, rationales, persuasion, constraints, relationships