Group Decision and Negotiation (2023) 32:667–699

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09824-2

Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict

Information Search in Negotiation Planning

Dai Quy Le1,2 · Daisung Jang1

Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published online: 3 April 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Planning is critical for negotiation success as it facilitates obtaining superior out-
comes. However, little empirically is known about this topic. We argue that indi-
vidual differences are important to understanding planning behavior because plan-
ning affords greater opportunities for individual differences to manifest compared to
other phases of negotiation. We conducted a series of studies with the aim of under-
standing how the Big Five factors and gender predict information search and prefer-
ence while planning. In Study 1, we examined information search behavior using the
Mouselab paradigm. When the search space was large, agreeableness predicted per-
sistence in search, and women spent significantly more time on the task, and looked
for value creating and relationship related information to a greater extent than men
(Study 1a). In a more constrained situation or with a smaller search space, few asso-
ciations between individual differences and search behavior emerged (Studies 1b and
1c). In Study 2, we used a survey design to elicit preferences for information type.
In this task, multiple personality factors predicted preferences. Conscientiousness
and openness predicted preferences for value claiming information, and women pre-
ferred value creating information. Conscientiousness predicted preference for value
claiming choice of information through the preference for value claiming informa-
tion. How individual differences manifest in information search and preference in
negotiation planning is a function of both task type and complexity.

Keywords Information search · Information preference · Personality · Gender ·

Negotiation planning

* Daisung Jang
d.jang@uq.edu.au
Dai Quy Le
dai.le@monash.edu
1
Business School, University of Queensland, 39 Blair Drive, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
2
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road,
Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
668 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

1 Introduction

Planning is essential to effective negotiation. Both academics and expert practition-

ers advise negotiators to gather information before the first offer is made (American
Bar Association 2009; Kennan and Mearsheimer 2012; Schneider and Honeyman
2006). Information gathered prior to bargaining can be a source of advantage—
negotiators informed about the counterpart’s limits often claim greater value (Gal-
insky and Mussweiler 2001). But the dominant form of research continues to be
simulation based methods that assume equivalence in planning (Jang et al. 2018;
Pruitt 2012). Thus, we know little about how people search for and evaluate infor-
mation as they plan. In this research, we adopt an individual differences perspec-
tive. This approach assumes there are measurable and stable between-person differ-
ences that can predict both behavior and outcomes. For example, personality reflects
an individual’s preferred way of being across social situations (Fleeson 2004), and
it has been informative in predicting a wide array of consequential life outcomes
(Borghans et al. 2008).
We focus on the Big Five personality factors and gender because they represent
some of the most widely studied individual differences in negotiation (see Elfenbein
2015 for a review; Boothby et al. 2022; Mazei et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2013). Prior
thinking about planning describes gender and psychological characteristics as major
influences on planning and negotiation more generally (Peterson and Lucas 2001;
Stuhlmacher and Adair 2011). In addition, the Big Five and gender are relevant to
negotiation planning because they predict conceptually similar behaviors. For exam-
ple, conscientiousness predicts greater investment behavior and maintaining a bal-
ance of liquid and illiquid assets, which help to increase overall net worth (Letkie-
wicz and Fox 2014), and women spend less time planning and saving for retirement
(Glass and Kilpatrick 1998; Jacobs-Lawson et al. 2004).
To establish the initial insights about how people plan, we aimed to study the
association between the Big Five personality factors, gender, and information
search. We also aimed to explore boundary effects because the expression of indi-
vidual differences depends on the characteristics of the situation (Robbins et al.
2017). Situational strength theory suggests that situational constraints may restrict
the expression of individual differences (Meyer and Dalal 2009), indicating a role
for constraint in attenuating individual differences. Furthermore, trait activation the-
ory proposes that some situations and tasks trigger the expression of a particular
trait (Tett and Burnett 2003), indicating the role of task type in eliciting individual
difference expression. By systematically varying situational factors and task types,
we aim to better understand how individual differences play a role in the planning
process. To achieve this, we deployed the Mouselab paradigm in Study 1 to simulate
the information search task while varying the complexity and constraints to meas-
ure the effects of personality and gender on the search behavior and preferences. In
Study 2, we deployed a survey-based task which required much less effort.

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 669

1.1 Information Search in Planning

Negotiation planning is defined as actions before the first offer that facilitate desir-
able outcomes (Hayes-Roth and Hayes-Roth 1979). Expert practitioners regard it as
central to effective negotiation (Roloff et al. 2003), and experienced diplomats can
spend up to 75% of their time planning (Zartman 2006). Despite its import in the
field, planning is poorly understood in the academic negotiation literature, with little
empirical research on the topic (Jang et al. 2018). To our knowledge, there is little
theory and data on how negotiators plan. To address this gap, we seek to generate
stylized facts about behavior in the planning phase.
We focus on information search in planning. Peterson and Lucas (2001) define
it as the process of gathering, sorting, evaluating, and analyzing information about
the negotiation. Information search may often be the initial step and may inform
subsequent actions,1 such as strategy formulation and planned action sequences.
In dynamic phase models of negotiation, negotiators search for multiple kinds of
information prior to bargaining, which shapes the course of bargaining and possible
agreements (Gulliver 1979). Theory suggests negotiators can search for three kinds
of information. Thompson’s (1990) taxonomy suggests negotiators can value their
share of the outcome, the creation of additional value, and their relationship with
the counterpart. Understanding how negotiators secure information related to these
goals will furnish the field with insights that inform theory.

1.2 The Role of Personality and Gender on Information Search

Individual differences have the potential to reveal how people search for information
while planning. This is because information search is often an individual activity,
which implies much less interpersonal interaction compared to bargaining. In con-
trast, bargaining is a fundamentally interpersonal activity. It has been likened to a
dance, involving a sequence of proposals and questioning in response to counterpart
actions (Adair and Brett 2005). In that phase, the counterpart should have substan-
tial influence over thoughts and actions, and the expression of individual differences
should be less apparent when compared to the planning phase. To illustrate, a study
that examined affective experiences among dyads showed only about 20–30% of the
variability was explained by one’s own set of traits, while about 60%, or the vast
majority of the variability, was explained by the unique relationship between the
self and the other (Eisenkraft and Elfenbein 2010). Because planning often features
a lack of interaction with a counterparty that may have opposing preferences, this
affords one’s own traits the opportunity to substantively predict planning behavior.
We adopted the Big Five model in studying individual differences in information
search. The Big Five is a comprehensive model of personality (Costa and McCrae
1992a) and has been used to study individual differences in negotiation research

1
We note that information search can also occur in the bargaining phase, as in the case of negotiators
searching for the information about counterpart preferences (e.g., Polzer and Neale 1995).

13
670 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

(Sharma et al. 2013). To formulate hypotheses, we focused on personality and gen-

der because evidence suggests their role in predicting planning behavior in other lit-
eratures. For example, conscientious people tend to outperform their peers in activi-
ties that demand substantial planning skills, such as health outcomes (Molloy et al.
2014) and asset accumulation (Letkiewicz and Fox 2014). We also draw on research
on personality in the bargaining phase with the assumption that what is known about
personality in the bargaining phase generalizes to the planning phase. We justify this
on the basis that personality research shows traits to predict behavior consistently
across contexts (Fleeson 2004; Mischel and Shoda 1995; Paunonen 1998; Paunonen
et al. 2003). For example, conscientious people tend to perform better at school
(Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2005) and at work (Barrick and Mount 1991).
We also recognize that what is observed in the bargaining phase has no direct ana-
logue to what might happen in planning, such as building an interpersonal relation-
ship with the counterparty. But many actions in the bargaining phase can have their
start in the planning phase—attempts to claim value can manifest in a favorable first
offer, and this can be facilitated by searching for the counterpart’s reservation price
in the planning phase. Both can be driven by a high level of achievement striving, an
aspect of conscientiousness. In the following sections, we develop hypotheses about
the potential role of each factor given what we know about in research to date.
Extraversion reflects tendencies to be assertive, gregarious, and sociable (Costa
and McCrae 1992a). The trait is associated with greater information sharing about
preferences during bargaining (Barry and Friedman 1998; Dimotakis et al. 2012).
Thus, extraversion is associated with creating value as it facilitates information
exchange and discovery of tradeoffs (Barry and Friedman 1998; Ma and Jaeger
2005). However, the tendency to share information about limits hinders the ability to
claim value (Amanatullah et al. 2008; DeRue et al. 2009).

H1 Extraversion is positively correlated with

(a) search for value creating information,

(b) value creating choices, and
(c) preference for value creating information.

Agreeableness reflects tendencies to be altruistic, generous, warm, and coopera-

tive (Costa and McCrae 1992a; John and Srivastava 1999). The trait is associated
positively with interpersonal relationships and negatively with conflict, challenging
others’ ideas, and participating in competitive tasks (Graziano et al. 1996). Con-
sistent with this, agreeable negotiators are often concerned with relationships and
the interests of others, as the trait predicts accommodating counterparts (Barry and
Friedman 1998; Cable and Judge 2003). Agreeable negotiators also focus less on
their own needs and make concessions in exchange in order to improve the relation-
ship (De Dreu and Van Lange 1995; Messick and McClintock 1968).

H2 Agreeableness is positively correlated with

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 671

(a) search for relationship-building information,

(b) relationship-building choices, and
(c) preference for relationship-building information.

Conscientiousness reflects tendencies to be planful, achievement-oriented, and

task-focused (McCrae and John 1992). Conscientiousness is more strongly asso-
ciated with goal accomplishment than socioemotional involvement (Aronoff and
Wilson 2014) and creativity (Feist 1998), suggesting its role in value claiming.
Being achievement-oriented and task-focused should facilitate progress towards
achieving negotiation objectives. This is supported by findings that show the trait
to be associated with higher performance in sales contexts, where negotiation is
a required skill (Barrick et al. 2002), and correlated with individual gain in nego-
tiation (Barry and Friedman 1998).

H3 Conscientiousness is positively correlated with

(a) search for value claiming information,

(b) value claiming choices, and
(c) preference for value claiming information.

Neuroticism reflects the tendency to experience negative emotions (Costa and

McCrae 1992a; John and Srivastava 1999). Neuroticism is associated with higher
face threat sensitivity, which leads to a higher rate of impasse and lower joint
value (White et al. 2004). It also predicts competitive behaviors and deploying
exploitative tactics to elicit concessions (Alexander et al. 1994; Carnevale and De
Dreu 2006). The trait is unlikely to be implicated in value creation through infor-
mation sharing, as it is associated with lower motivation to learn new information
(Brown and O’Donnell 2011).

H4 Neuroticism is positively correlated with

(a) search for value claiming information,

(b) value claiming choices, and
(c) preference for value claiming information.

Openness reflects a tendency to be curious, open-minded, imaginative, and

creative (Costa and McCrae 1992b). Openness should lead to less zero-sum bar-
gaining and more willingness to work towards integrative solutions (Sharma et al.
2013). Because the trait is associated with divergent thinking and information
sharing in groups (Barrick and Mount 1991; Krasman 2010), it should facilitate
more cooperative behaviors and greater mutual gains in negotiation (Ma and Jae-
ger 2005; Sharma et al. 2013). In addition, the tendency to be more flexible and
pursue unconventional ideas associated with openness also facilitates more value
creating activities (Ma and Jaeger 2005).

13
672 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

H5 Openness is positively correlated with

(a) search for value creating information,

(b) value creating choices, and
(c) preference for value creating information.

We also examined if gender influences information search. Research on gender

differences in bargaining suggests men have greater value claiming tendencies than
women. Compared to women, men set higher targets (Bowles et al. 2005), focused
more on economic outcomes (Trapnell and Paulhus 2012), made more extreme
first offers (Barron 2003; Galinsky and Mussweiler 2001), and were less coopera-
tive (Walters et al. 1998). Kulik and Olekalns (2012) concluded that women are less
demanding, more accommodating, and more willing to make generous offers than
men in negotiation. Moreover, a meta-analysis by Mazei and colleagues (2015) also
showed that men engaged more in competitive behaviors (Walters et al. 1998) and
achieved better economic outcomes (Amanatullah and Morris 2010; Stuhlmacher
and Linnabery 2013).

H6 Women are

(a) less likely to search for value claiming information,

(b) less likely to make value claiming choices, and
(c) likely to have lower preference for value claiming information.

We provide a summary of the derived hypotheses in Table 1.

1.3 Situational Constraint and Information Search

Situational constraint can explain how individual differences manifest in negotia-

tion planning. Negotiators search for information in a wide variety of situations.
In some situations, they may need to expend considerable effort to secure informa-
tion. At other times, they may be able to request a subordinate to complete the task.
Information search is subject to constraint, and the constraint could moderate how
personality is expressed. Situational strength theory posits that the expression of
individual differences, such as personality and gender, can be attenuated when con-
straints are present (Meyer and Dalal 2009). For example, the level of autonomy
afforded to employees and resource constraints can limit how individual differences
are expressed in a performative task. In support of this idea, jobs higher in restraint
exhibited lower variability in outcomes (Meyer et al. 2010). Negotiators can face
such constraints, as there may be limited time or budget that constrains the length
and extent of the search, or a lack of information available in the environment may
mean the extensive search is not possible. So greater constraint could lead to attenu-
ated relationships between personality, gender, and search behavior. In our studies,
we model this constraint and examine the boundary effects of individual differences

13
 Table 1  Summary of the derived hypotheses
Variables Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Female

Search for value creating information H1a (+) H5a (+)

Value creating choice H1b (+) H5b (+)
Preference for value creating information H1c (+) H5c (+)
Search for value claiming information H3a (+) H4a (+) H6a (−)
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict…

Value claiming choice H3b (+) H4b (+) H6b (−)

Preference for value claiming information H3c (+)* (Study 2) H4c (+) H6c (−)
Search for relationship-building information H2a (+)
Relationship-building choice H2b (+)
Preference for relationship-building information H2c (+)

(+) positive association; (−) negative association; *supported hypothesis

673

13
674 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

Fig. 1  Information matrix in study 1a, b

on the search behavior and preferences by varying the size of the search space and
the extent of search allowed.

1.4 Overview of Studies

The aim of Study 1 was to examine how personality and gender impact informa-
tion search when it is effortful. To simulate effortful search, we used the Mouselab
paradigm (Johnson et al. 1989), an experimental method to study decision-making
(Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al. 2017; Willemsen and Johnson 2011). Mouselab origi-
nated from information display boards (IDB), a tool for measuring information
search behavior (Payne 1976). An IDB is a set of index cards arranged in a matrix.
Information about a decision is written on the back of each card, away from view. To
reveal information, participants need to turn over a card. Before other information is
revealed, the revealed card must be turned away. Mouselab is a digital representation
of this design. Participants inspect the virtual cards by clicking on them (see Fig. 1).
This paradigm is used to study decision-making involving multiple attributes. For
example, it was used to capture the relationship between social value orientation and
information acquisition (Bieleke et al. 2020).

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 675

Fig. 2  Information matrix contents in study 1a, b

Mouselab records the kind of information sought, the sequence of the search,
time spent on the task, and final decisions made (Johnson et al. 1989). The fre-
quency of clicks and the duration spent on a panel indicate the levels of attention
and preference for the type of information (Chen and Fischbacher 2016; Schkade
and Johnson 1989). Total clicks and the total time spent on exploring panels rep-
resent the level of effort or persistence in the search task (Li et al. 2020; Schkade
and Johnson 1989). The final choice indicates the prospect with the greatest util-
ity (Goldstein and Einhorn 1987; Yang et al. 2015).
Information search in Mouselab is effortful because information is not pre-
sented in a linear narrative. Instead, information is hidden and presented in a
randomized matrix. Participants must decide for themselves what information
they deem relevant to explore, memorize details of the information revealed, and
then formulate a mental model of the situation based on their choices. It requires
a comparatively higher level of effort than reading instructions for a typical
simulation.
We deployed different versions of the Mouselab paradigm that varied in com-
plexity and constraint. For Studies 1a and 1b, we deployed an information matrix

13
676 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

Fig. 3  Information matrix in study 1c

with 18 elements as in Figs. 1 and 2, and simplified this to six elements for Study
1c, as in Fig. 3. This allowed us to examine the effect of complexity. In addition,
we varied the level of constraint, by placing restrictions on the number of clicks
and search duration in Studies 1b and 1c. This allowed us to model the effect of
costly search.
We conducted secondary analyses on search patterns to examine the effect of search
complexity. Complex situations can lead people to adopt simplifying heuristics (Chai-
ken and Ledgerwood 2012). They can greatly simplify the amount of effort required
to process information, such as relying on consensus to determine the correctness or
equating argument length with argument strength (Chaiken and Ledgerwood 2012). In
a complex search task involving a matrix, we reasoned that a pattern involving typical
reading patterns (i.e., progressing from top right to top left) could be evident when the
search space is large and no constraints are present. Such patterns should be less evident
when negotiators are constrained and so must be deliberate in looking for information.
While the paradigm provides objective information about effortful search behav-
iors, it is not a complete representation of the search process. In some cases, searching
may involve delegating the task to others. The relative lack of effort in such situations
may provide greater latitude for personality and gender to be expressed. We conducted
Study 2 to examine this possibility by deploying a survey method. We intended for the
task to entail little effort, such as when lead negotiators or managers direct subordinates
to gather information.

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 677

2 Method

2.1 Participants

2.1.1 Study 1

For all studies, we recruited participants from Prolific who were compensated $2.60
USD. The minimum sample size of N = 300 was selected in each study to have
80% power to detect a correlation of .16 at a significance level of .05, calculated
using G*Power (Cohen 1988; Denis 2019). For Study 1a, 305 participants (54.75%
female, age M = 34.45, SD = 12.46) were recruited. Five participants were excluded
due to incomplete responses, leaving a final sample of 300. For Study 1b, 300 partic-
ipants (43.33% female, age M = 31.48, SD = 11.74) were recruited. Two participants
were omitted from the analyses due to incomplete responses, leaving a final sample
of 298. For Study 1c, 325 participants (46.77% female, age M = 34.66, SD = 13.35)
were recruited. Participants who used incompatible devices, experienced technical
difficulties, did not provide complete responses, or provided responses with zero
variance were excluded, leaving a final sample of 288.

2.1.2 Study 2

We recruited 309 participants from Prolific (46.92% female, age M = 34.28,

SD = 13.91) who were compensated $1.83 USD. The sample size was selected as in
Study 1. We excluded participants who failed attention checks, provided personality
data with zero variance, and spent less than three minutes on the survey, leaving a
final sample of 300.

2.2 Procedure

2.2.1 Study 1

Across all studies, participants first completed a Big Five personality measure. They
were then briefed about a negotiation situation based on the Biopharm-Seltek exer-
cise (Greenhalgh 2001). They assumed the role of a Chief Financial Officer who
would negotiate the purchase of a factory to take place in the following week. They
needed to purchase a government-certified factory to produce an antibiotic com-
pound. As there was limited available information about the counterpart, they would
need to purchase it. They could do so from one of three consulting firms, but due
to budget restrictions, they could only purchase one dossier. Participants were then
shown the virtual information board (Studies 1a, 1b—Fig. 1; Study 1c—Fig. 2),
after a familiarization task. They were told that they could reveal information hidden
below opaque panels. After inspecting the matrix, they could select the dossier that
would most help them in their negotiation. In Study 1a, participants had unlimited

13
678 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

time and clicks to examine information in the matrix. In Studies 1b and 1c, they
were restricted to six clicks and 5 min. After selecting the information package to
purchase, they provided demographic information.

2.2.2 Study 2

After providing consent, participants completed a Big Five personality measure.

Next, they were briefed about a hypothetical negotiation situation. The negotiation
situation was similar to Study 1, but instead of purchasing a dossier, they would
direct subordinates to obtain information. The participants completed a comprehen-
sion check to ensure that they understood the task. Then participants indicated the
importance of six kinds of information, two each relating to value claiming, value
creating, and relationship, as in Study 1a and 1b. After rating the importance of each
piece of information, they made a single choice about which of the six was most
important and provided demographic information.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Personality

The 30-item short form of the Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2-S) (Soto and John
2017) was used to measure the Big Five personality factors. Participants responded
on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). Cron-
bach’s alpha across all studies were acceptable (Extraversion = .74–.80, agreea-
bleness = .75–.79, conscientiousness = .80–.83, neuroticism = .85–.88, and
openness = .77–.81).

2.3.2 Study 1: Information Matrix

In Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c, we presented a matrix that represented dossiers from three
consulting firms. Information was obscured with an opaque grey panel, labeled with
the type of information contained. When participants clicked on a panel, information
would be revealed, and it reverted to being opaque when they moved their mouse
away. For Studies 1a and 1b, one firm offered two pieces of information regarding
value claiming (i.e., value of the land and insurance value of the building). Another
provided two pieces of value-creating information (i.e., additional opportunities and
potential collaborative projects). And the final firm supplied information about rela-
tionship building (i.e., behaviors in prior deals and counterpart’s personality and
interests). This design meant that the search would take some time to complete, each
dossier provided unique information, and there was no ambiguity about the speciali-
zation each firm offered. A full description of the information available is shown in
Fig. 2. For Study 1c, we simplified this to a single piece of information, as in Fig. 3.
We chose the more frequently chosen option, as observed in Study 1b, to mini-
mize selection due to the perception of less relevance. The presentation of the col-
umns and rows was fully randomized. We designed the study using MouselabWEB

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 679

Fig. 4  Items for information preference in study 2. Note Items were presented in a random order and
were not labelled with the category they represented

Fig. 5  Items for final choice of information in study 2. Note Items were presented in a random order and
were not labelled with the category they represented

(Willemsen and Johnson 2008). Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c were designed to test hypoth-
eses regarding personality and gender on information search (H1a–H6a) and choice
of information (H1b–H6b).

2.3.3 Study 2: Information Preference and Choice

In Study 2, we developed six items about the negotiation situation that participants
could prioritize for their subordinates to search, resembling information provided in
Study 1. Two items related to value claiming, two related to value creating, and two
related to relationships as shown in Fig. 4. Items were presented in a random order,
and none of them were labelled with the category they represented. Participants
indicated importance on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely unimportant to
7 = extremely important). For the three categories of information, we averaged rat-
ings across the two items, given a substantial correlation for pairs of value claim-
ing (r = .34, p < .01), value creating, (r = .50, p < .01), and relationship information
(r = .41, p < .01). After indicating their preference, we listed the six pieces of infor-
mation again on a new screen, as shown in Fig. 5. We then asked participants to
select a single piece of information that was most important. Study 2 was designed
to test hypotheses regarding personality and gender on choice of information (H1b-
H6b) and information preference (H1c-H6c).

13
680 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

3 Results

3.1 Personality and Gender in Effortful Search

Tables 2, 3, and 4 show descriptive statistics and correlations between major vari-
ables for Studies 1a, 1b, and 1c respectively. Across studies, there were few associa-
tions between personality traits and search behavior. In Study 1a, extraversion nega-
tively correlated with time spent and clicks on value creating panels, relationship
panels, total clicks, and total time spent on the task. Agreeableness correlated with
more time spent on value claiming panels. Women spent more time on value creat-
ing panels, relationship panels, and overall time spent on the task. In Study 1b where
constraints were present, neuroticism correlated with less time spent overall, and
conscientiousness correlated with less time spent on value creating panels. In Study
1c with constraints and a simplified matrix, neuroticism correlated with fewer clicks
on value claiming panels. Gender did not correlate with any of the search behaviors
in Studies 1b and 1c.

3.1.1 Time Spent Inspecting Panels

We examined the amount of time participants spent inspecting each type of panel,
as well as the overall time spent on the matrix, with the results in Table 5. Higher
extraversion predicted less time spent on searching and on each type of panel in
Study 1a, where the search task is complex, search space is large, and there are no
constraints on behavior. Higher agreeableness predicted greater effort and time spent
on inspecting value claiming information. Female negotiators spent significantly
more time searching for value creating information, relationship information, and
total time searching in Study 1a.
Some counterintuitive relationships also emerged. In Study 1a and 1b, higher
neuroticism predicted less total time on the matrix. The trait predicted less time
spent on inspecting relationship information only when the task was complex (Study
1a). Openness negatively correlated with time spent on inspecting value creating
information when the task was complex and constrained (Study 1b). There were
no significant relationships between personality and time spent when the task was
simple, and there were constraints on behavior (Study 1c). None of the hypotheses
regarding personality, gender, and information search (H1a-H6a) were supported.

3.1.2 Clicks on Type of Information

We examined the number of clicks on each type of information panel, as well as the
total number of clicks, with the results shown in Table 6. For Studies 1a and 1b, we
estimated negative binomial regressions due to overdispersion, but this was not an
issue for Study 1c, so we estimated Poisson regressions. When the search task was
complex and there were no constraints (Study 1a), agreeableness predicted greater
clicks on value creating panels, value claiming panels, and the information matrix

13
 Table 2  Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables in study 1a
Variables N Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(1) Extraversion 300 2.78 0.81

(2) Agreeable 300 3.66 0.65 .30**
(3) Conscientious 300 3.41 0.78 .34** .44**
(4) Neuroticism 300 2.99 0.94 − .47** − .35** − .42**
(5) Openness 300 3.67 0.77 .29** .15** − .02 − .07
(6) Female 300 0.55 0.50 − .06 .03 − .03 .29** .00
(7) Duration value claiming 295 24,488.99 15,488.19 − .09 .14* − .03 − .05 − .01 .06
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict…

(8) Duration value creating 296 28,617.09 17,879.62 − .16** .05 .01 .01 − .09 .11* .65**
(9) Duration relationship 295 27,713.47 16,920.69 − .13* .07 − .03 − .01 .01 .12* .62** .67**
(10) Duration total 293 79,936.51 43,345.94 − .15* .10 − .03 − .02 − .03 .12* .85** .89** .88**
(11) Click value claiming 300 10.46 5.56 − .11† .09 − .02 .00 − .02 .04 .71** .47** .45** .60**
(12) Click value creating 300 10.52 6.31 − .15** .08 − .02 .04 − .09 .08 .51** .66** .50** .62** .69**
(13) Click relationship 300 10.91 6.23 − .12* .06 − .01 .00 − .03 .03 .50** .50** .69** .63** .67** .79**
(14) Total clicks 300 31.9 16.33 − .14* .09 − .02 .02 − .05 .06 .63** .61** .62** .69** .86** .92** .91**
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
681

13
 682

13
Table 3  Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables in study 1b
Variables N Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(1) Extraversion 298 2.75 0.74

(2) Agreeable 298 3.59 0.68 .16**
(3) Conscientious 298 3.33 0.83 .31** .43**
(4) Neuroticism 298 2.98 0.93 − .29** − .22** − .46**
(5) Openness 298 3.74 0.77 .21** .04 − .02 .05
(6) Female 298 0.44 0.50 .00 .13* .02 .20** .10†
(7) Duration value 295 7445.54 8945.64 .03 .08 .10† − .09 .04 − .07
claiming
(8) Duration value 291 8838.01 8821.97 − .06 .00 .01 − .08 − .14* − .08 − .27**
creating
(9) Duration relation- 293 9727.46 8332.99 − .01 .00 − .05 − .04 .04 .01 − .19** .15**
ship
(10) Duration total 294 27,112.64 14,405.43 − .02 .08 .04 − .12* − .01 .01 .29** .56** .52**
(11) Click value 298 1.76 1.77 .05 .08 .10† − .07 .02 − .09 .75** − .48** − .44** − .09
claiming
(12) Click value 298 2.03 1.58 − .05 − .09 − .05 .01 − .07 .03 − .47** .76** − .10 .15* − .61**
creating
(13) Click relation- 298 2.08 1.50 .01 − .03 − .08 .09 .03 .10† − .37** − .19** .69** .01 − .52** − .31**
ship
(14) Total clicks 298 5.87 0.53 .02 − .09 − .01 .04 − .07 .06 .08 .12* .17** .17** .08 .08 .18**
†
p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
D. Q. Le, D. Jang
 Table 4  Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables in study 1c
Variables N Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(1) Extraversion 288 2.70 0.81

(2) Agreeable 288 3.59 0.71 .22**
(3) Conscientious 288 3.37 0.82 .42** .40**
(4) Neuroticism 288 2.97 0.96 − .45** − .18** − .36**
(5) Openness 288 3.64 0.74 .09 .09 .01 − .03
(6) Female 288 0.43 0.50 − .03 .11† .19** .21** .01
(7) Duration value 281 5544.52 5776.04 .09 .03 .11† − .12† − .11† .01
claiming
(8) Duration value 283 7628.04 6019.22 − .07 .08 .04 .07 − .03 .09 − .31**
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict…

creating
(9) Duration rela- 286 8546.30 7294.93 − .07 .03 .07 .06 .02 .05 − .10 .17**
tionship
(10) Duration total 282 22,019.97 10,749.04 .01 .07 .11† .01 − .07 .08 .27** .49** .70**
(11) Click value 288 1.58 1.30 .11† − .02 .02 − .12* − .05 − .08 .77** − .46** − .31** − .05
claiming
(12) Click value 288 2.06 1.18 − .10† .02 − .02 .03 .02 .04 − .52** .63** − .09 .01 − .64**
creating
(13) Click relation- 288 2.24 1.04 − .03 − .04 − .02 .11† .02 .02 − .34** − .10† .54** .13* − .47** − .26**
ship
(14) Total clicks 288 5.88 0.54 − .03 − .08 − .03 − .01 − .05 − .06 .04 .07 .09 .15* .12* .14* .22**
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
683

13
 684

Table 5  Personality and gender on time spent on each category of boxes in study 1

13
Variables Study 1a Study 1b Study 1c
Value Value Relation- Total time Value Value Relation- Total time Value Value Relation- Total time
claiming creating ships claiming creating ships claiming creating ships

Extraver- − .17* − .21* − .21** − .23** − .02 − .05 − .02 − .06 .04 − .09 − .09 − .03
sion
Agreeable- .19** .08 .10 .14* .05 .01 .01 .07 − .01 .09 .01 .04
ness
Conscien- − .11† .01 − .05 − .07 .07 − .03 − .09 − .05 .06 .05 .13† .11
tiousness
Neuroti- − .14† − .11 − .14* − .15* − .04 − .09 − .09 − .15* − .09 .05 .07 .03
cism
Openness .00 − .05 .05 .01 .05 − .12* .04 .00 − .12† − .03 .03 − .07
Female .08 .13* .15* .14* − .07 − .05 .02 .02 .02 .06 .01 .05
Intercept .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Observa- 295 296 295 293 295 291 293 294 281 283 286 282
tions
R2 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02
Adjusted 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 − 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0
­R2
Residual 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Std. Error
F statistic 2.84* 2.91* 2.95** 3.43** 1.05 1.48 0.51 1.11 1.54 1.16 0.98 1.18
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. Standardized coefficients reported
D. Q. Le, D. Jang
 Table 6  Personality and gender on the frequency of visits on each category of information in study 1
Variables Study 1a Study 1b Study 1c
Value claim- Value creat- Relationships Total clicks Value claim- Value creat- Relationships Value claim- Value creat- Relationships
ing ing ing ing ing ing

Extraversion 0.90* 0.88** 0.88** 0.88** 1.01 0.97 1.04 1.09 0.91 1.01
Agreeable- 1.12* 1.16** 1.09 1.12* 1.09 0.9 0.98 0.96 1.03 0.98
ness
Conscien- 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.97 1.09 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.02
tiousness
Neuroticism 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.04 0.93 0.99 1.06
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict…

Openness 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.04 0.93 1.01 0.94 1.02 1.02
Female 1.05 1.08 1.04 1.05 0.81 1.09 1.14 0.92 1.05 1.00
Intercept 11.55** 12.65** 13.02** 37.48** 0.92 4.52** 1.89 2.55* 2.24* 1.77
Observations 300 300 300 300 298 298 298 288 288 288
Log Likeli- − 913.11 − 926.60 − 935.52 − 1220.36 − 535.48 − 543.19 − 528.09 − 461.73 − 465.78 − 453.34
hood
Theta (θ) 5.96** 4.87** 4.99** 5.11** 1.44** 6.64* 32.47 – – –
Akaike Inf. 1840.23 1867.19 1885.04 2454.72 1084.95 1100.38 1070.18 937.47 945.57 920.67
Crit
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. Odds ratios reported
685

13
686 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

overall. By contrast, extraversion predicted fewer clicks across three types of infor-
mation panels and fewer overall clicks (Study 1a). Although the results were con-
trary to our expectations, they were similar to the results on search time. Personality
did not predict clicks when constraints were present (Studies 1b and 1c). Gender did
not predict clicks across all three studies. None of the hypotheses regarding person-
ality, gender, and information search (H1a–H6a) were supported.

3.1.3 Choice of Dossier

We next examined the dossiers participants chose following the search. The most
chosen dossier in Study 1a was the value claiming dossier (41%), while the dossier
emphasizing relationships was most chosen in Study 1b (36%) and Study 1c (45%).
The least chosen in Study 1a (21%) and 1b (31%) was the value creating dossier,
and in Study 1c, it was the value claiming dossier (23%). The results of multinomial
regressions are shown in Table 7. In a complex search task with no constraint, open-
ness was associated with a greater likelihood of choosing a value claiming dossier
relative to a value creating one (Study 1a), but this effect was only marginally sig-
nificant when constraints were introduced (Study 1b).
Openness was also associated with choosing a relationship information-oriented
dossier relative to a value creating dossier in a complex and constrained search task
(Study 1b). Personality did not predict choice when the situation was simple, and
constraints were present (Study 1c). Gender did not predict choice. None of the
hypotheses regarding personality, gender, and information choice (H1c–H6c) were
supported.

3.1.4 Click Distribution and Initial Search Patterns

We looked for patterns in search behavior by tabulating the frequency clicks on each
panel, as shown in Table 8. We also examined the first three clicks on panels to
examine if negotiators engaged in a search that mimics reading, namely their first
click starting on the top leftmost panel, then moving horizontally to the right. This
would indicate the search was not targeted toward any specific information, since
rows and columns were randomized.
Distinct search patterns appeared across studies. When there was no constraint on
behavior and the task was complex (Study 1a), the clicks were uniformly distributed
across information types. About a quarter (24%) followed a reading pattern, sug-
gesting a sizable portion of negotiators did not start their search with a specific type
of information in mind. When the task was complex and constraints were present
(Study 1b), we observed a more targeted approach, with the majority of clicks con-
centrated on one piece of information within each category. The reading pattern was
much less prevalent with only 6% of participants doing so. When the task was sim-
ple and constraints were present (Study 1c), the clicks were more evenly distributed,
and a substantial number of participants (22%) started their search from the top left
panel and moved to the right for their first three clicks. If negotiators are provided
the opportunity to examine the entire search space (Study 1a), or the vast major-
ity of it (Study 1c), they will start with the first item and work their way through

13
 Table 7  Personality and gender on the final choice of information in study 1
Variables Study 1a Study 1b Study 1c
Value claiming Value creating Relationships Value claiming Value creating Relationships Value claiming Value creating Relationships

Extraversion 0.91 1.00 1.10 1.2 0.84 0.99 1.01 1.37 0.72
Agreeableness 0.85 0.98 1.20 1.31 0.9 0.85 0.83 1.14 1.06
Conscientiousness 0.83 1.39 0.87 1.09 1.09 0.84 1.06 0.83 1.13
Neuroticism 0.72 1.08 1.28 0.94 1.00 1.07 0.78 1.16 1.11
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict…

Openness 1.55* 0.72 0.90 1.47† 0.65* 1.05 0.93 0.95 1.14
Female 1.17 1.17 0.73 0.7 1.23 1.16 0.74 0.82 1.64
Intercept 4.57 0.46 0.48 .06† 6.77 2.3 3.33 0.30 1.00
Reference category Value creating Relationships Value claiming Value creating Relationships Value claiming Value creating Relationships Value claiming

Observation 300 300 300 298 298 298 288 288 288
Akaike Inf. Crit 654.13 654.13 654.13 667.86 667.86 667.86 629.26 629.26 629.26
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. Odds ratios reported
687

13
 688

13
Table 8  Frequency of clicks on each type of information in study 1
Category Label Study 1a Study 1b Study 1c
Number of Clicks Percent (%) Number of Percent (%) Number of Percent (%)
Clicks Clicks

Value claim 1 Value of land 1592 17 331 19 461 27

Value claim 2 Insurance value of building 1546 16 194 11
Value create 1 Additional opportunities 1569 16 161 9
Value create 2 Collaboration with Startech 1590 17 443 25 596 35
Relationship 1 Behavior in prior deals 1711 18 499 29 645 38
Relationship 2 Personality and interests from inter- 1563 16 120 7
views with past coworkers
D. Q. Le, D. Jang
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 689

each item. If the constraint means they cannot search most of the search space, their
search is more targeted in the form of sampling across information type. These pat-
terns suggest constraints can induce heuristic search patterns.

3.2 Personality and Gender in Less Effortful Search

Descriptive statistics and correlations for Study 2 are shown in Table 9. Value claim-
ing information was given greatest importance, followed by relationship, and value
creating information, in terms of both ratings and final choice. Preferences corre-
lated with final choice. On a bivariate level, women chose relationship information
to a greater extent than men.

3.2.1 Information Preference

In Study 2, with the exception of extraversion and agreeableness, the Big Five traits
and gender predicted information preference. We estimated a series of linear regres-
sions with preferences for types of information as dependent variables and person-
ality and gender as predictors. Results are shown in Table 10. Conscientiousness
and openness were positively associated with a preference for value claiming infor-
mation, supporting H3c. Extraversion did not predict preference for value creating
information, and agreeableness did not predict relationship information, rejecting
H1c and H2c. Female negotiators preferred value creating information to a greater
extent than men.

3.2.2 Choice of Information

In Study 2, individual differences did not predict choice of information. Table 11

shows the results of multinomial logistic regressions. None of the hypotheses
regarding personality, gender, and information choice (H1c–H6c) were supported.

3.2.3 Additional Analyses

Although some of the Big Five traits and gender predicted information preferences,
they played no role in predicting the choice of information. In some cases, personal-
ity predicted a type of information, which in turn predicted a corresponding choice.
Because we measured those variables in that sequence, we tested mediation mod-
els with personality as the independent variable, preferences as the mediating vari-
able, and choice as the dependent variable using the Monte Carlo method (Selig and
Preacher 2008). We found support for one model. There was a significant indirect
effect of conscientiousness predicting value claiming choice through value claim-
ing preferences (indirect effect = .24, 95% CI = .03–.49), as shown in Fig. 6. In this
model, we controlled for the remaining Big Five factors and gender. Further explor-
ing such relationships remains a topic for future research.

13
 690

13
Table 9  Descriptive Statistics and correlations for variables in study 2
Variables N Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) Extraversion 300 2.73 0.80

(2) Agreeable 300 3.68 0.69 .22**
(3) Conscientious 300 3.40 0.82 .36** .37**
(4) Neurotic 300 2.94 0.96 − .50** − .20** − .44**
(5) Openness 300 3.62 0.78 .27** .18** .12* − .16**
(6) Value claiming preference 295 5.92 0.93 − .04 .01 .08 .07 .10†
(7) Value creating preference 300 4.37 1.55 .03 .06 .06 − .08 − .04 − .07
(8) Relationship preference 300 4.78 1.38 .07 .08 .07 .02 − .04 − .02 .09
(9) Value claiming choice 300 0.58 0.49 − .03 − .03 − .01 − .06 .04 .37** − .35** − .27**
(10) Value creating choice 300 0.17 0.38 .06 .06 .03 − .05 − .02 − .18** .35** − .06 − .55**
(11) Relationship choice 300 0.24 0.43 − .02 − .02 − .02 .11† − .03 − .26** .09 .36** − .67** − .26**
(12) Female 300 0.47 0.50 − .07 .15** .12* .28** .06 .07 .11† .04 − .10† − .02 .14*
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
D. Q. Le, D. Jang
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 691

Table 10  The effects of personality and gender on information preference in study 2

Variables Value claiming Value creating Relationships

Extraversion − .06 − .004 .10

Agreeableness − .04 .03 .06
Conscientiousness .15* − .03 .06
Neuroticism .11 − .14† .09
Openness .13* − .07 − .07
Female .02 .15* .01
Intercept − .001 .00 .00
Observations 295 300 300
R2 .04 .03 .02
Adjusted R2 .02 .01 .00
Residual Std. error .50 .50 .50
F Statistic 1.81† 1.55 1.02
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. Standardized coefficients reported

Table 11  The effects of personality and gender on the final choice of information in study 2
Variables Value claiming Value creating Relationships

Extraversion .79 1.02 1.24

Agreeableness .81 1.30 .95
Conscientiousness 1.04 .95 1.01
Neuroticism .97 .80 1.28
Openness 1.21 .96 .86
Female .93 .59 1.81†
Intercept 6.86 .87 .17
Reference category Value creating Relationships Value claiming

Observation 300 300 300

Akaike Inf. Crit 594.34 594.34 594.34
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. Standardized coefficients reported

4 Discussion

4.1 Summary of Findings

We aimed to describe how negotiators search for information while planning to

negotiate. In Study 1a, we observed both personality and constraint to influence
search patterns in unexpected ways. Where the search space was large, task was
complex, and without constraints, agreeableness predicted search persistence, in
terms of both duration and number of clicks. We interpret this to mean that when
asked to engage in a relatively complex search task, agreeable people complied with
instructions. In contrast, the less effortful task in Study 2 produced trait consistent

13
692 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

Fig. 6  Mediation in study 2. Note Unstandardized coefficients displayed. Model controls for remaining
personality factors and gender

preferences for different kinds of information. For example, conscientiousness

predicted preference for value claiming information, reflecting tendencies to be
achievement striving. This pattern of results is consistent with trait activation theory
(Tett and Burnett 2003), in that different tasks elicited distinct patterns of trait con-
sistent behavior. The overall pattern of our findings was also consistent with situ-
ational strength theory (Meyer and Dalal 2009). In Study 1a, personality and gender
predicted behavior where there were no restrictions on their time or ability to click.
However, this tendency was not observed in Studies 1b and 1c when situational con-
straints limited the expression of individual differences.
Gender and constraint were also found to influence search patterns. In Study
1a, women were more persistent and searched for value creating and relationship
related information to a greater extent than men. This is relatively consistent with
social role theory which posits that women are more relationship-oriented, accom-
modating, and concerned about others’ welfare (Eagly and Wood 2012). However,
the effect of gender on search behaviors were not significant when constraints were
imposed (Study 1b, and 1c). In Study 2, women prioritized value creating informa-
tion, when the task was simple.
We also observed some counterintuitive relationships. Despite being associated
with value creation (Barry and Friedman 1998; Sharma et al. 2013), openness pre-
dicted less time searching for value creating information when the task was complex
and constrained. The trait was associated with choice for value claiming and rela-
tionship dossiers than the value creating counterpart in a complex search task. In
addition, extraversion predicted fewer clicks and less time spent on value creating
information, and less time overall, when the task was complex and unconstrained.
Finally, neuroticism predicted less time spent on the task when it was complex.
Because none of these patterns are supported by hypotheses, we can only speculate
about their nature. In the case of both openness and extraversion, they could still
yet predict trait consistent behavior in other domains of planning, such as approach-
ing the extended network of the counterpart to enquire about interests or offering to
socialize before bargaining begins.

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 693

Heuristic search patterns were evident across Study 1a, 1b, and 1c. Without con-
straints in a complex task, negotiators investigate the search space equally (Study 1a)
and engage in a pattern consistent with reading. But when constraints are imposed
(Study 1b), negotiators want to know something about each category of information.
When the task is simple such that they could examine most of the search space (Study
1c), they behave in a similar manner to a complex task without constraints. Negotiators
appear to rely on heuristic patterns when they can afford to do so.

4.2 Implications for Theory

Our research offers first insights into how people search and evaluate information as
they plan to negotiate. We outline three major observations that will facilitate negotia-
tion theory about planning.
First, personality and gender can predict the kind of information negotiators deem
as important. Where the planning task requires evaluation among known options, per-
sonality and gender appear to predict preferences (Study 2). When the task is effortful,
complex, and no constraints are present, agreeableness predicted greater persistence
(Study 1a), but not when constraints were present (Studies 1b and 1c). Thus, both task
type and task complexity appear to be a factor in how individual differences predict
behavioral patterns. This leads to the conclusion that researchers should aim to theo-
rize about both individual differences and situational factors that contribute to behavior,
consistent with the interactionist perspective (Terborg 1981). That perspective posits
that both individual and situational factors are required to understand performance, as
neither can provide a sufficient account on its own (Caldwell and O’Reilly 1990). This
means that null associations between personality and search behavior, as observed in
Study 1c, can still be informative, as they provide information about the amount of situ-
ational constraint necessary to suppress the expression of individual differences. Across
the studies reported, we demonstrate that personality can play a smaller or a larger role
in shaping planning behavior.
Second, we observed few gender differences across the studies. The lack of gender
differences in information search suggests that the origin of disparities in negotiation
outcomes (Mazei et al. 2015) is not likely to be a product of differences in planning
efforts. Rather, such disparities are likely the cause of feelings, cognitions, and behav-
iors revealed during bargaining.
Third, the search process can be subject to complexity and constraint. We observed
negotiators to search following common reading pattern in Studies 1a and 1c, when all
or most of the matrix could be examined. In Study 1b, participants selectively targeted
information when much of the matrix could not be examined. Negotiators engaged in
targeted search when all information could not be examined. But when they can, many
‘start from the top’.

13
694 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

5 Limitations and Future Research

We note multiple avenues for future research. First, we consider factors related to
the limitations of the studies, then take a step back to consider other possibilities
not addressed in this paper.
The search process modeled by the Mouselab paradigm is highly stylized. It
presumes that all options are knowable and that search comprises searching easily
accessible options. But in the field, negotiators likely will need to define relevant
attributes before engaging search. For example, information search may start with
an internet search, but one must know or decide upon the relevant keywords to start
with. Information search can also be an interactive process, which involves people
approaching others, such as requesting an interview with a former employee of a tar-
get company, rather than purchasing or searching for information in a digital format.
Search is more than inspecting a matrix, and much future research awaits to fully
explore the topic of how negotiators search for information.
We also note that individual differences generally did not predict the choice of
information. Although few significant bivariate relationships and post hoc media-
tions were observed, the Big Five and gender rarely predicted what information
people ultimately chose. Moreover, when some significant relationships were
observed, they were counterintuitive. Future research could replicate and extend
these observations to achieve a better understanding of such relationships. We
next consider factors not examined in the current research.
Planning can be conducted alone, but it can also be the result of an interactive
process. Negotiation can arise from disputes, necessitating discussion about the
limits of the issues to be discussed before bargaining occurs (Gulliver 1979; Wil-
liams 1985), or the process may involve intra-organizational bargaining before the
focal negotiation (Walton and McKersie 1965). Moreover, some creative planning
can involve extensive social interaction. For example, negotiators for Kennecott
Copper faced the nationalization of their Chilean copper mine. Their planning
involved contacting prospective buyers for ore, seeking guarantors for loans and
having them subject to a foreign power, and selling collection rights to banks in
a different set of countries (Lax and Sebenius 2006). Such aspects of planning
deserve greater research focus.
There are greater complexities to explore even when search involves non-
interactive information gathering. This is because complex negotiations require
consideration of many kinds of information, and their value is not always appar-
ent, nor obviously linked to valued outcomes. For example, since many people
assume that negotiation is a zero-sum situation (Thompson and Hastie 1990),
information about counterpart interests could be overlooked. Likewise, informa-
tion about counterpart limits may be less important than initially appears if there
is integrative potential that allows both sides to benefit. Insight into what people
find relevant and what they attempt to use to further their goals is an avenue for
better understanding how negotiators think about and act in the planning phase.
Individual differences beyond the Big Five and gender could influence cog-
nition and behavior in planning. For example, greater experience can inform

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 695

planning with expert negotiators engaging in planning differently from novices,

as can cross-cultural differences, known to result in divergent patterns of bargain-
ing (Adair and Brett 2005). Other factors may include organizational policies and
norms that also influence how negotiators approach the planning phase. Exam-
ining such factors, either on their own or in concert with individual differences
studied here should furnish the literature with greater insights into the complexity
of the negotiation process.
The observations on personality and gender imply individual differences can have
a considerable influence on the negotiation process. Dynamic phase models imply
that bargaining is influenced by how negotiators plan, with the definition and limits
to issues being key determinants of how people narrow their differences through
bargaining (Gulliver 1979). Because individual differences can shape what is impor-
tant to consider, they have the potential to shape what and how people choose to
bargain, and this can influence agreements and relationships that form as a result.
Future research can examine downstream impacts that follow from the patterns of
planning observed in the current investigation.
Finally, evaluating and searching for information are only a part of planning. As
Peterson and Lucas (2001) pointed out, information evaluation and search is only
a part of intelligence gathering. There are other aspects of planning, including for-
mulating bargaining objectives, developing a strategy, as well as rehearsing for the
bargaining phase. Those aspects of planning await empirical exploration.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Simon Restubog and Sudeep Sharma for their constructive com-
ments on this manuscript.

Author Contributions DL and DJ designed, collected data, analyzed data, and wrote the report.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This
research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.

Data Availability The data and analyses files are available online at [https://​osf.​io/​qepnz/?​view_​only=​
6219c​15d71​146d4​a7718​3ef90​05d9b7]. The hypotheses are not pre-registered.

Declarations
Conflict of interest All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organiza-
tion or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials dis-
cussed in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval Research involving Human Participants with ethical approval (#2020001481) by the
University of Queensland, Australia.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission

13
696 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​
ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Adair WL, Brett JM (2005) The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotia-
tion. Organ Sci 16:33–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​orsc.​1040.​0102
Alexander JF, Schul PL, McCorkle DE (1994) An assessment of selected relationships in a model of
the industrial marketing negotiation process. J Pers Sell Sales Manage 14:25–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​08853​134.​1994.​10753​991
Amanatullah ET, Morris MW (2010) Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiat-
ing are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J
Pers Soc Psychol 98:256–267. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0017​094
Amanatullah ET, Morris MW, Curhan JR (2008) Negotiators who give too much: unmitigated commun-
ion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. J Pers Soc
Psychol 95:723–738. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0012​612
American Bar Association (2009) American Bar Association guide to resolving legal disputes: inside and
outside the courtroom. Random House Reference
Aronoff J, Wilson JP (2014) Personality in the social process. Psychology Press
Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analy-
sis. Pers Psychol 44:1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1744-​6570.​1991.​tb006​88.x
Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Piotrowski M (2002) Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating
effects of motivation among sales representatives. J Appl Psychol 87:43–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
0021-​9010.​87.1.​43
Barron LA (2003) Ask and you shall Receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs about requests
for a higher salary. Hum Relat 56:635–662. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00187​26703​05660​01
Barry B, Friedman RA (1998) Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. J Pers
Soc Psychol 74:345–359. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​74.2.​345
Bieleke M, Dohmen D, Gollwitzer PM (2020) Effects of social value orientation (SVO) and deci-
sion mode on controlled information acquisition—A Mouselab perspective. J Exp Soc Psychol
86:103896. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jesp.​2019.​103896
Boothby EJ, Cooney G, Schweitzer ME (2022) Embracing complexity: a review of negotiation research.
Ann Rev Psychol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​psych-​033020-​014116
Borghans L, Duckworth A, Heckman JJ, Ter Weel B (2008) The economics and psychology of personal-
ity traits. J Hum Resour 43:972–1059. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3368/​jhr.​43.4.​972
Bowles HR, Babcock L, McGinn KL (2005) Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in
negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 89:951–965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​89.6.​951
Brown S, O’Donnell E (2011) Proactive personality and goal orientation: a model of directed effort. J
Organ Cult Commun Confl 15:103–119
Cable DM, Judge TA (2003) Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: the role of manager personal-
ity and supervisor leadership style. J Organ Behav 24:197–214. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​job.​183
Caldwell DF, O’Reilly CA (1990) Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. J Appl
Psychol 75:648–657. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​75.6.​648
Carnevale PJ, De Dreu CKW (2006) Motive: the negotiator’s raison d’eˆtre. Frontiers of social psychol-
ogy: negotiation theory and research. Psychology Press, pp 55–76
Chaiken S, Ledgerwood A (2012) A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In: Van
Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology. Sage
Publications Ltd, pp 246–266
Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A (2005) Personality and intellectual competence. Taylor and Francis
Group
Chen F, Fischbacher U (2016) Response time and click position: cheap indicators of preferences. J Econ
Sci Assoc 2:109–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40881-​016-​0026-6
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates
Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992a) Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEP five-factor
inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 697

Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992b) Four ways five factors are basic. Personal Individ Differ 13:653–665.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0191-​8869(92)​90236-I
De Dreu CKW, Van Lange PAM (1995) The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition
and behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 21:1178–1188. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01461​67295​21110​06
Denis DJ (2019) SPSS data analysis for univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics. John Wiley Inc
DeRue DS, Conlon DE, Moon H, Willaby HW (2009) When is straightforwardness a liability in negotia-
tions? The role of integrative potential and structural power. J Appl Psychol 94:1032–1047. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0014​965
Dimotakis N, Conlon DE, Ilies R (2012) The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: personality
and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation. J Appl
Psychol 97:183–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0025​706
Eagly AH, Wood W (2012) Social role theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. Sage Publica-
tions Ltd, pp 458–476
Eisenkraft N, Elfenbein HA (2010) The way you make me feel: evidence for individual differences in
affective presence. Psychol Sci 21:505–510. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09567​97610​364117
Elfenbein HA (2015) Individual differences in negotiation: a nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Curr Dir
Psychol Sci 24:131–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09637​21414​558114
Feist GJ (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev
2:290–309. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​7957p​spr02​04_5
Fleeson W (2004) Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 13:83–
87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​0963-​7214.​2004.​00280.x
Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator
focus. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:657–669. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​81.4.​657
Glass JC, Kilpatrick BB (1998) Financial planning for retirement: An imperative for baby boomer
women. Educ Gerontol 24:595–617. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03601​27980​240606
Goldstein WM, Einhorn HJ (1987) Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychol
Rev 94:236–254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​295X.​94.2.​236
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Hair EC (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it:
the case for agreeableness. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:820. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​70.4.​820
Greenhalgh L (2001) The Biopharm-Seltek negotiation
Gulliver PH (1979) Disputes and negotiations: a cross-cultural perspective. Academic Press
Hayes-Roth B, Hayes-Roth F (1979) A cognitive model of planning. Cognit Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​
s1551​6709c​og0304_1
Jacobs-Lawson JM, Hershey DA, Neukam KA (2004) Gender differences in factors that influence time
spent planning for retirement. J Women Aging 16:55–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1300/​J074v​16n03_​05
Jang D, Elfenbein HA, Bottom WP (2018) More than a phase: Form and features of a general theory of
negotiation. Acad Manag Ann 12:318–356. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​annals.​2016.​0053
John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspec-
tives. Handbook of personality: theory and research. Guilford Press, pp 102–138
Johnson EJ, Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA (1989) Monitoring information processing and deci-
sions: the mouselab system. DTIC Document
Kennan GF, Mearsheimer JJ (2012) American diplomacy, 60th-anniversary expanded. University of Chi-
cago Press
Krasman J (2010) The feedback-seeking personality: big five and feedback-seeking behavior. J Leadersh
Organ Stud 17:18–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15480​51809​350895
Kulik CT, Olekalns M (2012) Negotiating the gender divide: lessons from the negotiation and organiza-
tional behavior literatures. J Manag 38:1387–1415. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01492​06311​431307
Lax DA, Sebenius JK (2006) 3-D negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important
deals. Harvard Business Press
Letkiewicz JC, Fox JJ (2014) Conscientiousness, financial literacy, and asset accumulation of young
adults. J Consum Aff 48:274–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joca.​12040
Li M, Peng H, Ji L (2020) Roles of cognitive load and self-relevance during emotional information
searching on decision-making. J Behav Dec Mak 33:463–476. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bdm.​2169
Ma Z, Jaeger A (2005) Getting to yes in China: Exploring personality effects in Chinese negotiation
styles. Group Decis Negot 14:415–437. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10726-​005-​1403-3
Mazei J, Hüffmeier J, Freund PA et al (2015) A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation out-
comes and their moderators. Psychol Bull 141:85–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0038​184

13
698 D. Q. Le, D. Jang

McCrae RR, John OP (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Pers 60:175–
215. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​6494.​1992.​tb009​70.x
Messick DM, McClintock CG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc
Psychol 4:1–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0022-​1031(68)​90046-2
Meyer RD, Dalal RS (2009) Situational strength as a means of conceptualizing context. Ind Organ Psy-
chol 2:99–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1754-​9434.​2008.​01114.x
Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R (2010) A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organiza-
tional sciences. J Manag 36:121–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1754-​9434.​2008.​01114.x
Mischel W, Shoda Y (1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situ-
ations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev 102:246–268.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​295X.​102.2.​246
Molloy GJ, O’Carroll RE, Ferguson E (2014) Conscientiousness and medication adherence: a meta-anal-
ysis. Ann Behav Med 47:92–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12160-​013-​9524-4
Paunonen SV (1998) Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. J Pers Soc Psy-
chol 74:538–556. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​74.2.​538
Paunonen SV, Haddock G, Forsterling F, Keinonen M (2003) Broad versus narrow personality measures
and the prediction of behaviour across cultures. Eur J Pers 17:413–433. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​per.​
496
Payne JW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search
and protocol analysis. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16:366–387. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0030-​
5073(76)​90022-2
Peterson RM, Lucas GH (2001) Expanding the antecedent component of the traditional business negotia-
tion model: Pre-negotiation literature review and planning-preparation propositions. J Mark Theory
Pract 9:37–49
Polzer JT, Neale MA (1995) Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting with the context of nego-
tiation. Hum Perform 8:3–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​7043h​up0801_2
Pruitt DG (2012) A history of social conflict and negotiation research. Handbook of the history of social
psychology. Psychology Press, pp 431–452
Robbins SP, Judge T, Millett B, Boyle M (2017) Organisational behaviour, 8th edn. Pearson Australia,
Melbourne
Roloff ME, Putnam LL, Anastasiou L (2003) Negotiation skills. Handbook of communication and social
interaction skills. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 801–833
Schkade DA, Johnson EJ (1989) Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organ Behav Hum Decis
Process 44:203–231. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0749-​5978(89)​90025-3
Schneider AK, Honeyman C (2006) The negotiator’s fieldbook. American Bar Association
Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Johnson JG, Böckenholt U et al (2017) Process-tracing methods in decision
making: on growing up in the 70s. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 26:442–450. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09637​
21417​708229
Selig JP, Preacher KJ (2008) Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: an interactive tool for creating
confidence intervals for indirect effects
Sharma S, Bottom WP, Elfenbein HA (2013) On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional
intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: a meta-analysis. Organ Psychol Rev 3:293–336.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​20413​86613​505857
Soto CJ, John OP (2017) Short and extra-short forms of the big five inventory–2: the BFI-2-S and BFI-
2-XS. J Res Pers 68:69–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jrp.​2017.​02.​004
Stuhlmacher AF, Adair CK (2011) Personality and negotiation. Negotiation excellence - successful deal
making, Michael Benoliel. World Scientific Publishing, pp 195–210
Stuhlmacher AF, Linnabery E (2013) Gender and negotiation: a social role analysis. In: Olekalns M,
Adair W (eds) Handbook of research on negotiation research, Edward Elgar, pp 221–248
Terborg JR (1981) Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. AMR
6:569–576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amr.​1981.​42856​91
Tett RP, Burnett DD (2003) A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J Appl
Psychol 88:500–517. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​88.3.​500
Thompson L (1990) Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psy-
chol Bull 108:515–532. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​108.3.​515
Thompson LL, Hastie R (1990) Social perception in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process
47:98–123. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0749-​5978(90)​90048-E

13
Individual Differences and Situational Constraint Predict… 699

Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL (2012) Agentic and communal values: their scope and measurement. J Pers
Assess 94:39–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00223​891.​2011.​627968
Walters AE, Stuhlmacher AF, Meyer LL (1998) Gender and negotiator competitiveness: a meta-analysis.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76:1–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​obhd.​1998.​2797
Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: an analysis of a social inter-
action system. McGraw-Hill
White JB, Tynan R, Galinsky AD, Thompson L (2004) Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: roadblock to
agreement and joint gain. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 94:102–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
obhdp.​2004.​03.​005
Willemsen MC, Johnson EJ (2011) Visiting the decision factory: observing cognition with Mouse-
labWEB and other information acquisition methods. In: Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Kühberger A,
Ranyard R (eds) A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: a critical review and
user’s guide, Psychology Press, pp 21–42
Willemsen MC, Johnson EJ (2008) MouselabWEB
Williams GR (1985) A lawyer’s handbook for effective negotiation and settlement. Washington State Bar
Association
Yang L, Toubia O, De Jong MG (2015) A bounded rationality model of information search and choice in
preference measurement. J Mark Res 52:166–183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1509/​jmr.​13.​0288
Zartman IW (2006) Process and stages. In: Schneider AK, Honeyman C (eds) The negotiator’s fieldbook:
the desk reference for the experienced negotiator. American Bar Association, pp 95–98

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13