Emotions in Negotiation:

How to Manage Fear and Anger

Robert S. Adler, Benson Rosen,
and Elliot M. Silverstein

When emotions run amok, negotiators lose perspective and

make serious mistakes or perform poorly. The authors describe
emotions, explore their origins, detail their physiology, demonstrate their key role in human behavior (particularly in
negotiation), and propose a series of recommendations for dealing with fear and anger, two critical emotions in negotiations.

A Few incidents better illustrate the magnitude of emotions run amok than
the gruesome image of Mike Tyson biting off a portion of Evander Holyfield's
ear in the midst of a heated championship boxing match. Although most of
us are unlikely to enter a boxing ring, we all face, at different times and in a
variety of circumstances, intense stress not unlike that felt by pugilists. For
many people, high-stakes negotiation feels, in a psychological sense, like
entering the ring for fifteen rounds. That is, they encounter an array of
intense emotions from fear to exhilaration to anger in anticipation of
and during the negotiation.
Robert Adler is a professor and associate dean of the BSBA Program at the Kenan-Flagler Business
School of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3490. Benson Rosen is a professor and senior associate dean at the Kenan-Flagler Business School of the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3490. Elliot M. Silverstein is director of psychology at Dorothea
Dix Hospital, Raleigh, N.C. and adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina Law School.
The authors have taught negotiaton and conducted workshops in negotiation for a number of years.
0748-4526/98/0400-161$l5.00/0 C 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Negotiation Journal April 1998 161

Intense emotions often trigger intense and, at times, irrational behavior.

Consider, for example, a simple exercise used in negotiation courses and training workshops. In the "Dollar Auction" (see Raiffa 1982: 85-90; Shubik 1971),
group participants bid on a dollar in a straightforward manner, but with one
twist: the winner gets the dollar, but the second-highest bidder must pay his
or her losing bid to the auctioneer. Almost without exception, after a flurry of
offers approaching one dollar, two bidders will be left, each realizing that if he
or she is outbid, the winner will get the dollar and the loser will receive only
the embarrassment of having to pay the auctioneer. At this point, emotions
typically escalate especially if there is a group of observers chuckling at the
two players' predicament and egging them on and the bidding for the dollar will reach three-to-five dollars or higher until at last one of the players,
visibly agitated, gives up. The "winner," realizing that he or she has attained, at
best, a pyrrhic victory, rarely looks much happier than the loser.
From a rational perspective, once it is clear that the bidders are merely
increasing the loss they will incur and that neither will gain a financial advantage from further escalation, they should quit the contest. That, however,
almost never happens. Anger and a reluctance to "lose face" overwhelm
rational faculties during the auction (Murnighan 1991).
Runaway emotions do not occur just in small bargaining games. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for example, attributes
roughly 28,000 traffic deaths annually to the effects of "road rage" (Wald
1997), revealing a new type of "DWI" driver Driving While Infuriated.
In negotiations where large-scale financial stakes are involved, one
would assume that the parties would take particular care to guarantee that
irrational behavior not control the bargaining. Yet, the larger the stakes,
often the more intense and uncontrollable the feelings. Runaway emotions
can surface in and destroy any negotiation multi-billion dollar mergers and
acquisitions (Callahan 1988; Daly 1991), baseball strikes (Reuben 1995) and
the operations of family-run businesses (Nash 1985). In so many ways and at
so many times, the key to a successful deal lies not in technical details or
even in a favorable price, but in the proper treatment of the emotions that
drive the parties to a negotiation (Garai and Pravda 1993).
Despite the critical impact that feelings have in negotiations, numerous
commentators have noted and deplored the fact that emotions are one of the
least studied areas in the field (Barry and Oliver 1996; Kramer et. al. 1993; Pillutla and Murnighan 1996; Thomas 1990). As Thomas notes, those who
analyze negotiations only from a cognitive or economic perspective overly
"sanitize" the process by eliminating emotions and their potentially strong
effects on thoughts and actions (Thomas 1990). In this article, we hope to put
emotions in negotiations in their proper place. We describe emotions, explore
their origins, briefly detail their physiology, demonstrate their key role in
human behavior (particularly in negotiation), assess their positive and negative
162 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstetn Emotions in Negotiation

sides and, finally, propose a series of recommendations for dealing with fear
and anger, the two most critical emotions in negotiation.
Of course, not all negotiations break down because of runaway emotions. Some deals cannot be consummated because there is no overlap in
terms acceptable to the parties. Although these instances may generate considerable emotion once the parties realize that no meeting of the minds is
possible, our concern lies more with situations in which, absent strong and
disruptive emotions, the parties would have reached agreement. As we shall
discuss, we believe it is possible to employ bargaining approaches that minimize these occasions.

Emotions: A Definition
Describing an emotion to someone incapable of feelings would be as futile
as explaining the color "blue" to someone born without sight. At some level,
one must simply feel in order to experience an emotion because words cannot capture the sensation. As far as we can tell, no computer, however
sophisticated, has ever felt or will ever feel emotions witness the eternal
quest for this vital human trait by the android Data in the television series,
Star Trek, The Next Generation.
Scientists continue to debate the precise nature of emotions their
neurophysiology, the degree of their malleability, their relationship to cognitive processes, and so on (see, for example, LeDoux 1995). At their most
basic, however, emotions are simply "impulses to act, the instant plan for
handling life that evolution has installed in us" (Goleman 1995: 5). But there
is more not only are emotions impulses to act, they are also the feelings
that trigger the impulse to act (Callahan 1988). Emotions intertwine with
rational thought to make us human. Reason cannot easily operate without
feeling, nor vice versa. Callahan insists that both are critical. For example,
without the two operating in supportive fashion, we cannot make proper
ethical judgments since it is the emotion of empathy that drives us to want
to be good:
Emotions energize the ethical quest. A person must be emotionally interested enough and care enough about discerning the truth to persevere
despite distractions. ... A good case can be made that what is specifically
moral about moral thinking, what gives it its imperative "oughtness," is personal emotional investment. When emotion infuses an evaluative
judgment, it is transformed into a prescriptive moral judgment of what
ought to be done (Callahan 1988:10).

Emotions: An Evolutionary Legacy

Emotions play a central and, at times, dominant role in our lives for good reason. Without the "hair-trigger" push for action from emotions, our ancestors

Negotiation Journal April 1998

163

would have become food for a host of hungry predators long ago. However,
the role of emotions goes beyond merely enabling us to escape attacks from
enemies. Goleman (1995: 6) insists that evolution has intertwined emotions
with the most critical aspects of our lives:
Sociobiologists point to the preeminence of heart over head. . .when they
conjecture about why evolution has given emotion such a central role in
the human psyche. Our emotions, they say, guide us in facing predicaments and tasks too important to leave to intellect alone danger, painful
loss, persisting toward a goal despite frustrations, bonding with a mate,
building a family. As these eternal situations were repeated and repeated
over our evolutionary history, the survival value of our emotional repertoire was attested to by its becoming imprinted in our nerves as innate,
automatic tendencies of the human heart.

We can derive useful insights by contemplating the role of emotions in

the development of emotions. Given our common, albeit ancient, ancestry,
we can be fairly certain that animals often have feelings not unlike ours
(LeDoux 1995). When a zebra dashes from a pursuing lion, we can relate at
some level to the fear that it must feel. Similarly, we can empathize with the
fierce protectiveness of a mother bear when she feels the well-being of her
cub to be threatened. Accordingly, there seems little doubt that the study of
emotions in animals can shed light on our own emotional makeup. In fact,
increasing reliance on animal experiments and observation have contributed
greatly to understanding our emotional nature (Matthews 1995). De Waal,
for example, has observed that chimpanzees exhibit emotions such as anger,
sympathy, sadness, and empathy in a variety of extremely sophisticated ways
(De Waal 1996).
It seems likely that evolutionary dynamics have developed our "negative" emotions (e.g., fear and anger) to engage more quickly and with greater
force than our "positive" emotions (e.g., joy and serenity) because the former carry greater survival potential. Affect that produces readiness and
strength is more likely to save us at critical moments than that which creates
contentment (Barry and Oliver 1996). In the 17th Century, poet John Dryden, bemoaning the imbalance between positive and negative emotions,
wrote "For all the happiness mankind can gain is not in pleasure, but in rest
from pain." Regrettably, evolution rewards that which works best, not which
feels best.
The neural circuitry that contains and controls emotions must be very
old, going back thousands of human generations. We carry what has ensured
our survival for the last 50,000 generations (Goleman 1995; LeDoux 1995).
Such an ancient legacy is not an unmixed blessing. Given the dramatic
changes in social organization and interpersonal interaction of more recent
generations, it should not surprise us that we sometimes find that nature has

164 Adler, Rosen, ami Silverstetn Emotions in Negotiation

"wired" us in ways that are incompatible with modern living. For example,
humans rarely find ourselves hunted for food these days. Yet, our emotional
infrastructure continues to prime us to react in the same manner as it did
when we were the hunted as often as the hunters. It can be argued that the
fierce ebb and flow of emotions that were vital to the survival of our ancestors pushes us to foolish outbursts or excessive dread when, objectively, we
should adopt much calmer approaches. Realizing the evolutionary context
behind these emotional states helps us understand and address them.

Physical Aspects of Emotions

In recent years, through the use of such techniques as Magnetic Resonance
Imaging of the brain, brain mapping, viral tracking, and observations of
brain-damaged subjects, information about the neurobiology of emotions has
grown enormously, leading to new understanding of the physical characteristics of emotions (Caldwell 1995; Goleman 1995; Matthews, 1995; and
Schneider et al. 1995). Scientists now understand that the amygdala, a pair of
almond-shaped organs situated above the brainstem (near the internal ear
structure) plays a key role in producing and controlling emotions in humans.
Although other portions of the brain undoubtedly participate in the development and display of emotions (LeDoux 1995), the amygdala has increasingly
come to be seen as central in our emotional lives. Sever the amygdala from
the rest of the brain and the individual loses some or all recognition of feeling, and feeling about feelings (Adolphs et. al. 1995; Bower 1997; Caldwell
1995; Goleman 1995). Such a person may never lose his temper, shed a tear
in sorrow, recognize fear in another's voice, or be moved by a great musical
composition.
Not only does the amygdala serve as a critical source of emotions, it
also acts in lightning-fast fashion, long before our rational faculties engage
(LeDoux 1995). Current evidence suggests that the amygdala scrutinizes
most incoming data from our sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell to determine whether immediate action is called for. If the data indicate that one
should act quickly, the amygdala will instantly transmit messages triggering
hormones that mobilize a person for action. Heartbeat intensifies, concentration focuses, blood pressure increases, muscles tense, and breathing
becomes heavy. In addition to these physical responses, the amygdala
searches the brain for useful information about dealing with the emergency
and imprints emotional memories for future reference (Goleman 1995).
We feel a variety of things during these amygdala-driven situations. At
one level, we feel the exhilaration of the moment, often inspiring us to
achievements beyond our normal capabilities which explains why
coaches work so hard at conditioning their teams' minds as well as their bodies (Despres 1997). On another level, the strain of an intense emotional
experience can also lead to trembling, stomach upset, and oppressive tenNegotiation Journal

April 1998

165

sion feelings that few of us enjoy and many of us go to great lengths to

avoid. All of these reactions, experienced at an emotional level, derive from
specific biochemical sources that produce physical effects.
What is critical to understanding the role of emotion is that the amygdala engages immediately at a primitive and powerful level before the
rational mind assesses a situation and decides how to react. Thus, it should
come as no surprise that emotions often explode before rational faculties
play a role in our actions (Goleman 1995). Moreover, because emotions
carry such force, they may dominate our actions for some time before we
"cool off" enough to assess what we have just done. When we are emotiondriven, we do not sense subtleties. The amygdala sacrifices accuracy for
speed an absolute necessity from an evolutionary perspective (LeDoux
1995). In emergencies, those who pause may be lost. From a modern perspective, however, moments of crisis in a negotiation rarely involve, except
in a metaphorical sense, "lifeor-death" elements. A state of instant readiness
to dash a half-mile or to launch a physical attack on the source of our concern, while often unavoidable, is too often inappropriate.
Because no two human lives are alike, different stimuli trigger different
emotions in people. A beautiful spring day that evokes joy in someone who
anticipates a family barbecue may produce only despondency in another
whose loved one died on such a day. Despite the differences in our emotional reactions, however, there is a striking universality to emotions.
Cross-cultural studies and infant research strongly suggest that humanity
shares the same set of basic emotions, and that these emotions are conveyed
through a common set of facial expressions (Callahan 1988; Scherer and Walbott 1994). Although disagreement remains regarding which emotions are
truly basic and which are variations on a theme, researchers find a dramatic
similarity of emotions among all humans. One observer suggests four basic
emotions: fear, anger, sadness, and enjoyment (Goleman 1995). Others posit
seven major emotions: joy, fear, anger, sadness, disgust, shame, and guilt
(Scherer and Walbott 1994). Still another, Callahan (1988: 10), sees a richer
mix of basic emotions, and argues that they, "like the primary colors, can be
blended, differentiated, and elaborated." To Callahan, the basic emotions
range across a "mild to intense" continuum: interest to excitement, enjoyment to joy, surprise to startle, distress to anguish, anger to rage, disgust to
revulsion, contempt to scorn, fear to terror, shame to humiliation, and guilt
to remorse. Despite the shades of theoretical differences among these
observers, they all insist that the universality of our emotional makeup provides a key underpinning of our ability to communicate with one another.
The fact that emotions can be triggered so quickly before our
rational faculties can assess a situation does not mean that we must resign
ourselves forever to being led astray by our feelings. Recent psychological

166 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein Emotions in Negotiation

research suggests that preventive measures can help avoid runaway emotions. Recognizing the physical effects of emotions helps provide a key to
controlling them in moments of stress. In some cases, we may be able to
defuse emotions before they intensify; in others, we can divert the force of
emotions away from destructive behavior.

Positive and Negative Aspects of Emotions in Negotiations

Among other things, the art of negotiation lies in discerning and working out
differences between the parties. At times the differences may provoke substantial conflict, leading to emotional outbursts and heated discussions.
Many people find exhilaration in the adrenaline "rush" that occurs during
such moments, but an equal or greater number react to conflict by dreading
and avoiding it. These varying reactions suggest that emotions function both
in positive and negative ways. In fact, we believe that emotions play a variety
of roles, some at times overwhelming and some often quite subtle.
The rich variety of functions precludes any easy generalization about
emotions' role in negotiations. Those who would eliminate emotions in
negotiation wrongly focus only on the negatives, missing the critical nature
of emotion after all, emotions are what give vitality to the values and goals
that negotiators bring to the table (Callahan 1988). One need only ponder
briefly to see the many positives of emotions in negotiations. If we do not
care about what we seek, we become indifferent, and therefore ineffective,
bargainers. Emotions give us our values and motivate us to pursue them.
Moreover, the emotions that we display help us signal the other party about
our intentions and give us critical feedback about the other side's mood and
willingness to agree (Putnam 1994).
Because we realize that the other side may scrutinize us for signs of fear
or excessive eagerness, we try to subdue the outward manifestation of these
feelings so that we will not be taken advantage of. At times, we all admire
the person who can maintain an impassive "poker face" in a negotiation,
thwarting attempts to read his or her feelings about specific proposals. Similarly, those who can communicate confidence despite their inner quakes
also inspire our admiration. On the other hand, the opposite approach can
also be powerful. Extravagant displays of anger or irrational outbursts can
sometimes be effective in breaking an impasse or intimidating an opponent.
A "madman's advantage" can be produced by such displays, which can
greatly increase a bargainer's power at critical moments in a negotiation
(Schoonmaker 1989).
Of course, not all emotions involved in a negotiation result in or carry
positive feelings. Where one party believes that the other side cannot be
trusted, tries to overreach, or unreasonably rejects a fair offer, he or she may

Negotiation Journal April 1998

167

experience frustration, anger, fear, or sadness. In these instances, emotions

can get out of hand and thwart agreement. At the extreme, intense anger can
result in violence, broken friendships, and festering anger. Intense fear can
produce equally unacceptable outcomes; fearful negotiators leave themselves open to intimidation, exploitation, and capitulation.

Fear and Anger in Negotiations: Some Cautious Advice

Undoubtedly the two most intense emotions that confront negotiators are
fear and anger. Anger can flash white-hot at a moment's notice and fear can
reduce one to paralysis. Although other emotions arise during the course of
a negotiation, our experience strongly suggests that the two that affect negotiations most often and most dramatically are fear and anger. Accordingly, we
focus on them with the hope that addressing them can also provide insight
into dealing with other emotions.
We caution those who would rely on our advice to remember Augustus
Caesar's admonition to "hasten slowly." No general principle works effectively in all circumstances and with all people. In some situations, in fact, the
best course of action may well be to do the opposite of what we counsel.
Because of the complexity of life and human interaction, the only rule that
works in all instances is "it depends." Accordingly, an ability to read the situation at the moment helps enormously. Nonetheless, based on years of
practice and confirmed by a number of studies, we believe that, in most situations, what we recommend will help negotiators deal with highly
emotional settings.

Anger in Negotiations
Two millennia ago, poet and satirist Horace wrote Ira furor brevis est anger
is a short madness. When we become truly furious, we may act in an utterly
irrational way for a period of time. Although a temper tantrum may relieve
pent-up feelings for a moment, we often find regret and negative recriminations following such displays. On this point, Queen Elizabeth I reportedly
observed, "anger makes dull men witty, but it also keeps them poor."
Anger springs from many sources. On one hand, it may arise from the
perception that someone has violated written or unwritten rules of behavior.
In chimpanzee society, De Waal (1996) notes that members of a group
exhibit what he terms moralistic aggression, that is, chimps perceived as
stingy and unsharing are more likely to be attacked and refused favors than
those that act in a more generous spirit. On a human level, someone who
rudely breaks in line or who recklessly cuts us off in traffic will likely ignite
fires of indignation if we are the victims of these transgressions.
Anger also arises when one encounters snubs, rudeness, or anything
that provokes a feeling of being unfairly diminished we get angry because

168 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein

Emotions in Negotiation

we feel vulnerable and exposed (Leritz 1987). In similar fashion, shame may
trigger anger. If our egos are bruised in a manner that makes us feel small,
we react defensively, and often in anger (Retzinger 1995). The evolutionary
basis for anger seems clear: anger motivates us to retaliate when we are
attacked and to defend ourselves against those whom we believe are doing
us harm. As with other emotions, what one feels at any given moment is
both physical and situational. Fear may prompt a chimpanzee to flee from a
more powerful lion, but anger will drive it to lash out at a weaker chimp
who snatches a piece of food that it was about to eat.
In the negotiation context, a host of factors can contribute to anger and
aggression. Citing a variety of studies, Barry and Oliver (1996) suggest the
following examples where these negative emotions can arise in dyadic negotiations: where bargainers are accountable to angry constituents; where
bargainers face time pressures; where they perceive the situation as win-lose
with divergent goals between the parties; or, generally, where the parties are
otherwise unconcerned with protecting a working relationship. In a study of
anger in mergers and acquisitions, Daly (1991) found the following types of
behavior likely to trigger anger: misrepresentation; making excessive
demands; overstepping one's authority; showing personal animosity; questioning a representative's authority to negotiate; seeking to undermine a
representative's authority by "going over his head"; and dwelling on unimportant details.
There are occasions when anger, legitimately expressed, can play a positive role in producing an agreement for example, when it helps persuade
others because it demonstrates intensity and sincerity of a position (Daly
1991). On the other hand, this emotion often injects a sour note into the
proceeding, impeding agreement. Anger does so in at least three ways: it
clouds our objectivity because we lose trust in the other side; it narrows our
focus from broader topics to the anger-producing behavior; and it misdirects
our goals from reaching agreement to retaliating against the offender (Daly
1991; Thomas 1990).
Anger not only carries a high potential for disrupting negotiations, it
also can present serious health risks. When we become angry, the stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, surge, raising heart rate and blood pressure,
and triggering cells to issue heart-threatening fat and cholesterol into the
bloodstream (Doner 1996). A substantial number of large-scale longitudinal
studies have shown a significantly increased risk for heart disease among
those found to have high hostility levels (Doner 1996; Harvard Mental
Health Letter 1997).
As we indicated previously, negotiators can take steps to control the
excesses of anger and to manage it to productive ends. What follows is a
series of observations and recommendations for doing so.

Negotiation Journal

April 1998

169

Dealing With Your Anger

The critical need for self-awareness. Virtually all researchers and commentators on emotions and negotiations insist that the first step necessary in
controlling anger is self-awareness (see, for example, Doner 1996; Goleman
1995; Leritz 1987; Nelken 1996). If we cannot sense when our anger has
been aroused, we will miss any opportunity to control it. Anger typically has
physical manifestations, such as a rapid heartbeat, muscle tensing, increased
sweating, or flushed face (Goleman 1995).
In a quiet moment, one should reflect on the warning signs that indicate the onset of one's anger. We need to know how quickly we anger and
how soon we get over it. If need be, one should consult with friends and
family to see whether one exhibits any warning signs that a tantrum is imminent. The earlier that anger can be sensed, the more likely it is to be
controlled. One also needs to determine how visibly one displays anger.
Some people quickly lose their temper in extremely obvious ways. Others
smolder but show few external signs that they are angry. Showing anger
is not always bad, but the trick is to do so only when it serves a strategic
purpose.
Determine situations that trigger inappropriate anger. In some cases,
anger is an appropriate response to a provocative situation. At other times,
we may instantly, and inappropriately, ignite in circumstances that most
other bargainers would not find provocative. For example, some people
react furiously to meetings that start a few minutes late. Others become livid
at real or imagined slights to their dignity. Anger at these moments generally
serves no useful purpose. Determining those things that trigger inappropriate anger may permit us to take steps to avoid them or to take preventive
measures to control anger.
Decide whether to display anger. Recognizing how and why our anger
arises does not mean that we should always avoid angry feelings or never display anger. But, if one can recognize the onset of anger, one can decide how
best to deal with it. In some cases, we should reveal our feelings. For example, if a fellow negotiator has just falsely accused us of lying, we might want
to demonstrate extreme displeasure in a way that persuades the other side
that such charges are false and will not be tolerated. The trick is to do so in a
manner that makes the point, but does not undermine the negotiation. This
requires a careful assessment of the circumstances and of our opponent's
reaction to our anger, and a measured approach to expressing our feelings.
Behavioral techniques to reduce anger. In some cases, one may feel
anger but realize that it is inappropriate to the setting. For example, if our
anger stems from outside circumstances or if displaying anger will under-

170 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein

Emotions in Negotiation

mine our goals in a negotiation, we should do our best to bring such feelings
under control. Experts suggest a variety of behavioral techniques (Hendrix
1995; Goleman 1995; Doner 1996) that can work, including:
call a temporary halt to the negotiation to cool off;

count backwards from 10 to 1;

go to the restroom;
get a drink of water or soda;
tense and untense your leg muscles under the table;
begin writing points that you wish to discuss later in the negotiation (this
will help you stay organized and will give you some time to cool off);
consciously try to take deep breaths in a silent manner;
think about a scene from your past in which you were relaxed;
imagine the source of your anger in a setting where he or she is getting
his or her just desserts;
exercise vigorously prior to and after a challenging negotiation.
Studies show that "cooling-off" periods, although one of the most commonly employed and successful methods of lessening angry moods, will not
work if that time is spent re-living the anger-triggering moment and wallowing
in the perceived outrage (Goleman 1995). What is needed, instead, is time
spent focusing on other matters or reassessing the situation to realize the inappropriateness of an angry outburst. Studies also show that it is possible to use
a so-called "freeze-frame" approach in which negotiators shift their attention
from angry thoughts by recalling a pleasant experience to focus on calming
their heartbeats until they feel a "calm, anchored sensation" in the chest. This
technique moderates the heart and nervous system (Doner 1996).
Express anger and disappointment effectively. In addition to the
behavioral techniques for dealing with the physical and emotional aspects of
anger, we need ways to communicate our displeasure and convey our concerns. Accusing an opponent of improper behavior rarely moves a
negotiation forward and typically sets it back when he or she reacts in a predictably defensive manner. Instead, we need to be assertive without
provoking or escalating deal-killing emotions in the other side. Among the
approaches for doing so are the following:
explain the behavior that upsets you in specific and objective terms;
describe your feelings about what bothers you;
try to get your opponent to view the matter from your perspective;
do not accuse your opponent of misbehavior;

Negotiation Journal

April 1998

171

 show respect for your opponent;

apologize for any misunderstanding that your own behavior might have
caused if that will help move the discussion without making you appear
weak.
Avoid "negotiator's bias." Most negotiators view themselves as fair and
honest. Yet, we often fall into a perception trap in which we, without justification, view opponents whom we know nothing about as hostile. Why is
this? Negotiation is a process that obviously involves conflict and competition, which call for intense "thrust-and-parry" skills. Accordingly, wary
negotiators will approach bargaining with caution and trepidation. Although
being on-guard makes perfect sense, research suggests that we have an
unconscious tendency to carry a "negotiator's bias" into bargaining sessions;
that is, we view our opponents as competitive while viewing ourselves as
noncompetitive and cooperative (Thomas and Pondy 1977). Moreover,
when disagreements arise in negotiations, each party tends to view his or
her behavior as relatively innocent while seeing the opponent as intentionally harmful, hostile, or aggressive (Neale and Bazerman 1983; van de Vliert
and Hordijk 1989). To say the least, the tendency to jump to such negative,
and often unwarranted, conclusions explains why emotions can become
instantly heated. Avoiding hasty judgments about our opponents' intentions
requires realistic, clear thinking (Kramer et. al. 1993).
Try to promote trust. Trust is a key underpinning of successful negotiations (Putnam 1994). If negotiators cannot trust each other, then every issue
requires verification and each agreement necessitates iron-clad guarantees.
Anger, expressed inappropriately, can destroy trust. To promote good feelings and trust, various commentators recommend "positive-framing"
approaches that promote the sense that our opponents have gained concessions from us rather than that we have handed them favorable terms that
cost us little and about which we care little (Goleman 1995; Kahneman
1992). In fact, research suggests that the most effective concessions that one
can make are those that reduce or eliminate an opponent's losses; the least
effective are those that somewhat improve gains already made by the other
side (Kahneman 1992).
Finally, to no one's surprise, humor, especially when directed at ourselves, helps create a particularly warm atmosphere for a negotiation (Thomas
1990). As Henry Ward Beecher wrote, "good humor makes all things tolerable." For most people, ill feelings and good humor cannot coexist.

Dealing With Your Opponent's Anger

Just as we need to develop a good instinct for determining when we become
angry, we also need to be able to read our opponents' moods, particularly

172 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstetn

Emotions in Negotiation

those involving frustration and anger. Here are some techniques that may be
useful:
Defuse heated emotional buildups. Every good negotiator seeks to
remain alert to the mood of a negotiation at all times. One should always
seek to monitor opponents for anger. If one senses a rising temper on the
other side, it may help to ask directly: "Mary, is something bothering you?"
or "Tom, did my comment about the necessity of meeting deadlines disturb
you?" or "Regina, you look angry. Are you?"
Assess the significance of angry displays. When an opponent erupts in
anger, one should assess as carefully as possible the significance of the anger.
Does it seem calculated? Can the person regain composure? In some cases,
the other side may try to convey anger as a strategic maneuver to dislodge us
from a firmly-held position. Dealing with such an approach calls for a different response than dealing with a truly lost temper. Trying to placate
someone who is using anger strategically to gain concessions may well lead
us to make overly generous offers.
Address an opponent's anger. In some cases, you may need to say
something like "Irv, I'm sure you're going to rethink the comments you've
just made. I hope that you realize they were inappropriate. In the meantime,
you've made me angry, so I need a break before we resume bargaining." It
rarely hurts to acknowledge an opponent's anger even when one disagrees
that it is justified. In some cases, an apology even one felt to be undeserved will help smooth the course of a negotiation. You should not
apologize, however, in a way that leads an opponent to conclude that you
have conceded a point that remains in dispute or that you are a weak negotiator. Thus, instead of offering a personal apology, you can as easily and
as effectively simply apologize for the "bad situation."
Respond to anger in strategic ways. In some cases, the only appropriate response to a lost temper is to lose yours as well. Responding in kind,
however, is usually not effective. Instead, think strategically. Temper losses
often put the angry person at a disadvantage and the nimble negotiator can
advance his or her position decisively. If you need a break to avoid losing
your temper, take one. If not, you can wait silently for the angry person to
become contrite and to make concessions. Sometimes a modest concession
on your part immediately after an outburst by your opponent will elicit a
much larger one from him or her.
Help an angry opponent save face. Perhaps the biggest deal breaker in
negotiations is "face loss" (Brown 1971). Where parties feel they will lose
face if they agree to an opponent's demands, they are likely to derail the
negotiation even if it is not in their interest to do so. So critical is "face" to a
negotiation that parties will hold to untenable positions that will cost them
money or even provoke wars Schoonmaker (1989) cites the example of
Negotiation Journal April 1998

173

two Latin America countries that fought a war because of angry feelings over
a soccer match. Accordingly, one should always try to help an angry opponent save face especially if lost face is what triggered the outburst in the first
place. A friendly, reassuring (but not patronizing) approach may work wonders in these situations.
Involve a mediator when you anticipate anger. If you believe that a
strong potential for destructive anger exists in a particular negotiation, enlist
the aid of a mediator or someone whose presence will act as a calming influence to the process.

Fear In Negotiation
Without doubt, fear is a pivotal emotion. At extreme levels, fear mobilizes all
of the body's resources to escape physical harm; at lesser intensities, it leads
us to worry about looming problems or pending concerns. Worry serves a
vital function when it is contained properly it leads us to plan ways to
deal with our daily challenges. For example, worries about an exam will
prompt us to study to ensure a satisfactory performance.
The neural pathways that trigger a fear reaction are well developed and
strong (LeDoux 1995). Recent studies that trace neural pathways of animals
conditioned to fear brief electrical shocks have provided a large body of data
about fear responses. The data strongly suggest heavy involvement of the
amygdala in assessing danger and triggering fear responses (LeDoux 1995). A
critical insight derived from various studies is that trauma experienced at
young ages from one to three may have particularly powerful and lasting effects because they are retained as emotional memories in the
amygdala, but not as conscious declarative memories because the brain's
hippocampus (where conscious memories are stored) may not have matured
to the level where it can retain such memories (LeDoux 1995). Thus, we
may react with dread to stimuli that provoke emotional memories, but not
be able to explain the source of the fears.
Fear in negotiations arises in a variety of circumstances. If we face an
aggressive opponent, if we bargain without adequate preparation, if we
sense that our opponent has superior bargaining power, if we feel insecure
about our ability as a negotiator, we may experience moderate to extreme
levels of fear. In extreme cases, we may simply fear the physical manifestations of fear itself sweaty palms, shaky legs, queasy stomach, thumping
heart beat, trembling muscles, and even disrupted vision (Despres 1997).
This so-called "fear of fear" syndrome (Williams et al. 1997) can be particularly debilitating because those who suffer it will seek to avoid stressful
situations, even those in which they otherwise might have the power to produce favorable outcomes for themselves.

174 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein

Emotions in Negotiation

Dealing With Your Fear

Know your warning signs. As with anger, you should learn to sense
when you begin to experience fear or anxiety. The body's reaction to fear is
different from that of anger. With anger, for example, blood flows to the
hands, making it easier to strike an opponent. With fear, blood rushes to the
large skeletal muscles, such as the legs, making it easier to flee. In metaphorical terms, our blood "boils" when we experience anger, but it "runs cold"
when we are frightened (Goleman 1995).
Understand that fear is often a normal reaction. When you face a
challenging situation, scientific research suggests you will often experience a
quickened heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, stomach turbulence, muscle
tension and a heightened awareness. Although most of us welcome the
heightened awareness, we find the other physical manifestations of fear to
be quite unpleasant. Most successful people, especially athletes, learn to harness the symptoms of fear to improve their performances (Despres 1997).
Trying to ignore your feelings can be dangerous you may suddenly freeze
or "choke" if you are feeling tense due to fear. The key is to channel the feelings into effective responses and to minimize the disruptive effects of fear.
Determine how visibly you display fear. Displaying fear is rarely helpful in a negotiation. Accordingly, it is useful to get a sense of how you look
when you are fearful. One of the quickest giveaways of fear is a cracking
voice. An inability to make eye contact is another easily detected mannerism
of fear. If your voice feels likely not to hold, make sure that you have a glass
of water nearby. A quick gulp followed by clearing your voice usually puts
things in order. Speaking slowly in the bottom ranges of your voice, from as
low in your diaphragm as you can manage also helps.
Determine situations that trigger fear. Determine whether your fear
relates to the situation in which you must act or to the person with whom
you must interact. If you suspect that you will be fearful during a negotiation, redouble your preparations. For most of us, a planned-for contingency
is rarely as frightening as an unplanned-for emergency.
Behavioral techniques to reduce feelings of fear. Most of the behavioral techniques that dispel anger also work in reducing fear. For example,
calling a temporary halt to the negotiation to regain your composure or
going to the restroom are as effective in dealing with fear as they are in
reducing anger. Two slightly different approaches from those recommended
for anger control are to:
think about a scene from your past in which you were confident and in
control; and

Negotiation Journal

April 1998 175

 imagine the source of your fear in a setting where you control them or
where they look ridiculous and weak.
Careful preparation reduces fear. Preparation for a negotiation involves
researching the problem and developing a strategy. Few things dispel fear
more effectively than careful preparation. Sometimes a rehearsal of the negotiation helps build confidence. Researching your opponent may also help.
Negotiators who have prepared carefully and who know their "bottom line"
or their "walk away" points are much less likely to be cowed or tricked in a
negotiation (Adler et al. 1996). To the extent that you know your goals and
strategy and stick to them, you will probably be able to control your fears. In
all instances, keep your goals clearly in mind.
Act confident even if you do not feel so. Although there are probably
occasions where showing anger makes sense in a negotiation, it is difficult to
imagine instances in which showing fear strengthens one's hand. Accordingly, to the extent possible, try to project an appearance of confidence. In
fact, researchers suggest that it is possible to increase feelings of confidence
by focusing our thoughts on our strengths, and by substituting positive selfstatements for fearful thoughts (Despres 1997; Matthews 1995). Because
perceptions play such a large role in negotiation, one should work hard at
developing a confident demeanor and by backing it up with a positive attitude in approaching a negotiation.
Avoid quick agreements motivated by fear. If you are on the verge of
agreeing to a deal that makes you feel uncomfortable, indicate that you need
to consult with a superior or that you feel a need to think over the matter.
Try to reduce your stress level. If you are someone who feels anxiety
more than you would like to or who constantly loses control when you are
fearful or anxious, stress experts indicate that there are steps you can take to
reduce anxiety. You should consider the following steps:
short-term cognitive behavior therapy that teaches you to recognize and
reduce inappropriate anxiety;
relaxation therapy that teaches you simple steps to follow for avoiding
anxiety;
talk about feelings of anxiety with friends and family (if they will listen
with sympathy);
try to develop coping strategies by noting which personal techniques
help reduce your anxiety;
exercise on a regular basis;
exercise vigorously before or after stressful situations; and

176 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstetn Emotions in Negotiation

 discuss anti-anxiety drugs with your physician.

Dealing With Your Opponent's Fear
Monitor all negotiations for emotional buildups. Every good negotiator seeks to remain alert to the mood of a negotiation at all times. You should
always seek to monitor your opponent for fear.
Show flexibility in bow you react to your opponent's fear. In some
cases, your opponent's fear can open the way for a settlement that is
strongly in your favor. In others, fear may hinder agreement if your opponent
becomes immobilized, loses the ability to bargain thoughtfully, or explodes
in anger. Also, if you plan to enter into a long-term relationship with your
opponent, you may wish to go out of your way to dispel his or her fears.
Where helpful, share your fears and anxieties with your opponent.
Empathizing with your opponent by describing your own fears in similar situations may help dispel your opponent's fears. Of course, one should avoid
providing an opponent with ammunition to be used against him or her at a
future time. Sometimes, however, sharing vulnerabilities promotes trust in
ways that no other approach can do.
Help your fearful opponent save face. Again, where parties feel they
will lose face if they agree to an opponent's demands, they are likely to
derail the negotiation even if it is not in their interest to do so.

Conclusion
Evolution and our individual neurophysiology set the template for our emotional lives and for our approach to negotiation. We should accept this reality
and respect it.
Nonetheless, our emotional framework is a starting point, not an end.
Depending on how we approach emotions in negotiation, we may be either
slaves or masters to them with varying consequences. We believe that
available evidence strongly suggests that negotiators can improve their selfawareness of emotions, and that we can control them to our advantage
when we bargain. The one thing we cannot do nor should we try to is
eliminate emotions.

Negotiation Journal

April 1998

177

REFERENCES
Adler, R., B. Rosen, and E. Silverstein. 1996. Thrust and parry: The art of tough negotiating. Training & Development (March) 43-47.
Adolphs, R., D. Tranel, H. Damasio, and A. Damasio. 1995. Fear and the human amygdala. Journal
of Neurosctence 15(9): 5879-5891.
Barry, B. and R. Oliver. 1996. Affect in dyadic negotiation: A model and propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(2): 127-143.
Bower, B. 1997. Brain structure sounds off to fear. Science News 151(3): 38.
Brown, B.R. 1968. The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 4: 107-122.
Callahan, S. 1988. The role of emotion in ethical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report
June/July. 9-14.
Caldwell, M. 1995. Kernel of fear: Amygdala in the brain is responsible for association with certain
stimuli. Discover 16: 96-103.
Daly, J. 1991. The effects of anger on negotiations over mergers and acquisitions. Negotiation
Journal7: 31-39.
Derrow, P. 1996. Thinking from the heart. American Health 15(3): 82-84.
Despres, R. 1997. The face of fear. Women's Sports and Fitness 19(5): 52-57.
De Waal, F. 1996 Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Doner, K. 1996. Heal your angry heart. American Health 15(7): 74-78.
Garai, G. and S. Pravda 1993. Defusing emotions of buyers and sellers in getting deals done. Mergers & Acquisitions 23-28.
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Harvard Mental Health Letter. 1997. Hearts and minds 14: 1-5.
Hendrix, B. 1995. Constructive anger. Medical Laboratory Observer 27(8).
Hopman, T. and C. Walcott. 1977. The impact of external stresses and tensions on negotiations
(Chapter 10) in Druckman, Daniel, Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Kahneman, D. 1992. Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51: 296-312.
Kramer, R., E. Newton, and L. Pommerenke. 1993. Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: effects of self-esteem and mood. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 56: 110-133.
Leritz, L. 1987. No-fault negotiating. New York: Warner Books.
LeDoux, J. 1995. Emotions: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology. 46: 209-236.
Matthews, G. 1995. Anxiety, emotion and cognitive theory: Diversity and innovation. British Journal of Psychology 86(2): 315-320.
Murnighan, J.K. 1991. The dynamics of bargaining games. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Nash, A. 1985. Family feud: The war between the Binghams. Working Woman 10: 134-142.
Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman. 1983. The effect of perspective taking ability on the negotiation
process under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 36:
378-388.
Nelken, M.L. 1996. Negotiation and psychoanalysis: If I'd wanted to learn about feelings, I
wouldn't have gone to law school. Journal of Legal Education 46(3): 420-429.
Pillutla, M. and J.K. Murnighan. 1996. Unfairness, anger and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(3): 208-224.
Putnam, L. 1994. Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotiation Journal 10: 337-346.
Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Retzinger, S. 1995. Identifying shame and anger in discourse. American Behavioral Scientist
38(8): 1104-1114.
Reuben, R. 1995. Baseball strike teaches legal lessons: Lawyers should reassess strategies, avoid
animosities in negotiations. American Bar Association Journal 87:42-43.
Scherer, K.R. and H.G. Walbott. 1994. Evidence for universality and cultural variation of differential emotion response patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(2):
310-329.

178 Adler, Rosen, and Silverstein

Emotions in Negotiation

Schneider, F., R.E. Gur, L.H. Mozley, R.J. Smith, et al. 1995. Mood effects on limbic blood flow correlate with emotional self-rating: A PET study with oxygen-15 labeled water. Psychiatry
Research Neuroimaging 61(4): 265-283.
Schoonmaker, A.N. 1989. Negotiate to win: Gaining the psychological edge. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Shubik, M. 1971. The dollar auction game: A paradox in non-cooperative behavior and escalation.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 (March): 109-111.
Thomas, K.W. 1990. Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2d ed., edited by M. Dunnote and L.M. Hough,
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thomas, K.W. and L.R. Pondy. 1977. Toward an "intent" model of conflict management among
principal parties. Human Relations 30: 1089-1102.
Travis, J. 1995. Viruses reveal the brain's fright circuits. Science News 148(18): p. 276.
van de Vliert, E. and J.W. Hordijk. 1989. The difference in the meaning of forcing in the conflict
management of actors and observers. In Managing conflict: An integrative approach,
edited by M.A. Rahim. New York: Praeger.
Wald, M. 1997. Anger cited in 28,000 road deaths a year. The New York Times 18 July 1997, p.
A10.
Williams, E., D.L. Chambless, A. Ahrens. 1997. Are emotions frightening? An extension of the fear
of fear construct. Behaviour Research & Therapy 35(3): 239-248.

Negotiation Journal

April 1998 179