In negotiation, we often assume that if we take on a dominant physical presence, we will intimidate our counterparts into meeting most of our demands and folding quickly. But two recent studies on nonverbal communication in negotiation suggest that, in fact, trying to convey power and dominance can backfire under certain conditions.
Claim your FREE copy: BATNA Basics
Discover how to unleash your power at the bargaining table in this free special report, BATNA Basics: Boost Your Power at the Bargaining Table, from Harvard Law School.
Should You Turn That Frown Upside Down?
When you picture an intimidating negotiator, you are likely to imagine someone unsmiling and stern. Conversely, when you conjure an image of a weak negotiator, you might think of someone with an open and friendly expression. How accurate are these expectations of people’s actual negotiating behavior?
In a recent study published in the journal Brain and Behavior, researchers Mohammad Hossein Majidi and Khatereh Borhani examined this question. They gave participants a hypothetical negotiating scenario, based on the famous ultimatum game from the realm of economics, in which they had to decide how much money to offer to a series of online counterparts in exchange for services rendered. Participants were told that their counterparts could accept or reject their offer.
Before making their offer, the participants were shown a photo of their hypothetical counterpart. The photos had been pretested to convey either threatening or nonthreatening facial expressions: Some furrowed their brows and looked somewhat angry or annoyed, while others seemed more pleasant and open.
Data on the participants’ gaze and eye movements was collected with an electronic tracker. The results showed that the participants looked more closely at the eyes of counterparts who displayed more threatening expressions. And, contrary to conventional wisdom, the participants subsequently made significantly lower financial offers to counterparts with a threatening gaze than to those with a nonthreatening gaze.
Given that the negotiators had the potential to cooperate, “participants likely perceived threatening signals as socially inappropriate,” according to the authors. This may have stood in the way of trust building and thus increased the likelihood of negotiation impasse.
Overall, the results suggest that trying to appear threatening in mixed-motive or integrative negotiations—those with opportunities to both cooperate and compete—may backfire. People who were shown photos of a hypothetical counterpart with a threatening gaze were less willing to make concessions to them, not more.
Should Your Posture Aim to Dominate?
In another recent study on nonverbal communication in negotiation, published in Basic and Applied Social Psychology, researcher Sara Ferracci and her colleagues studied whether dominant vs. submissive posture affects our negotiation results.
In two experiments, the researchers had participants play an online ultimatum game where they either made or fielded financial offers to various hypothetical counterparts. For each negotiation game, the participants were shown images depicting their counterpart for that round who displayed either an expansive, high-power posture (e.g., hands behind their heads and elbows wide) or a submissive, low-power posture (e.g., sitting hunched in a chair or standing with their legs crossed).
In the first experiment, the participants received a mix of fair deals (such as a 50/50 split of the money) and insulting deals (such as a 20/80 split) from counterparts. In the second experiment, the participants were asked to decide how much from a pool of money to offer to counterparts displaying dominant or submissive poses.
The impact of powerful poses depended on one’s role in the negotiation, the results showed. When participants received offers from a counterpart, their decisions hinged largely on fairness concerns, not posture. In fact, pitching a bad offer while assuming a dominant pose backfired: Participants rejected such deals more often than if the counterpart looked submissive.
By comparison, when participants made offers, their counterparts’ body language was more influential. They offered significantly better deals to counterparts who displayed a high-power pose, apparently because they assumed these counterparts wouldn’t settle for a lowball offer.
In sum, the results show that while adopting a dominant posture can subconsciously intimidate your counterpart into offering you a better deal up front, using it aggressively when making an unreasonable demand might increase the odds of impasse.
Dominant Nonverbal Communication in Negotiation
The effectiveness of your nonverbal communication in negotiation will depend on the context, this research suggests. In particular, it pays to consider the following factors:
- Will you benefit from collaborating? Most negotiations require some level of collaboration to get a deal done. In these dealmaking situations, threatening facial expressions are likely to antagonize your counterpart and increase your chances of walking away with nothing.
- Will you make the first offer? If you have decided it’s wise to let the other party make the first offer, adopting an expansive, high-power posture could effectively signal that you won’t settle for an unfair offer. However, if you are anchoring first, a dominant stance could backfire.
- Are you relying too much on intimidation? When negotiators focus on nonverbal communication strategies, it’s often because they haven’t thought enough about how to set up a successful negotiation. Be sure to spend ample time shaping your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and getting the best potential partners to the table.
What have your experiences been with nonverbal communication in negotiation?
Claim your FREE copy: BATNA Basics
Discover how to unleash your power at the bargaining table in this free special report, BATNA Basics: Boost Your Power at the Bargaining Table, from Harvard Law School.
