Framing, Endowment Cues, and Perceived Manipulation in Digital Negotiation: Evidence from a Multi-Issue Experiment

This thesis investigates how linguistic framing (gain versus loss) and endowment cues influence negotiation outcomes within digital and multi-issue settings. In particular, the present study adopts a multidimensional conception of negotiation outcomes in order to offer a more complete and nuanced understanding of the value created in negotiation. Therefore, this thesis analyzes both objective outcomes (agreement, integrative agreement, joint value), indicating negotiators' economic performance, and subjective outcomes (satisfaction and perceived manipulation), reflecting the psychological and ethical dimension of negotiation. More specifically, this study focuses on integrative negotiation, where multi-issue settings allow for value creation through trade-offs based on parties' different priorities (Lax & Sebenius, 1986). As regards methodology, the present thesis adopts a quantitative research approach, so primary data were collected through an experimental design implemented in Qualtrics as an online survey. It consists of two simulated negotiation tasks, one for testing the linguistic framing and one for exploring the effect of an endowment cue. In both tasks, participants were exposed to slight linguistic variations in the negotiation proposal according to the treatment they were randomly assigned to. In order to allow causal testing, the underlying economic structure and the payoff tables were held constant across conditions. By blending decision-making and negotiation studies, this thesis contributes to existing literature particularly by showing significant evidence related to perceived manipulation. In fact, the results show that loss-framed communication significantly increased perceived manipulation compared to gain-framed communication, while no significant effects emerged for agreement, integrative agreement, joint value, or satisfaction. These findings offer practical insights for managers by showing that loss-framed communication may carry ethical and relational costs in digital negotiations, even when it does not improve economic outcomes.