Influence of Affective, Cognitive and Situational Factors on Decision-Making in the Negotiations (on the Example of “Prisoners’ Dilemma”)



We present the results of testing the hypothesis about the influence of affective, cognitive and situational factors on decision-making. We describe an experiment in which the process of negotiating was modeled with the help of “Prisoners’ Dilemma” game theory. The study involved 150 subjects, 86 women and 64 men, mean age was 20.6 years. The results showed that positive emotions increase the likelihood of a decision in favor of a strategy of cooperation. With negative emotions, the opponents tend to choose a strategy of confrontation. In forming the effect of the disposition, aimed at the choice of cooperation strategy, the likelihood of a decision-making in accordance with this disposition increases. If time is short, the opponent chooses a strategy of confrontation. On the basis of these results a number of practical recommendations and a program of psychological training can be formulated.

General Information

Keywords: decision making, cognitive, affective, situational factors, negotiation, cooperation strategy of confrontation

Journal rubric: Social Psychology

Article type: scientific article


For citation: Khachaturova M.R., Fedotova Z.E. Influence of Affective, Cognitive and Situational Factors on Decision-Making in the Negotiations (on the Example of “Prisoners’ Dilemma”). Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2015. Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 38–48. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2015200105. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Zimbardo F., Lyaippe M. Sotsial’noe  vliyanie [The social influence]. Saint Petersburg: Piter, 2001.p. 448 (In Russ.).
  2. Karpov A. V. Eksperiment v issledovaniyakh protsessov prinyatiya resheniya: problemy i perspektivy [The experiment in the study of decision making process: problems and prospects]. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya [Experimental Psychology], 2013, no. 2, pp. 1–5 (In Russ., abstr. in Engl.).
  3.  Kennedi G. Dogovorit’sya mozhno obo vsem [It is possible to agree about everything]. Moscow: Al’pina Biznes Buks, 2007, p. 396.
  4. Mastenbruk U. Upravlenie konfliktnymi situatsi­yami i razvitie organizatsii [Management of conflict situations and organization development]. Moscow: INFRA, 1996. 244 p.
  5. Fisher R., Yuri U. Put’ k soglasiyu ili peregovory bez porazheniya [Way to a consent or negotiations without defeat]. Moscow: Nauka, 1990. 158 p.
  6. Allred K., Mallozzi J., Matsui F., Raia C. The Influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 1997. Vol. 70, pp. 175–187.
  7. Blair I. V., Banaji M. R. Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. Vol. 6, pp. 1142–1163.
  8. Chen J. Q., Lee S. M. An exploratory cognitive DSS for strategic decision making. Herberger College of Business, 2003. Vol. 3, pp. 147–160.
  9. Chuang S. C., Lin H. M. The effect of induced positive and negative emotion and openness to feeling in Student’s consumer Decision Making. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2007. Vol. 22, pp. 65–78.
  10. Curhan J. R., Elfenbein H. A., Xu H. What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006. Vol. 91, pp. 493–512.
  11. Druckman D. Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1994. Vol. 38, pp. 507–556.
  12. Ghauri P. N., Usunier J. C. International Business negotiations. Oxford, 2003, pp. 153–172.
  13. Freund T., Kruglanski A., Shpitzajzen A. The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology, 1985. Vol. 11, pp. 479–487.
  14. Fazio R. H., Zanna M. P. Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 70–76.
  15. Forgas J., Cromer M. On being sad and evasive: Affective influences on verbal communication strategies in conflict situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004. Vol. 4, рр. 511–518.
  16. Lewicki R., Saunders D., Minton J. Negotiation. Boston: MacGraw Hill Companies, 1999. 413 p.
  17. Payne J., Bettman J., Johnson E. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1988. Vol. 14, рр. 534–552.
  18. Ross L. Situationist perspectives on the obedience experiments. Review of A.G.Miller's the Obedience Experiments. Contemporary Psychology, 1988. Vol. 33, pp. 413–420.
  19. Thompson L., Wang J., Gunia B. Negotiation. Annual review of psychology, 2010. Vol. 61, pp. 491–51.
  20. Usunier C. The Role of time in international business negotiations. Marketing across cultures, 2003, pp. 153–172.
  21. Young D., Goodieb A., Hallb D. Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 2012. Vol. 118, pp

Information About the Authors

Milana R. Khachaturova, PhD in Psychology, associate professor, department of general and experimental psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Zhanna E. Fedotova, Bachelor (Psychology), research Intern of the laboratory of psychology of abilities, Department of psychology, National research UNIVERSITY «Higher school of Economics», Moscow, Russia, e-mail:



Total: 3606
Previous month: 43
Current month: 22


Total: 1598
Previous month: 9
Current month: 9