Priming the Future: Navigating Ethical Transformations in Negotiation Landscapes

Abstract

As the landscape of negotiation ethics continues to evolve, it reflects significant shifts in societal attitudes and organizational priorities. A mere decade ago, the prevailing sentiment toward the legitimacy of unethical negotiation tactics was more lenient, with a common acceptance of occasional lies and deceptions as commonplace. However, the contemporary perspective on this matter is notably more nuanced. As companies increasingly embrace ethical considerations through compliance and corporate social responsibility, the scrutiny of negotiation tactics for their ethical correctness has intensified. To address this societal and, as a consequence, organizational change, our study presents the concept of priming as a strategic tool for promoting ethical conduct in organizational practice. By strategically activating memory content related to ethics, the research seeks to enhance ethical awareness in business negotiations. Through a systematic literature review, the study explores the suitability of different forms of priming in various negotiation contexts and examines practical ways of priming for ethical negotiation behavior. The findings suggest that ethics-based priming in negotiations holds promise for fostering fairness and honesty, presenting viable pathways for integration into negotiation practices.

1. Introduction

In business negotiations, the temptation of immediate gratification frequently outweighs the pursuit of lasting outcomes, leading negotiators to adopt riskier strategies that may include questionable and unethical tactics to achieve their goals [1, 2, 3]. However, opting for such approaches poses risks, including the immediate loss of trust, negotiation impasses, and potential long-term damage to established business relationships [4, 5]. Using unethical negotiation tactics therefore represents a cost-benefit dilemma. One of the most well-known examples illustrating this cost-benefit dilemma is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In this scenario, two suspects are facing a fundamental challenge in which each prisoner must decide whether to cooperate with the other or act in their own self-interest. While the optimal outcome for both parties would be cooperation, the inherent distrust and fear of exploitation often lead to scenarios where one or both prisoners betray each other, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for both parties. This also applies to real-world negotiations, where business partners, similarly confronted with uncertain conditions and high stakes [6, 7], may resort to unethical negotiation tactics such as false promises, deception, or threats to compensate for potential losses or gains.

Such behavior not only damages supplier relationships but also carries consequences in terms of societal sanctions [8]. Given the increasing emphasis on ethical principles across industries, companies are becoming more aware of this trend, as evidenced by the rise in the use of codes of conduct [9]. Despite the existence of these guidelines, negotiators often fail to adhere to the principles outlined within them. However, in most cases, ethical misconduct is not a result of rejecting ethical principles but rather of unintentional ethical fading due to habitual behavior and lack of self-reflection [10]. Therefore, one promising approach discussed in the literature to increase moral awareness is behavioral priming, which involves the targeted activation of knowledge to influence behavior through a prime. Primes can be represented as words, pictures, symbols, or spoken words and tones. Studies have shown that priming can be employed in negotiations on various issues such as power dynamics, individualism, or gender roles to effectively influence negotiation behavior and outcomes [11, 12, 13]. The same applies to the issue of ethics; priming on fairness or morality can strengthen individuals’ sense of justice and awareness of adherence to rules [14].

However, the effectiveness of a prime in negotiations is influenced strongly by situational and personal factors [15, 16], and the reliance on laboratory experiments in past studies complicates its application in real negotiation settings. To address these gaps, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of different forms of priming across various negotiation scenarios. Specifically, it seeks to determine the likelihood of priming effects on ethical behavior and their advantages for negotiators, as measured by common negotiation success metrics. In summary, this theoretical work seeks to answer the following research questions: How can various forms of priming on ethical behavior be practically applied to establish the foundation for an ethical approach to negotiation?

2. Priming on ethical behavior: theoretical framework

2.1 Setting up an ethical negotiation game

Deriving a precise definition of negotiation ethics proves challenging as the conception of an ideal negotiation depends on individual personality traits, cultural contexts, and organizational norms, resulting in a subjective interpretation of (un)ethical behavior [17, 18]. Furthermore, negotiators are susceptible to motivational biases [19]. For example, if a buyer is incentivized to secure the optimal prize for their department at any cost, they will tend to interpret negotiation rules and information in a manner that aligns with their underlying motive. Consequently, the determination of a fair agreement is less grounded in objectivity and more influenced by the perceived advantage to the individual [20]. Ethical standards in negotiations are not a universal asset with firmly defined contents; rather, they vary depending on the negotiation situation and negotiator [21]. Recognizing that perceptions of ethical behavior in negotiations can vary, we define negotiation ethics as a set of rules composed of moral principles and standards. The rules contained within the set of negotiation ethics can vary according to personal and organizational characteristics. However, the most common principles across diverse cultures and fields of application when addressing ethics in negotiations are those of honesty, fairness, transparency, accountability, integrity, and respect [22, 23]. These principles are expected to guide negotiators throughout the negotiation process [24]. Therefore, negotiation ethics involve making decisions and taking actions that are not only legal but also morally acceptable [25], with the aim of achieving mutually beneficial outcomes while maintaining trust and preserving relationships among parties involved in the negotiation [26]. Any behaviors by negotiators that knowingly violate the existing rules of the negotiation are considered unethical. Typically, these include tactics such as deception, misrepresentation, and threats [27, 28, 29]. Conversely, ethical negotiation behavior involves sharing relevant information and fulfilling needs in proportion to their strength [30].

By opting for honest exchange, business partners can create so-called mutual gains enterprises, whose profits arise from mutual cooperative behavior [31]. Applied to the negotiation context, this is referred to as mutual gains bargaining or often as integrative bargaining [24]. Integrative bargaining in negotiations describes the exchange of unequal preferences with the aim of creating win-win solutions that are associated with a higher joint outcome for both parties [32]. However, achieving integrative bargaining requires a high degree of openness and free exchange of information, as well as adherence to ethical standards like honesty and fairness [24]. Despite the advantages that adherence to ethical standards in negotiations offers, ethical fading occurs repeatedly in negotiations, meaning the stretching and violation of ethical standards. Importantly, many of these violations do not arise consciously from an active intent to deceive but rather unconsciously due to adaptation to prevailing circumstances. Negotiation characteristics such as high-stakes incentives, the risk of losses, power imbalances, anonymity, and uncertainty are just a few among many factors that increase the likelihood of unethical behavior occurring [10]. To prevent negotiators from becoming “victims of circumstances,” they must be continuously reminded that they themselves determine, through active communication and the establishment of the right conditions, how (un)ethical the negotiation game will be. Given that unethical behavior frequently arises due to a lack of awareness, we will delve into strategies designed to increase awareness regarding ethical concerns in negotiations. To accomplish this aim, we will draw on a prominent approach derived from social psychology known as priming. This method entails shaping behavior by manipulating the accessibility of information used during decision-making processes.

2.2 Defining priming and the way it functions

To fully grasp the accessibility of information and the factors influencing it, it is crucial to understand how content is stored in memory and how that stored knowledge is activated. In the field of cognitive psychology, the Memory Model by Quillian [33] and the subsequent Spreading-Activation Theory have played a significant role [34, 35]. This theory is also frequently cited in priming research [36, 37, 38], and it also serves as the basis for further considerations.

The information stored in human memory is so vast that it requires organization and a mechanism that facilitates quick and efficient access to existing memories [39]. According to Collins and Loftus [35], information in the human brain is structured into hierarchical systems for this purpose. These systems consist of individual bundles of features or concepts (such as knowledge in the form of words or images) that are interconnected. The totality of all concepts and their connections results in a complex network of memories. The emerging network is understood in psychology as a cognitive network [35], where various concepts (e.g., objects and properties) are interconnected through associations. Consequently, associations serve as connecting elements between two concepts and can generally act bidirectionally. Properties linked to a concept at the highest level of the hierarchical system are inherited and apply to all concepts that are descendants [40].

Concepts are challenging to define in psychology, but there is a general consensus that they function as mental representations [41]. They contain generalized knowledge about concrete or abstract things formed from a sum of individual observations [42]. Besides their significance in human communication, concepts play a fundamental role in categorizing new information [41]. Based on already generalized knowledge, new information can be categorized into the cognitive network according to its similarity or dissimilarity to existing concepts [43]. For example, “honesty” can be categorized as a “value,” with the concept “value” falling under the concept of “ethics.” Concepts do not necessarily have to refer to objects, and they can also contain dynamic processes. If a concept contains knowledge about a process, it is usually referred to as a mental script [44]. A mental script for a negotiation process, for example, could look like this: Scene 1—Introduction (mutual acquaintance, presentation of negotiation positions), Scene 2—Dialog (clarifying facts, stating preferences, and making offers), Scene 3—Problem-solving (overcoming the “deadlock” through new negotiators, information, etc.), Scene 4—Conclusion (signing the contract) [45].

Depending on how similar the properties are that two concepts share, their connection becomes stronger or weaker. Consequently, closely related concepts have a stronger connection compared to those that are not closely related [34, 35]. The intensity in a connection is expressed, among other things, in the time needed to move from one activated concept to the next concept [46]. When a concept is activated by a stimulus, in this case, a prime, it spreads throughout the network by not only activating the concepts themselves but also the existing associations between them, priming them [35].

Priming is generally defined as the cognitive influence on the response to a test item by a preceding stimulus (prime) [47]. The influence arises from the manipulation of the accessibility of information [48] and can occur without the intention or awareness of the individual involved [49]. Experiments conducted in this context are based on the assumption that judgment formation depends on the accessibility of certain concepts. The interpretation of information is always determined by the currently accessible concepts. Priming is therefore also referred to as “cognitive priming” [50]; the activation of a concept that “remains activated for a period and therefore is later cognitively more accessible and retrievable than other cognitive units” [50]. It holds that the more frequently a person is confronted with a concept, the more accessible it becomes [48].

For the subsequent considerations, we adopt the following understanding of priming: Priming involves presenting specific cues, also known as primes (in the form of words, images, symbols, or sounds), to selectively activate mental concepts. The activated concepts are intended to influence subsequent judgment processes and as a result behaviors in line with the prime. The adjustment of judgment or behavior to the prime can be understood as a priming or assimilation effect.

2.3 Setting up the right conditions

In addition to accessibility, two other key aspects discussed in the context of the emergence of priming effects are the availability and applicability of concepts [51]. Simultaneously, the literature also provides evidence that individual characteristics, particularly cultural background, and the associated self-concept, are equally crucial in the occurrence of priming effects [15]. The three conditions for the emergence of priming effects will be explained in more detail below.

2.3.1 Availability

Knowledge can only be activated if it is present in memory [51]. Therefore, a prime ethical behavior will not have any effect as long as an individual has no understanding of what is meant by the concept of “ethics” in the context of negotiations. The same applies to the connections between individual concepts [16]. The primed ethical category will never activate a sense of “fairness” if the two cognitive units are not stored in memory in any relation to each other. Higgins [51] thus declares availability as a necessary condition for accessibility—if knowledge is not available, it cannot be accessed. Transferred to the organizational context, this implies that the negotiating counterparty is only receptive to an ethical prime if the concept of ethics already exists within the organization. When business partners have already established an ethical climate within their company, it will be easier to build on this rather than starting from zero.

2.3.2 Applicability

Another prerequisite for activating specific concepts is their alignment with the presented stimulus. Meaning that only when the activated concept of ethics is considered relevant for a later decision (e.g., offer management or concession making during a negotiation) is it likely to be taken into account in judgment processes (e.g., first offer and scope of concession) [52]. When using primes in business practices, negotiators must evaluate if the prime they intend to use matches the specific negotiation context. Employing priming for ethical behavior in a negotiation already at a high level of escalation may not be as effective, as the counterparty is likely to have already shifted into a competitive mode and may therefore not be receptive to ethical cues.

2.3.3 Self-concept and cultural background

Even if a group of individuals is primed on the same concept and it is available, accessible, and applicable, this is not a guarantee for a uniform impact of the prime [15]. According to Gardner et al. [53], the contents and associations of our mental concepts are strongly influenced by our respective cultural background. For example, moral judgments of individuals from an Indian cultural context exhibit a stronger sense of social responsibility compared to those of Americans [54]. These differences are indicative of both the Western and Eastern cultural spheres. While Western cultures are generally considered more individualistic, Eastern cultures are more strongly shaped by collectivism [53]. Values behind the concepts of collectivism and individualism are elaborated by Triandis et al. [55]. According to the authors, individualistic cultures are characterized by values such as freedom, independence, and the pursuit of individual goals, while collectivist cultures focus on group belonging and the enhancement of group welfare.

Not only the cultural background, in the broadest sense, influences an individual’s perceptions of ethical behavior but also the organizational cultures in which individuals navigate on a daily basis [14]. As demonstrated by Miller et al. [54], this understanding is reflected primarily in people’s behavior. Similar connections have been demonstrated for behavior in negotiations [56]. Negotiators from organizational cultures with a strong competitive orientation were more likely to employ unethical negotiation tactics such as lying or bargaining. Different understandings of a concept ultimately also influence the effectiveness of primes. Individuals with a higher social orientation are more responsive to primes addressing associated concepts (e.g., justice, group belonging, dependence) than individuals with lower social orientation [53, 57]. These results are consistent with findings by Gardner et al. [58], suggesting that individuals process and remember information more when it aligns with their existing self-concept. Despite slight variations in the effectiveness of primes considering different self-concepts, the overall efficacy of primes remains robust [59].

2.4 Using priming for behavioral influences in negotiations

Priming finds diverse applications in practice, with one of the most prominent being its influence on brand evaluation and purchasing decisions [60]. Studies in the field of consumer behavior predominantly support the idea that priming a concept in advertising, such as safety, can significantly impact the criteria by which consumers assess a product. When consumers are primed with this specific attribute, they tend to place particular emphasis on the functionality of safety features such as airbags when evaluating a car [61, 62]. Considering research on consumer behavior, it becomes evident that priming has significant potential to influence consumer behavior and product evaluation. Interestingly, this potential, which is already utilized in marketing, is rarely applied in negotiation practices. This is even though business negotiations, by definition, represent a process in which negotiating parties seek to maximize their interests through mutual influence.

The ways in which primes can influence behavior prior to a negotiation are diverse. Magee et al. [12] demonstrated that priming affects the fundamental inclination to negotiate and the initiation of a negotiation, including the presentation of an initial offer. The experiment’s chosen prime on power (“Please recall a specific incident where you had power in a negotiation.”) resulted in a greater willingness to make the initial offer and ultimately led to higher individual gains [12]. The choice of negotiation tactics (e.g., cooperative or competitive) can also be manipulated through priming, for example, by either activating a friend or enemy concept at the beginning of a negotiation [63]. Declaring the counterpart as a “partner” or as an “adversary” affects the perceived trustworthiness of the counterpart and ultimately influences cooperative behavior, with a higher joint outcome in cooperative behavior [64]. Primes during a negotiation can also induce changes in the tactical behavior of negotiators. Negotiators who, for instance, were primed during a negotiation break to perceive dependence on their negotiating partner, implying a lack of alternatives, were more willing to realign their behavior to reach an agreement [13].

The majority of studies on the topic of priming in negotiations investigate the use of primes prior to a negotiation. However, Zhou et al.’s [65] study provides evidence that priming after a negotiation can also be an effective means, especially when it comes to perceived negotiation success and outcome satisfaction. Activating an outcome-oriented mindset leads negotiators to base their satisfaction with the negotiation less on the emotions they experienced during the negotiation and more on their own profit compared to that of their counterpart [65]. Meanwhile, the atmosphere, including associated emotions such as anger or joy, significantly influences satisfaction with the negotiation [66]. The cited studies demonstrate that priming influences negotiation behavior in various phases, including negotiation inclination, the choice of entry, and the selection of negotiation style (e.g., cooperative or competitive). Consequently, this also affects outcome-related variables such as individual outcome, joint outcome, reaching an agreement, the duration of the agreement process, and satisfaction with the agreement. Having established the general effectiveness and benefits of priming in negotiations, the next chapter serves to specifically examine the types and influence of priming on ethical behavior.

3. Priming on ethical behavior: a systematic literature review

3.1 Data collection

The data for the systematic literature review were collected in February 2024, with the introduced research question guiding the search process and selection of relevant textual material. To create a comprehensive literature foundation for analysis, several academic databases, including Ebscohost, Scopus, and Science Direct, were included in the search. Similar combinations of databases have been utilized for economic research questions in the past [67, 68]. Derived from the research questions, the search terms for exploration in the respective databases were combined using Boolean search operators [69], Bridges et al. [70]. The terms priming, negotiat*, and ethic* behav* were specifically used to seek indications of the forms of priming employed in negotiations and how or in which negotiation phase these were applied. The focus was particularly on contributions addressing priming for ethical behavior. Since the interest lies in the practical application of priming forms, only experimental designs were considered in the search. Newspaper articles, monographs, and anthologies were excluded as they cannot be evaluated for quality using the BJOURQUAL3 ranking or the SJR indicator. Furthermore, the search is limited to publications between 1978 and 2024. The choice of the timeframe is justified by the historical development of priming, which began in the late 1970s [71]. The following three criteria were used to determine the content relevance of the articles, adopted from the meta-analysis by Chen et al. [72] on “Primed Goal Effects on Organizational Behavior” and adapted to the present context:

3.1.1 Primes on (un)ethical behavior in negotiations (or in the workplace)

The inclusion criteria encompass studies investigating the effects of priming on behavior, particularly focusing on (un)ethical conduct within negotiation contexts or workplace settings. The emphasis is placed on the social-psychological perspective, diverging from an interest in cognitive psychological aspects [73]. Experiments employing measures such as reaction time or assessing other cognitive processes, including techniques like fMRI to gauge activated brain regions, are deemed outside the scope of interest.

3.1.2 Measurement of dependent variables related to performance achievement/evaluation

The study primarily focuses on actual behavioral measurements rather than assessing behavioral intentions within hypothetical scenarios (similar methodology as employed by Rosenbaum et al. [74]). To ensure a sufficiently large sample, studies where only behavioral intentions were queried were also considered, contingent upon the inclusion of relevant dependent variables. The pertinent dependent variables encompass (a) communication behavior, (b) task fulfillment/goal attainment/performance delivery, (c) (un)ethical/(un)fair conduct, and (d) satisfaction [72].

3.1.3 Experiments with a control group (without priming)

According to the classical structure of priming experiments, only experimental designs were included that, in addition to the manipulated group, also had a control group—or a comparison group—to make statements about the priming effect [38].

Based on the search terms and formal inclusion and exclusion criteria (language: German/English, publication type: Academic Journal/Journal), a total of 923 results were obtained, which, after removing duplicates, were reduced to 873. The majority of these, 457, came from the EBSCOhost database, while the remaining results were roughly evenly distributed between the Scopus (291) and Science Direct (125) databases. After the automated filtering of the text material, a manual review was conducted based on title, abstract, and keywords. Through this process, an additional 796 publications were excluded. The remaining 77 publications underwent a detailed examination based on the full text, applying the inclusion and earlier-mentioned exclusion criteria. This resulted in a final dataset of 17 published journal articles, including four studies identified through a snowball search based on the initial findings. The expansion of the literature analysis with additional articles through a snowball search is a common practice [75].

3.2 Business ethics as an evolving field

The remaining 21 journal articles underwent both descriptive and substantive evaluations. The descriptive analysis primarily provides an overview of how the publications are distributed over the study period, which academic disciplines have engaged with the topic, and to which regions the publications are attributed. Conversely, the substantive analysis primarily delves into identifying pertinent forms of priming influencing (un)ethical conduct in negotiation contexts.

Within the fields of economics and social sciences, journal contributions cover various thematic areas. The largest number of articles is attributed to social/cognitive psychology (n = 6). Following this, approximately a third of the articles are equally distributed across the fields of business ethics (n = 3), marketing and management (n = 7), and organizational psychology (n = 5). When considering a more general subdivision of publications into either an economic perspective (including business ethics, management, organizational psychology, marketing, human resources, accounting, economic sociology, economic psychology, industrial management, and economics in general) or a social science perspective (encompassing social/cognitive psychology, journalism, and education), the literature is predominantly grouped under the field of economics (n = 15).

A categorization of articles according to their respective publication years was possible for all publications. Figure 1 illustrates that the number of articles on the topic of priming on (un)ethical behavior or specific priming on ethical behavior in the workplace or negotiations has tended to increase. Between 1998 and 2013, only one to two articles per year were published on this subject. However, starting from 2014, there has been a notable rise in the number of publications compared to previous years, with two-thirds of the entire literature being published between 2014 and 2022. It is important to note that due to the data collection period, the year 2024 is not fully covered. Only articles published by mid-February 2024 were included. Despite the literature analysis window extending back to articles published in 1978, no relevant articles for the research question could be identified prior to 1998. The reasons for this as well as the general upward trend from 2014 onwards, are discussed in Chapter 4.

Figure 1.

Number of articles published per year (n = 21).

For a comprehensive analysis of the identified literature, the geographical origins of the publications were ascertained. Reflecting the emphasis on German and English-language works, the majority of the articles (n = 15) originate from the American region. The remaining third is distributed among the European (n = 4), Asian (n = 1), and Oceanian (n = 1) regions. Consequently, a discernible clustering of research literature in the American domain emerges, with publications within America exclusively originating from the United States (n = 15).

3.3 Types of ethical primes and practical case illustrations

Through the literature analysis, a total of eight variants have been identified that can be fundamentally used to prime negotiators for ethical behavior (Table 1). The studies predominantly focus on decision-making situations in the workplace, such as fraud attempts in financial reporting [78] or in examination scenarios [80]. These variants encompass (a) ethical guidelines/quotes, (b) storytelling, (c) targeted questions, (d) perspective-taking, (e) directed remembering, (f) moral symbols, (g) highlighting consequences, and (h) word prompts.

Types of ethical priming	Authors	Scenario	Type of prime	Effect on (un)ethical behavior
Ethical guidelines	Bailey and Plečnik [76]	Tax report	Reference to purpose and mission of the US International Revenue Service	n.s.
	Desai and Kouchaki [77]	Deception Game	Moral quote “Better to fail with honor than succeed by fraud”	(−) Lying
	Fatemi et al. [78]	Reproduction of financial reports	Reference to AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)	n.s.
	Fells et al. [79]	Multi-issue negotiations	Reference to rules of Good Faith Bargaining	(+) Information exchange
	Mazar et al. [80]	Examination situation	Signing of an honor code	(−) Deception attempts
Storytelling	Boyle et al. [81]	Evaluation of ethically ambiguous behavior	Citing exemplary instances of ethical conduct in a professional context	n.s.
	Pulfrey and Butera [82]	Examination situation	Description of two different societies (cooperative vs. competitive society)	(+) Acceptance of fraudulent actions (in a competitive societal setting)
	Xu et al. [83]	Deception Game	Personal story with high emotional content (emotion: sorrow)	(+) Empathy; (+) Prosocial lying
Targeted questions	Maxwell et al. [84]; Maxwell et al. [85]	Single-issue negotiation	“What is the lowest purchase price that would be fair?”/“What is the highest purchase price that would be fair?”	(+) Earlier concession making; (+) Duration of agreement; (+) Outcome satisfaction; (+) Perceived outcome inequality; (+) Willingness to negotiate
	Vincent and Kouchaki [86]	Number search task	“Why do I deserve more than others?”/“Why am I not necessarily entitled or more deserving than other individuals?”	(+) Honesty (low entitlement prime); (+) Dishonesty (high entitlement prime)
Perspective taking	Drolet et al. [87]	Wage negotiation	Call for a change of perspective	(+) Fairness judgments (in case of positive relationship)
	Xie et al. [88]	Evaluation of marketplace deception	Targeted remembering combined with fall for change in perspective	(−) Acceptance of unethical behavior
Targeted remembering	Cugh et al. [89]	Transcript of records	Recollection of positive feelings of dependency	(+) Honesty
	Gino and Galinsky [90]	Zero-sum Game	Reminder of collaboration	(−) Intention of self-serving action
	Kandul and Uhl [91]	Dictator Game	Reminder of own (un)ethical behavior	(−) Prosocial behavior—sharing (in case of reminding unethical behavior)
	Motro et al. [92]	Test situation	Recollection of a situation in which anger or guilt was felt	(+) Honesty (emotion: guilt); (+) Deception (emotion: anger)
Moral symbols	Desai and Kouchaki [77]	Workplace behavior	Religious figures or other moral symbols (e.g., crosses)	(−) Unethical requests for action by the supervisor
	Hardin et al. [93]	Workplace behavior and test situation	Photos of family members or close friends at the workplace	(+) Ethical workplace behavior; (+) Honesty (in test situation)
	Schepisi et al. [94]	Deception Game	Images of politicians with clearly left-wing or right-wing ideologies	n.s.
Consequences	Celuch and Saxby [95]	Evaluation of ethically questionable behavior	Indication of the vigilance of the supervisors	(−) Intention to act unethically (company theft)
Word prompts	Ganegoda et al. [96]	Multi-issue negotiation	Word search puzzle with the words fair, ethical, equality, justice, integrity, unbiased, balanced, and fair	(+) Sense for justice; (+) Outcome inequality; (+) Fairness of offers; (+) Acceptance of offers

Table 1.

Overview of ethical priming effects in negotiations.

3.3.1 Ethical guidelines/quotes

Ethical guidelines/quotes help reduce fraudulent actions by promoting awareness of moral virtues. Mazar et al. [80] observed that students, when prompted to endorse a code of conduct before an examination, engaged in less cheating, regardless of the presence of such a code in their institution. In a similar vein, Desai and Kouchaki [77] illustrated that primes, in the form of morally charged quotes like “Better to fail with honor than succeed by fraud,” reduced deceptive actions when included in emails, regardless of whether sent by team members or higher authorities [77].

The efficacy of these primes extends to negotiations, as demonstrated by Fells et al. [79]. Negotiators exposed to the principles of Australian Good Faith Bargaining adjusted their behavior in negotiations to align more closely with the bargaining principles [79]. The content of Good Faith Bargaining includes the exchange of relevant information and refraining from arbitrary and unfair behavior, akin to principles found in the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) Code of Conduct (e.g., “Integrity requires a member to be, among other things, honest, and candid”) [78]. However, in a group comparison (Prime vs. no Prime) of accounting graduates, Fatemi et al. [78] found no differences regarding the faithful representation of financial reports. The authors attribute these results to the already conservative reporting behavior. Thus, individuals with a robust professional understanding of integrity do not experience additional enhancement through priming for ethical behavior.

A similar topic was also explored in the study by Bailey and Plečnik [76], aiming to examine how ethical prompts (e.g., reference to the purpose and mission of the US International Revenue Service) affect the honesty of taxpayers. While the ethical behavior of taxpayers could not be predicted based on ethical prompts, it was particularly the personality trait of psychopathy that predicted (un)ethical behavior.

While a substantial body of research on primes referencing ethical guidelines reveals positive behavioral effects, such as enhanced honesty [77, 80] and increased information exchange in negotiations [79], studies like Fatemi et al. [78] and Bailey and Plečnik [76] underscore the inconsistent efficacy of ethical guideline primes. This inconsistency is particularly noticeable when individuals already possess high ethical standards [78] or when personality traits, such as psychopathy, exert a strong influence [76]. Despite these variations, the authors generally regard the use of ethical guideline primes as a notably practical method for promoting ethical behavior [76].

3.3.1.1 Practical implementation

For ethical guidelines to function effectively as a prime in negotiations, as outlined in Chapter 2.3, their availability and practical applicability to the negotiation context must be ensured. Many companies currently possess documents such as ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Nevertheless, these resources frequently remain underused in practical applications [22]. Consequently, to ensure negotiators retain such guidelines, reinforcement on a periodic basis is necessary. Companies can address this by employing various communication strategies, including intranet promotion, integration into employee handbooks during onboarding, visual displays in conference rooms or entrance halls, and recurring training [23, 97]. Moreover, recent studies indicate that guidelines often lack everyday applicability because they are too abstract to offer practical guidance in specific situations [98]. To make guidelines usable for the negotiation context, they need to include practical case studies that provide negotiators with guidance for appropriate behavior in various negotiation scenarios [99]. A first practical approach that can be used as a reference point for the development of future ethical guidelines for negotiations can be found in the Australian Good Faith Bargaining provisions (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Practical example of ethical guidelines in negotiation practice. Source: Ref. [100].

3.3.2 Storytelling (with moral-/ethical aspects)

The portrayal of ethical or unethical scenarios can act as a reference point in individuals’ decision-making processes. Utilizing exemplary instances of ethical conduct within a professional context emerges as a method to heighten personal ethical standards [81]. However, despite Boyle et al.’s [81] study failing to identify direct significant effects, Pulfrey and Butera [82] obtained different outcomes. In their experiment, they confirmed that depicting a society driven by competition encourages students to accept deceptive actions. The competitive scenario was introduced with the sentence: “The society your studies are preparing you for is a market, which functions through competition” [82]. Conversely, in a cooperative society scenario, no priming effects were observed.

Narratives rich in emotional content were recognized by Xu et al. [83] as another variant capable of inducing behavioral adjustments within a Deception Game. Presenting a touching personal story (prime) increased empathy toward the opponent, resulting in a higher occurrence of prosocial lies (lies favoring the opponent’s gain) in the Deception Game. This priming effect was moderated by individuals’ perspective-taking ability (PTA). The importance of personal characteristics is also evident in Pulfrey and Butera’s [82] study. Self-transcendence values, such as universalism and benevolence, emerged as significant influencing factors on ethical behavior, irrespective of the primed context.

In alignment with the findings related to priming through ethical guidelines, the outcomes regarding the effectiveness of priming through short stories present a mixed picture. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory of results leans toward the efficacy of this priming method [82, 83]. For instance, the strategic deployment of targeted short stories has the potential to amplify the opponent’s empathy, thereby eliciting prosocial behavior from the opposing party [83]. The incorporation of personal characteristics, such as PTA or social value orientation, remains crucial in comprehending the manifestation of priming effects in this context [82, 83].

3.3.2.1 Practical implementation

When incorporating stories with moral messages, two aspects are crucial for their effectiveness: the timing of their delivery and the tone of the story [101, 102]. It is advisable to place the story, which is intended to set the framework for the entire negotiation, right at the beginning, for example, within the opening statement. This is because it has been shown that the opening statement of a negotiation acts like an opening plea, leaving a lasting impression on the negotiating partner and setting the frame for the negotiation [103]. Furthermore, it has been proven effective in the negotiation context that narratives featuring negative content linked with personal experiences are more impactful than those with positive content [104]. Therefore, negotiators could, for instance, at the beginning of a negotiation, refer to past negotiations that failed due to unethical behavior on the part of the negotiating partner, thus directly communicating an expectation regarding the behavior of the other party.

3.3.3 Targeted questions

The intentional formulation of questions can also function as a prime in negotiations, as illustrated in the case study by Maxwell et al. [84, 85]. In this study, posing inquiries about the fairest, lowest, and highest purchase price heightened the fairness orientation in negotiations for the acquisition of a used car. Beyond the realm of negotiation research, there are additional questions that can act as triggers for ethical behavior. For instance, questions such as “Why do I deserve more than others?” or conversely, “Why am I not necessarily entitled or more deserving than other individuals?” [85]. In the study by Vincent and Kouchaki [86], this manipulation of perceived entitlement resulted in dishonest or honest behavior. Individuals primed for high entitlement were more inclined toward dishonest behavior compared to those primed for lower entitlement. These findings align with the assumptions of Maxwell et al. [84, 85] that even simple questions are sufficient to activate ethical concepts.

This includes questions about professional identity, also known as Professional Identity Primes [105]. Questioning journalists about their professional roles affected their moral development compared to journalists without an Identity Prime, leading to a more critical evaluation of news. However, the small difference between the groups was not statistically significant. The priming effect of Professional Identity Primes varies based on the professional group or understanding of the profession, as seen in a similar study [106], where the experimental group comprised advertising professionals. In this case, Identity Prime slightly negatively impacted participants’ moral development, but the effect is considered not significant. Study comparisons indicate that Professional Identity Primes only promote ethical behavior when professional identity, as in journalism, aligns with specific ethical standards.

A more general form of priming for ethical behavior, in addition to addressing professional duties, is addressing basic responsibilities and duties in life, which increases people’s inclination to support each other [107]. The evaluation of the studies shows that questions specifically related to fairness or perceived entitlement successfully trigger ethical behavior [84, 85, 86]. The results for questions about professional identity (Professional Identity Prime) are more ambiguous. Although slight differences were found for the groups with an Identity Prime, these are not significant [105, 106]. Given the influence of professional understanding, results cannot be directly applied to the negotiation context.

3.3.3.1 Practical implementation

Asking questions in negotiations serves not only as a means to gather information but also to substantiate offers and prompt the negotiating partner to reflect on their behavior. When substantiating offers, for instance, one can explicitly inquire about the negotiating partner’s understanding of a fair price. In this context, the term “fair” implies the designation of a realistic offer. By asking, “Do you really find this offer fair?” one can also directly imply a lack of acceptance if the offer is deemed too high or too low. A study by De Dreu and Van Kleef [108], for example, showed that negotiators who asked about their cooperative goals responded with lower demands than those who asked about their competitive goals.

3.3.4 Initiating a change of perspective

A specific type of targeted questioning involves prompting a perspective shift. It is presented here as the exclusive method for priming ethical behavior, given the earlier identification of perspective-taking ability (PTA) as an influential factor in ethical behavior. Another reason is its high significance in social psychology when investigating perceptual biases [87]. To stimulate a shift in perspective, both Drolet et al. [87] and Xie et al. [88] actively called the participants for a change in perspective through requests like: “[…] please take the perspective of the salesperson […]” [88]. Priming through perspective-taking proved effective but with limitations, particularly under positive relational conditions. In instances of a negative negotiation history, the priming effect was only marginally significant, slightly increasing self-centered behavior rather than diminishing it [87]. In other words, before priming for ethical behavior through a shift in perspective is initiated, knowledge about the relationship between negotiation partners should be established. Particularly when the retrospective view of past interactions paints a positive picture, the Social-Motive-Prime (Perspective-Taking) is a suitable means to encourage consideration of opposing interests.

3.3.4.1 Practical implementation

The ability to change perspective is a central skill for negotiation success as it enables the negotiator to anticipate the interests and needs of the counterpart [109, 110]. Studies also indicate that negotiators who exhibit high perspective-taking ability (PTA) tend to negotiate more ethically since they can better empathize with how unethical behavior might feel for the other party [111]. PTA can also be consciously addressed in conflict situations, for instance, when the behavior of the counterpart is perceived as inappropriate. By encouraging the counterpart to change perspective [112], for example, through phrases like “Put yourself in my shoes…” the counterpart is compelled to evaluate their own behavior from the viewpoint of their partner. This can help uncover egocentric biases in behavior that often arise during negotiations.

3.3.5 Targeted remembering (of situations or emotions)

Furthermore, there are approaches that delve into triggering ethical behavior based on memories. The recollection of specific situations and associated emotions is considered a catalyst for behavioral changes [89, 90, 91, 92]. Particularly, memories of a secure and comfortable situation of mutual dependence reduced the willingness to lie, as well as the inclination to gain monetary advantages through fraudulent actions [89, 90]. Conversely, reviving memories of situations characterized by uncertainty in dependence on another person yielded opposite effects. The prime situation of dependence under uncertainty led to moral disengagement with unethical decision making as a consequence [89]. The memory prompt in the setup by Kandul and Uhl [91] was more direct. Participants were specifically asked to recall a situation in which they behaved ethically or unethically—resulting in rule-oriented individuals who remembered an unethical act and simultaneously witnessed an unethical action, reducing their prosocial behavior. The findings are reminiscent of Maxwell et al. [85], where negotiators primed for fairness punished their counterparts if they did not behave prosocially. Kandul and Uhl [91] already discussed the effectiveness of moral examples depending on individuals’ ability to feel shame or guilt. Cugh et al. [89] also point to a wide range of emotions associated with dependence. The significant influence of emotions on individuals’ (un)ethical decision making is demonstrated in a later study by Motro et al. [92]. Particularly, the emotion of anger can be seen as a predictor of unethical behavior, according to the study results. In contrast, guilt, induced by the recollection of a guilty situation, reduced self-serving, deceptive actions and promoted honest response behavior in the study—even compared to individuals not exposed to any emotional triggers. In summary, emotions associated with memories can be triggers for (un)ethical behavior. According to the findings discussed here, it is especially positive emotions like security and comfort [89] that increase the willingness for ethical behavior, while emotions like guilt and shame decrease this behavior [92]. Therefore, to promote ethical behavior, situations/memories specifically charged with these emotions need to be brought to mind. However, Motro et al. [92] suspect that the examined emotions only represent a part of the emotions influencing (un)ethical behavior.

3.3.5.1 Practical implementation

Targeted remembering as a prime for ethical behavior is particularly applicable in negotiations with a common history, where reference to a pre-existing business relationship is possible [113]. One can for example draw upon positive memories, such as successfully completed projects and the cooperative and open interaction between parties, with the intention of building upon this open exchange. Simultaneously, willingness to cooperate can also be demanded by selectively reminding business partners of situations in which one’s own side has suffered due to the unethical behavior of the negotiating party (negative memories). These negative examples from the past can then be directly linked with a concession demand to the opposing side in an argumentative manner.

3.3.6 Moral symbols (in the form of persons or objects)

Moral symbols can take various forms, such as objects or individuals. By eliciting associated associations in human memory, they function as primes [77]. As highlighted by Hardin et al. [93], visible personal photos in the workplace, for example, are predisposed to make certain schemas salient. A study conducted by them confirms this assumption: employees who reported having a picture of family members or close friends at their workplace significantly exhibited less tendency toward unethical behavior, measured by financial transgressions. In this study, supervisors provided information on the extent to which employees overused the expense account. The results were also consistent in a repeat under laboratory conditions. Participants with a photo of close relatives in close proximity reported their results more honestly in a mathematical game and cheated less to increase their own gain. Whether images of publicly known figures also achieve similar effects is examined in the study by Schepisi et al. [94]. The authors assume that the ideological orientation of the presented person (in this case, politicians from political extremes) transfers to the decision making of the participants. However, the study shows that ideologically charged words predict lies in a Deception Game much better than images of political representatives. As demonstrated by Desai and Kouchaki [77], religious figures such as deities or other moral symbols (e.g., crosses) do influence decision making. Supervisors were less likely to make unethical requests to employees when assigning them a morally high character. It was mainly the display of moral symbols such as deities or crosses that influenced the perceived character. Primes through moral symbols, therefore, not only affect ethical behavior, such as the intention to lie or the accurate reproduction of information [93], but also influence the assessment of a person’s moral character [77]. Another important insight from the field study by Desai and Kouchaki [77] is the indication that the effect of moral primes does not diminish even with prolonged exposure. The study by Hardin et al. [93] suggests similar findings.

3.3.6.1 Practical implementation

In negotiation practice, both individuals and objects can serve as moral symbols. For instance, executives such as team and department leaders can serve as role models for employees during negotiation sessions by demonstrating desired negotiation behaviors. By consistently adhering to the company’s ethical principles, they become moral symbols themselves that provide guidance to employees in their daily conduct. The central role of leadership in driving behavioral change at the individual level within organizations has been widely confirmed in organizational psychology [114, 115].

Negotiators themselves can also become moral symbols by cultivating a reputation as desirable partners in existing business relationships through respectful and value-oriented interactions. An ethical reputation can extend not only to individual persons but also to an entire brand or company if organizations succeed in portraying a responsible image to stakeholders through continuous brand communication and a coordinated brand presence (including the operational level) [116, 117]. The trend toward establishing morally charged brand cores is already evident in numerous companies, as reflected in philosophies such as “Pioneers at heart for the good of generations” [118] or “A decent way of conducting business is ultimately the most profitable” [119].

However, moral symbols do not necessarily have to be abstract; in a mundane form, they can consist of items such as standing banners displaying the key principles of ethical negotiation or background images (in digital negotiations) containing the company’s mission statement.

3.3.7 Emphasizing consequences

Protection against unethical behavior is also provided by the concern for consequences in potential misconduct. This concern can be selectively activated through priming. Notifying employees about the vigilance of supervisors is one way to activate preventive thinking [95]. In an ethically questionable scenario, individuals were significantly more concerned about consequences for the described characters (a story about unethical behavior in the workplace) when the supervisor was described as vigilant rather than indifferent. The prevention focusses in the first scenario (vigilance of the supervisor) also triggered worries, fears, and discomfort when participants were asked to empathize with the described person. At the same time, participants showed less intention to behave unethically in the same manner [95]. The study on priming for prevention offers just one variant of how individuals’ awareness of the consequences of unethical behavior can be heightened, thus weakening the intention to behave unethically. Another study identified during the literature analysis (but excluded due to a lack of alignment with inclusion criteria) by Bowman [120] provides additional approaches such as installing cameras or mirrors. However, since the priming options were not experimentally tested, no statements can be made about their effectiveness.

3.3.7.1 Practical implementation

In practice, there are often situations where negotiators see no other option but to escalate the hierarchy upwards. Such measures can be helpful in certain situations, but only if initiated or communicated in the right manner. Thus, various escalation stages such as conflict moderation in a one-on-one setting, mediation by new/additional negotiators, and last intervention by the leadership [121] should be communicated prior to or at the point of negotiation hardening, allowing the negotiating partner to weigh whether they are willing to take this path. If the escalation stages are communicated to the negotiating partner early on, they can have a deterrent effect, preventing this course of action from being pursued in the first place.

3.3.8 Word prompts

The activation of mental concepts through words is a widely employed method of priming. Recent studies, such as the work by Ganegoda et al. [96], utilize this approach to investigate the impact of word components on ethical behavior. Words like fair, ethical, equality, justice, integrity, unbiased, balanced, and fair are identified as typical triggers in this context. Although these words can effectively induce priming effects in negotiations, such as promoting fair offers, the authors acknowledge the impracticality of their use, especially when these words need to be identified within a word matrix during a word search [96]. Stajkovic et al. [122] present a more practical alternative in their study. Rather than incorporating the list of words into a word matrix, the authors integrated them into emails. However, it is important to note that the words used in this study were aimed at priming performance goals rather than enhancing ethical considerations. The hypothesis that words associated with the concept of ethics can trigger ethical behavior when integrated into the communication process between two parties, as suggested by Stajkovic et al. [122], remains to be validated.

3.3.8.1 Practical implementation

As the effectiveness of primes can be enhanced through their frequency [47, 48], it is advisable to establish primes for ethical behavior not only at the negotiation table but also beforehand. One conceivable approach is integrating short slogans and phrases into signatures such as “Negotiation means trust” or “We stand for integrity,” which serve to repeatedly remind the negotiating partner of the concept of ethics. Additionally, regularly using specific keywords like “We look forward to an open exchange” or “We anticipate a fair negotiation process” in previous exchanges can be utilized to create a collaborative atmosphere from the outset.

4. Discussion

The overview of the descriptive analysis illustrates that the number of publications on the topic of priming in negotiations or priming on ethical behavior has tended to increase since 2014. Although the examination period of the analysis dates back to 1978, relevant publications have only been found since the early 2000s. This trend primarily speaks to the growing relevance of ethical considerations, particularly within professional contexts. The trend aligns with the observations of many experts who assert that the ethical comportment of both organizations and their personnel is pivotal for their sustained viability [123, 124], influencing not only corporate reputation but also the cultivation of enduring business relationships [125]. Furthermore, the data suggests that the observed trend is not limited to specific industries but is cross-industry. An indication of this is the widespread distribution of the research topic of priming on ethical behavior across various sectors, including fields like finance, marketing, and organizational management. Academia also supports this notion, confirming that the integration of ethical guidelines is not restricted to single sectors [126]. Therefore, normative change is a topic that applies universally to all actors in business, politics, and health. Since negotiations are part of the daily routine in all of the mentioned sectors, it is not surprising that ethics also play a role in negotiation research.

The content analysis of the collected literature data, including 21 studies, indicates that priming serves as a subtle means to emphasize ethical principles in negotiations. Overall, the findings, despite some limitations, suggest a positive effect of priming on ethical behavior. Previous meta-analyses in the field have shown that priming is an effective tool for inducing behavioral changes [72, 127]. This effectiveness extends to the adoption of ethical behaviors through the activation of ethical concepts. As emphasized by Drolet et al. [87], priming for ethical behavior is pivotal for enhanced conflict resolution as well as the cultivation of long-term business relationships. However, before priming is practically applied, it is crucial to first understand the specific negotiation situation. This is essential due to the dependence of priming effects on situational variables such as power dynamics, relational dynamics, organizational climate, or team size. An essential factor for the effectiveness of a prime appears to be the relationship between the negotiating parties [87]. In positive negotiation relationships, priming for ethical behavior through perspective-taking leads to significant effects, whereas no effects are observed in negative relationship contexts. Based on the experiments included in the literature review, precise conclusions regarding other situational factors like organizational climate cannot be drawn. However, insights from existing research literature allow some suggestions. References to the potential influence of organizational climate on priming effects can be found in Fatemi et al. [78]. By considering that finance students already have high ethical professional standards, they justify the ineffectiveness of the ethics prime. This suggests that primes targeting ethical behavior might not yield significant differences in individuals with pre-existing strong values. This notion can be extended to companies with strong ethical climates. For instance, if companies already have ethical guidelines or codes that are consistently present to employees, a prime on ethical behavior will not further increase this presence. Against this backdrop, it can be concluded that negotiators must always evaluate the specific circumstances of a negotiation before deploying a prime.

5. Key findings and study limitations

This study provides insights into how priming can be applied outside the laboratory setting. Whether through ethical guidelines or storytelling, studies within the framework of systematic literature analysis demonstrate that priming offers the possibility to actively promote ethical behavior. Individuals primed with ethical aspects, such as fairness or honesty, were found to resort less to questionable tactics like lying and deception [93], make fairer offers [96], achieve greater joint outcomes, and reach agreements more quickly [84, 85]. Priming for ethical behavior thus offers the opportunity to enhance the overall ethical standards of negotiations, foster trust, and cultivate long-term business relationships. Regarding the overarching research question—How can various forms of priming on ethical behavior be practically applied to establish the foundation for an ethical approach to negotiation?—a total of eight different variants for ethical priming were identified within the framework of systematic literature analysis. These include ethical guidelines, ethical storytelling, targeted questioning or remembering, initiating a change of perspective, moral symbols, emphasizing consequences, or word prompts. All of them have demonstrated the potential to favor ethical behavior. The practical examples linked to each priming form demonstrate that these forms can also be implemented in everyday negotiations. The provided examples, such as incorporating ethical slogans into signatures or referencing shared relationship history, serve as initial starting points for research and practice, as the literature review incorporates some limitations.

Given its strong emphasis on negotiation management, the analysis primarily included studies that experimentally tested primes in different negotiation scenarios or analogous contexts. As a result, other priming variants that are already utilized in different domains but have not yet been applied in negotiation contexts may have been overlooked. Literature analyses with an interdisciplinary focus could thus be one approach to generate additional insights for negotiation contexts. Furthermore, the literature analysis primarily focused on evaluating the effectiveness of priming on ethical behavior during negotiations in general. However, as outlined in Chapter 2.3, the effectiveness of priming is tied to specific conditions such as situational and personal factors [51]. This underscores the importance of considering these factors in future evaluations to offer more targeted recommendations for practice. Additionally, the study leaves unanswered questions regarding the optimal timing for priming. Thus far, only studies examining priming before a negotiation or task assignment have been identified in the analysis. Given that encountering deadlock is a common challenge in real-life negotiations [45], exploring whether priming for ethical behavior can also be used during an ongoing negotiation to resolve entrenched positions warrants further investigation.

6. Implications for future research and practice

6.1 Implications for future research

To address the named limitations and get a better understanding of which personal and situational characteristics influence the effectiveness of ethical primes in negotiations, future studies should test primes across various negotiation scenarios. For example, in the format of a meta-analysis, by examining how uncertainties such as information asymmetries or team size impact priming effects. Additionally, future research should control for personal characteristics in order to identify their potential influence and better explain previously ambiguous effects. It would also be useful to compare different primes within the same experimental setting. This comparison could help determine when and in which scenario each priming type is most effective. Addressing the question of the timing for priming, future studies should also collect new experimental data, comparing the usefulness of primes over different negotiation phases. Based on negotiation management, negotiation stages could, for example, be differentiated into entry, dialog, solution, and closing phases. Since the effectiveness of priming has already been confirmed for the entry phase, it would be interesting to see if it can also be utilized for problem-solving tasks during the dialog or solution phases. Given that Zhou et al. [65] demonstrated that priming can manipulate outcome satisfaction, we assume that priming ethical behavior could also hold potential for conflict resolution throughout the negotiation process.

6.2 Implications for negotiation practice

The results of the literature review provide a wide range of possibilities for the application of ethical primes. However, not every negotiation situation is suitable for all variants. For instance, moral symbols in the form of images or banners can only be effectively used when negotiations take place on one’s own premises. Their use in a digital setting is also questionable, especially considering the limited field of view. More universally applicable is the reference to ethical guidelines, the use of short stories (storytelling), targeted questioning, and remembering. The deployment of these primes is independent of location and unaffected by the negotiation context (whether online or offline). Another option for priming is the activation of ethical concepts through perspective shifts [87]. However, it is debatable whether a perspective shift is always the ideal choice in practice, as it requires sufficient cognitive abilities and is associated with a high cognitive workload for individuals [128]. Additionally, suggesting potential consequences for misconduct should be viewed critically, as it could quickly be perceived as a subtle threat [129]. On the other hand, the use of specific word fragments like “ethical,” “fair,” and “just” in email communication or conversation flow is indeed a viable alternative [122]. When employing primes, negotiators should always consider the specific characteristics of the negotiation at hand, as well as the broader context. For instance, ethical guidelines can only be utilized as primes if the negotiating partner can recall the guidelines within their own organization or those of their counterpart. In contrast, digital negotiations or negotiations outside one’s own premises are less suitable for the use of moral symbols. From the pool of possible priming variants, taking into account their pros and cons, the reference to ethical guidelines, the use of short stories, targeted questioning, and remembering are considered particularly practical.