Many social situations are ambiguous. In negotiations, a crucial aspect of this ambiguity lies in their competitiveness: Is it better to compete or cooperate with a counterpart? To resolve this uncertainty, negotiators often drawn from seemingly diagnostic signals. In this research, we test the perceived diagnosticity of counterpart labels (opponent versus partner) in shaping competitive attitudes and behavioral intentions of negotiations. In four online experiments (total N = 1214), participants imagined themselves heading into various negotiation scenarios. Depending on condition, the counterpart they read about was labeled as either an opponent or partner. The studies varied in the negotiation context (e.g., tenant-landlord, antique sale) and in the source of the label manipulation (e.g., situation description, advice from a third-party). Overall, participants in the opponent condition reported a higher likelihood of behaving competitively, a stronger belief that the counterpart would behave competitively, and a stronger belief that competitive behavior would be effective. Mediation analyses showed that the relationship between label and behavioral intentions was better explained by the perceived effectiveness of competitive behavior than by expected counterpart behavior, suggesting that exposure to these labels impacts negotiators’ framing of the entire situation, rather than just mimicry of anticipated counterpart behavior. This research adds external validity to the competitive framing literature, it contributes to our understanding of the ways in which labels impact framing, and it highlights the importance of label exposure in ambiguous situations that afford a range of competitive and cooperative approaches.
