Conflict and Cooperation

Generally, women make less aggressive offers and are less likely to initiate negotiations than men. Women are also more likely to avoid negotiation. Women's lack of assertiveness in negotiation situations could be based on their fear of backlash or negative social reactions. There are three conditions magnifying these differences: structural ambiguity, accountability and self-advocacy. Women are more likely to be disadvantaged in weak situations that are high in ambiguity. When women are made to feel accountable, they are more comfortable negotiating, more likely to express their interests, make more assertive offers, and hold out for a better set of terms. As to other vs. self-advocacy: When women are advocating for others (other advocacy), they are more assertive and attain better outcomes. In contrast, in self-advocacy situations, women are less assertive and obtain lower outcomes. 

The effect anger has on negotiations depends on various aspects. Most of the time, it seems to have a negative effect on negotiation, such as lower joint gains, less likelihood the dispute can be settled, less exchange of information about priorities, less concessions, covert retaliation and generally negative emotions and dissatisfaction. These outcomes, though, depend on moderators like the object of the negotiators’ anger, the counterpart’s power and the counterpart’s culture (east Asians generally do not make concessions to angry negotiators).

Outcome potential can be understood as the potential value of the joint gains of the negotiation parties, meaning what outcome is possible in a negotiation based on the overlap of the negotiator’s interests and priorities.
In Brett's model, the potential value is determined by the negotiator's interests and priorities. 

Negotiation strategies are goal-directed behaviors that people use to try to reach agreement. There are two main strategies: distributive and integrative negotiation strategies.

The distributive negotiation strategy is a form of behavior, which aims at claiming as much value as possible for oneself in a negotiation situation (take it or leave it). 
The integrative negotiation strategy describes a behavior, which is focused on creating value and claiming value. The counterpart is viewed as a partner, rather than an enemy. 

A person using a distributive negotiation strategy might attempt to influence the counterpart to make concessions by using threats, emotional appeals and single issue offers ("take it or leave it")
A person using an integrative negotiation strategy would rather share information about their interests and priorities and try to fashion tradeoffs ("logrolling") to generate high joint gains. 

Objective standards refer to comparisons a negotiator might use to justify the fairness of his offer. They can be ascribed to the distributive negotiation strategy, since the intent is to influence the counterpart to make concessions. 
One example would be an employer of a restaurant offering a potential employee a minimum wage salary, justifying it with the salary of the other employees. 

The first offer effect describes how an outcome is more favourable for those who make fist offer. This seems to be explainable by the anchoring effect in bargaining strategies. First offers, whether in a single or multiple issue negotiation, strongly influence the ultimate outcome, because the counterpart ‘‘anchors” on the opening offer. The underlying psychological reason for the first offer advantage is that counterparts insufficiently adjust for the strategic, self-interested positioning of the first offer.