Integration negotiations often require a higher level of trust and the formation of a relationship. It can also include creative solutions to problems that aim to generate mutual benefits. It does not consider a good agreement as an agreement with maximum individual gain, but as an agreement that offers an optimal benefit to all parties. The benefits in this scenario are not at the expense of the other, but with. Each tries to give enough advantage to the other to stick to the agreement that gives a pleasant result to the first part, and vice versa. Integration negotiations are also referred to as interest-based negotiations, based on performance or principles. It is a set of techniques that strive to improve the quality and likelihood of a negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often evaluate different outcomes.  While allocation negotiations assume that there is a fixed amount of value (a “solid cake”) to be distributed among the parties, integrative trading attempts to create value during negotiations (“expand the cake”) either by compensating for the loss of one item through trade-offs or logrolling, or by constructing or developing the issues of conflict the fact that both parties benefit from it (“win-win”  Negative effects on the various stages of the negotiation process are detrimental. Although various negative emotions influence the outcome of the negotiations, the most sought-after anger is by far.
Angry negotiators plan to adopt more competitive strategies and cooperate less before negotiations begin.  These competition strategies are linked to reduced common outcomes. During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing trust, tarnishing the judgment of the parties, reducing the parties` attention and changing their central purpose from an agreement to retaliation against the other party.  Angry negotiators are less attentive to the interests of the adversary and judge their interests with less precision and thus achieve less common benefits.  In addition, anger increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences.  Opponents who get really angry (or cry or lose control in another way) make mistakes instead: make sure they are in your favor.  Anger also does not contribute to negotiating objectives: it reduces common benefits and does not increase personal profits because angry negotiators do not succeed.  In addition, negative emotions lead to the acceptance of colonies that are not in the positive use function, but rather have a negative advantage.  However, the expression of negative emotions during negotiations can sometimes be beneficial: legitimate anger can be an effective way to show commitment, sincerity and needs.  In addition, although NA reduces the benefits of integration tasks, this is a better strategy than the PA for distribution tasks (for example. B, zero sums).  In his work on the negative effects on arousal and white noise, Seidner argued for the existence of a mechanism for the impact of negative effects by observing the devaluation of spokespeople from other ethnic backgrounds.
Negotiations can in turn be negatively influenced by over-the-air hostility towards an ethnic or gender group.  In-depth defence: Several levels of decision-making power are used to enable new concessions each time the agreement passes through another level of authority.  In other words, whenever the offer is made to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to conclude the deal. Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiations The difference in the use of the two types depends on how the negotiator thinks, but also on the situation: unique meetings where lasting relationships are not created lead instead to distribution negotiations, while lasting relations require rather inclusive negotiations Theorists