Who are the parties to the negotiations and what are their interests? What is the context of all parties involved and what is the impact on their position in the debate? Negotiations consist of a dialogue between two or more persons or parties that are supposed to result in a positive outcome on one or more issues on which there is conflict on at least one of these issues. Negotiations are an interaction and a process between companies that compromise to agree on issues of common interest while optimizing their various public services. [1] This positive result may be for all parties involved or only for one or some of them. Negotiators need to understand the negotiation process and other negotiators in order to increase their chances of concluding deals, avoiding conflicts, establishing relationships with other parties and reaping benefits. [1] The affect provisions have effects on different phases of negotiation: which strategies should be used, which strategies are actually chosen[62] how the other party and its intentions are perceived,[63] its willingness to reach an agreement and the final outcomes of the negotiations. [64] Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) of one or more trading sites can yield very different results. The world is becoming more and more unsealed. Things happen in couples, triads and groups, and often do not follow the traditional lines of the past to the present day and create effects. In such an environment, where synchronization and simultaneousness are predominant instead of linearity, past experiments with a grain of salt must be made.

Experienced problem solvers know the pitfalls behind what works in the past as a guide to what will work in the future. They learn to expect the unexpected, illogical and non-linear. Commitment also requires follow-up, as a lack of commitment can result in a loss of credibility, confidence or belief that you will respect any agreement or commitment in the future. If a party cannot keep a promise, it risks losing face. These comments should give you sufficient motivation to meet your commitments or, failing that, not make commitments or commitments that you cannot or do not wish to meet. As a result, Fisher and Shapiro (2009) argue that we develop just and realistic commitments that any party can meet. By identifying criteria or principles that support or guide difficult attribution decisions, the parties at the negotiating table can help the groups or organizations they represent understand why the final package is not only favourable, but in principle „fair.“ [20] This improves the stability of agreements, increases the chances of effective implementation and protects relations. [21] [22] Many negotiation strategies differ by gender, resulting in different gender outcomes, with women often having less success in negotiations. This is due to a number of factors, including the fact that it has become apparent that it is more difficult for women to confess when negotiating. Many of the effects of these results have significant financial consequences, in addition to the social response that women recognize in the negotiations, compared to other supportive women, men who represent themselves and other supportive men. Research in this area has been studied on all platforms, in addition to more specific areas such as women as medical assistants. [79] The counter-reaction associated with this type of behaviour is attributed to the fact that self-partisans are considered male, while the alternative, which is accommodating, is considered more feminine.

[80] However, men do not appear to be exposed to some form of counter-reaction because they do not support themselves. [81] Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a number of conditions to the point where the other party must accept or leave. Brinkmanship is a kind of „hard-to-cook“ approach in negotiations, where one party pushes the other party to the „margin“ or to the margins of what that party is ready to host.