Personality Similarity in Negotiations: Testing the Dyadic Effects of Similarity in Interpersonal Traits and the Use of Emotional Displays on Negotiation Outcomes Kelly Schwind Wilson Purdue University D. Scott DeRue University of Michigan Fadel K. Matta University of Georgia Michael Howe Iowa State University Donald E. Conlon Michigan State University We build on the small but growing literature documenting personality influences on negotiation by examining how the joint disposition of both negotiators with respect to the interpersonal traits of agreeableness and extraversion influences important negotiation processes and outcomes. Building on similarity-attraction theory, we articulate and demonstrate how being similarly high or similarly low on agreeableness and extraversion leads dyad members to express more positive emotional displays during negotiation. Moreover, because of increased positive emotional displays, we show that dyads with such compositions also tend to reach agreements faster, perceive less relationship conflict, and have more positive impressions of their negotiation partner. Interestingly, these results hold regardless of whether negotiating dyads are similar in normatively positive (i.e., similarly agreeable and similarly extraverted) or normatively negative (i.e., similarly disagreeable and similarly introverted) ways. Overall, these findings demonstrate the importance of considering the dyad’s personality configuration when attempting to understand the affective experience as well as the downstream outcomes of a negotiation. Keywords: agreeableness, extraversion, personality similarity, emotional display, negotiation Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000132.supp Scholars for many years characterized personality as having little to no impact on negotiation behavior and outcomes (e.g., Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000; Rubin & Brown, 1975; Thompson, 1990). More recently, however, researchers found evidence for a different story and have begun specifying a range of new and interesting ways that personality impacts nego- tiations (e.g., Barry & Friedman, 1998; Barry, Fulmer, & Van Kleef, 2004; DeRue, Conlon, Moon, & Willaby, 2009; Dimotakis, Conlon, & Ilies, 2012). This should not be surprising, as person- ality has been shown to matter for a variety of other organization- ally related constructs, such as motivation and job performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). In fact, in a recent meta-analysis, Sharma, Bottom, and Elfenbein (2013) found support for a variety of relationships concerning individual difference measures (e.g., Big Five personality con- structs, emotional intelligence, cognitive ability) and negotiation outcomes of both an economic and psychological nature. Sharma et al. (2013, p. 322) concluded their review by stating, “It is time . . . to recognize the potentially far-reaching role of individual differences in predicting negotiation outcomes.” Although a small but growing literature highlights the relevance of personality to negotiation, this work usually shares a common shortcoming: although negotiation is inherently an interpersonal activity, the consideration of personality in this interpersonal ac- tivity has been at the individual level. In other words, prior research does not consider how the configuration of personality among negotiating parties influences negotiation processes and outcomes. In fact, the misalignment inherent in considering the relevance of individual-level characteristics to dyadic-level phe- nomena may explain why the literature was slow to recognize the importance of personality for negotiation. Indeed, Krasikova and This article was published Online First June 23, 2016. Kelly Schwind Wilson, Department of Management, Krannert School of Management, Purdue University; D. Scott DeRue, Management and Or- ganizations, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; Fadel K. Matta, Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia; Michael Howe, Department of Management, Col- lege of Business, Iowa State University; Donald E. Conlon, Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University. We thank Associate Editor Jill Ellingson and our anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions during the review process. In addition to the review team, we also thank Jeffrey R. Edwards for data analysis advice. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kelly Schwind Wilson, Department of Management, Krannert School of Man- agement, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: kellysw@ purdue.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Applied Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 101, No. 10, 1405–1421 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000132 1405