While negotiations with more than two parties are less often explored, some outcomes of two-party negotiations are still valid with more than two parties. One such result is that it is common in negotiations to create linguistic similarities between the two parties to the negotiations. In tripartite negotiations, there were still linguistic similarities and the results were particularly effective when the party that had the most to gain from the negotiation took up linguistic similarities from the other parties. [75] Researchers at the Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators study a number of alternatives to the problems they face to find the best solution, but this is often not the case (such as when dealing with someone who applies soft or hard negotiation tactics) (Forsyth, 2010). Negotiation implies that both parties agree that the agreement between them is:1). necessary2). conditional3). Subject to further disputes.4). Conveying a definitive and binding receptivity The way negotiators position their bodies in relation to others can influence one`s sensitivity to the message and ideas of the other person. Reflection: If people get along well, the outcome of a negotiation is probably more positive. To build trust and a relationship, a negotiator can imitate or reflect the opponent`s behavior and repeat what they say. Reflection refers to a person who repeats the basic content of what another person just said, or who repeats a particular expression. It indicates the attention paid to the subject matter of the negotiations and acknowledges the point of view or testimony of the other party.

[53] Reflection can help build trust and build a relationship. Who are the parties to the negotiations and what are their interests? What is the context of all the parties concerned and what is the impact on their position in the debate? Inclusive negotiation is also called interest-based, outcome-based or principles-based negotiation. It is a set of techniques that try to improve the quality and probability of a negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often evaluate the results differently. [12] While distribution negotiation assumes that there is a fixed value (a “fixed cake”) that must be shared between the parties, inclusive negotiation attempts to create value (“expand the pie” during the negotiation), either by “compensating” for the loss of one item with profits from another (“trade-offs”) or by recreating the issues of the conflict, that both parties benefit (win-win negotiation). [13] Distribution negotiations are sometimes referred to as negotiations of position or hardness and attempt to distribute a “firm cake” of benefits. . . .