What is the difference between integrative and distributive negotiation?

• A. Integrative seeks mutual gains across multiple issues; distributive focuses on a single issue with a fixed sum.
• B. Integrative is a fixed-sum game; distributive focuses on long-term relationships.
• C. Integrative forbids any trade-offs; distributive relies on relationship building.
• D. Integrative results in one party losing; distributive yields equal gains.

Answer: (A)

In negotiation, the key idea is choosing between integrative and distributive approaches. Integrative negotiation aims for mutual gains across multiple issues, trying to expand the overall value by trading off different interests to benefit both sides. Distributive negotiation, on the other hand, treats a single issue as a fixed pie to be divided, so one party’s gain comes at the expense of the other.

That’s why the correct description fits: there’s potential for multiple issues and expanding value in integrative, while distributive centers on a fixed sum for one issue and competing for the largest share. The other statements mix up these dynamics—integrative isn’t fixed-sum, it does involve trade-offs across issues, and distributive isn’t primarily about relationship-building or equal gains.