Which statement best describes distributive negotiation compared with integrative negotiation?

• A. It focuses on mutual gains.
• B. It requires sharing information and power openly.
• C. It always yields more sustainable agreements.
• D. It tends to degrade relationships because it treats resources as fixed.

Answer: (D)

Distributive negotiation treats resources as a fixed pie and aims to claim as much value as possible for oneself, rather than creating additional value. Because the focus is on winning in a zero-sum sense, information is often guarded and power is exercised carefully, which tends to strain the relationship between the parties. This relational strain is the hallmark that distinguishes distributive from integrative negotiation, where collaboration and value expansion help maintain or even improve trust and cooperation. So the statement that it tends to degrade relationships because resources are viewed as fixed best describes distributive negotiation in contrast to integrative approaches. The other ideas—mutual gains, open sharing of information, or guaranteed sustainability—align more with integrative negotiation and don’t capture the core dynamic as accurately.