Research also supports the idea that the way individuals react in a negotiation varies according to the gender of the other. In purely male groups, the use of deception did not show a change in trust between the parties to the negotiations, but in mixed-sex groups, there was an upsurge in deception when it beed that the opposite introduced an accommodating strategy. In purely female groups, there were many changes in the time when individuals were deceiving in their negotiating tactics and not.  While negotiations involving more than two parties are less often sought after, some bipartisan negotiating outcomes are still valid with more than two parties. Such an outcome is that it is customary in the negotiations to create linguistic similarities between the two parties to the negotiations. During the tripartite negotiations, vocal words still appeared and the results were particularly effective when the party that should benefit the most from the negotiations took vocalizations from the other parties.  In a distribution negotiation, each party often adopts an extreme or fixed position, knowing that it is not accepted, and tries to yield as little as possible before reaching an agreement. The trading distributors in, who view the negotiations as a distribution process of a fixed value. Distribution negotiations often involve people who have never had an interactive relationship, and they are unlikely to do so in the near future, although all negotiations generally have an element of distribution. Negotiators often fail to reach a mutually beneficial agreement because they bring a win-win mentality to the negotiating table. It is true that negotiators have no choice but to haggle over a single subject in a small number of agreements and disputes, and that is usually the price to pay.
For example, if you`re trading the price of a rug in a foreign bazaar, you may have trouble finding ways to expand the conversation and put other topics on the table. Characteristics of negotiating skills include: preparation and planning ability, knowledge of the negotiated subject, ability to think clearly and quickly under pressure and uncertainty, ability to verbally express thoughts, hearing, judgment and general intelligence, integrity, ability to convince others, patience, determination, many options to consider , become aware of the other person`s process and style. , is flexible and thinks and talks about possible areas of the agreement. The negative effects on the various phases of the negotiation process have negative effects. Although various negative emotions influence the outcome of the negotiations, the most sought-after anger is by far. Angry negotiators plan to adopt more competitive strategies and cooperate less before negotiations begin.  These competition strategies are linked to reduced common outcomes. During negotiations, anger disrupts the process by reducing trust, tarnishing the judgment of the parties, reducing the parties` attention and changing their central purpose from an agreement to retaliation against the other party.  Angry negotiators are less attentive to the interests of the adversary and judge their interests with less precision and thus achieve less common benefits.  In addition, anger increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers, because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences.  Opponents who get really angry (or cry or lose control in another way) make mistakes instead: make sure they are in your favor.
 Anger also does not contribute to negotiating objectives: it reduces common benefits and does not increase personal profits because angry negotiators do not succeed.  In addition, negative emotions lead to the acceptance of colonies that are not in the positive use function, but rather have a negative advantage.  However, the expression of negative emotions during negotiations can sometimes be beneficial: legitimate anger can be an effective way of showing