Some of the early work on integrative negotiations (Kelley, 1966; Kelley and Schenitzki, 1972) have repeatedly found that individuals, when they first entered into negotiations, overwhelmingly preferred to examine issues individually rather than several issues at once. Our results showed that this overwhelming preference for discussing individual issues was greatly reduced when negotiators had a more abstract interpretation of the issues. This suggests that the overwhelming preference for a piecemeal consideration over a multi-subject consideration typically observed at the beginning of a negotiation could be due to a willingness to interpret a negotiation at a lower level if a negotiation is to begin soon. In fact, the results of this research support the assertion of Henderson et al. Health insurance, salary, vacation, sick leave, grievance procedures) as “ways to support a family” rather than through the specific alternatives available. Regardless of how a person`s construction may differ in a negotiation, the paramount question that motivates current research is whether changes in construction affect the process and outcome of the negotiation. In particular, how does the level of interpretation of a negotiating party affect the nature of the offers (single vs. . . .