The most Sia would be willing to pay is $12,000 and the least Mike would be willing to accept is $10,000. A deal, if reached, will create $2,000 in additional value over no deal, because Sia unilaterally values ​​the car $2,000 more than Mike. How that $2,000 is divided between them, whether, say, the agreed-upon price is $10,000, $11,000, or $12,000 is a matter of distributive negotiation: any gain for Sia means pain for Mike, and vice versa. It is therefore fair to describe it as generating $2,000 of distributive value, distributed in accordance with distributive negotiation skills. On the other hand, what if Mike was an amazing mechanic and enjoyed caving in his free time? Sia, on the other hand, can't fix anything and hates having to take his car to unknown repair shops because he fears they will take advantage of him. These details suggest that selling the car could create more integrative value if Mike guaranteed to repair any items that break for 9 months after the transaction. Suppose, for example, that this causes Sia's high price to increase to $12,500, while Mike's low price would only increase to $10,200. Any agreement that included the repair agreement would be collaborative because it would generate greater integrative value than the parties could obtain through the sale of the car alone. The additional $300 can be explained as the value that can be created by the negotiators' integrative negotiation skills. “Furthermore, positive emotions make parties less argumentative and more optimistic about the future, which, in turn, increases the chances that they will seek multiple alternatives and find a better integrative agreement – ​​a win-win for everyone”..