Final answer:
The resistance point in negotiations is the worst outcome a negotiator is willing to accept, not their ideal conclusion. It serves as a safeguard and represents the lower boundary of acceptable terms for the party involved. The aim is usually a more favorable target point.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a negotiator would like to conclude negotiations at the resistance point is false because the resistance point is actually the point beyond which a negotiator is unwilling to go; it's their final and least favorable acceptable outcome, not the desired one.
Negotiators aim for a settlement closer to what's known as the target point, or aspiration level, which is the best outcome they hope to achieve from the negotiations. The resistance point serves as a boundary to protect their minimum interests and ensure they do not agree to a less than favorable deal. When negotiations are intricate and involve parties with opposing objectives, such as when one party wants to increase taxes and the other wants to decrease them, reaching a consensus may be difficult, and holding fast to a resistance point can result in maintaining the status quo rather than forging a new agreement.
Political bargaining often involves persuasion or, in some cases, more aggressive tactics by those who have the power to influence the outcome. An adept negotiator must navigate these dynamics, weighing principles against the practical need to reach an accord, even prioritizing the status quo over losing ground.