There are three factors distinguishing group negotiation from two-party negotiation: increased information processing demands, the necessity for social decision rules, and more complex interpersonal processes. A mixed-motive conceptualization of group decisionmaking was developed and argues that group decisionmaking includes both competitive and problemsolving aspects. The distributive and integrative tasks of negotiation in groups is discussed. Two judgment biases that limit the quality of negotiated agreements are examined: the mythical fixed pie and the tendency to ignore the cognitions of others. Existing prescriptions in this literature are evaluated for improving group decisionmaking from a mixed-motive perspective. It is argued that group decisionmaking procedures that facilitate discussion in purely cooperative tasks and provide structure in purely competitive tasks may hinder the discovery of integrative solutions in mixed motive groups. Approximately 90 references. (Author abstract modified)