Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level.