Negotiation research usually distinguishes between integrative and distributive outcomes. Integrative outcomes satisfy the negotiation parties' most important interests (by trading off less important for more important issues). In contrast, distributive outcomes require negotiators to give up their most important interests (as they make concessions on both less and more important issues). Integrative outcomes are more beneficial, but do they offer greater satisfaction? In this research, we hypothesized that satisfaction with integrative versus distributive outcomes depends on whether people negotiate interest-based or value-based issues. Three experiments consistently revealed that people in interest-based negotiations were more satisfied with integrative outcomes, whereas those in value-based negotiations tended to be more satisfied with distributive outcomes.