Computer-mediated Negotiation Research Articles

Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations

Three studies examined whether the self-regulation strategy of forming implementation intentions (i.e., if-then plans) facilitates the attainment of prosocial goals when a limited resource is to be distributed between two parties who hold adverse cognitive orientations. In three experiments, pairs of negotiators were assigned prosocial goals that either had to be supplemented with plans (if-then plans, Gollwitzer, 1999) on how to act on these goals or not. Experiment 1 used a mixed-frames negotiation paradigm in which one negotiation partner operated on a gain-frame, the other on a loss-frame. When participants had the prosocial goal to find fair agreements and furnished it with a respective if-then plan, unfair agreements in favor of the loss-frame negotiator no longer occurred. Experiment 2 used a same-frame negotiation paradigm, where both negotiation partners had either a loss or a gain-frame. When loss-frame pairs had furnished their prosocial goals to cooperate with the negotiation partner with a respective if-then plan, reduced profits as compared to gain-frame pairs of negotiators were no longer observed. In addition, negotiators who had formed implementation intentions were more likely to use the integrative negotiation strategy of logrolling (i.e., making greater concessions on low rather than high priority issues). Experiment 3 used a computer-mediated negotiation task in order to analyze the effects of prosocial goals and respective implementation intentions on the course of the negotiation. Again, implementation intentions facilitated the pursuit of prosocial goals in the face of adversity (i.e., loss frames) by use of the integrative negotiation strategy of logrolling. The present research adds a self-regulation perspective to the research on negotiation by pointing out that the effects of negotiation goals can be enhanced by furnishing them with respective plans (i.e., implementation intentions).

The Influence of Group Norms on Representatives' Behavior in Intergroup Negotiations: The Role of Standing and Need to Belong

In a computer-mediated negotiation experiment (N = 107), it is investigated how and why intragroup characteristics, such as a competitive or cooperative group norm and a negotiator's standing within the own constituent group, interplay with personality to influence the behavior of a group representative in intergroup negotiations. Applying insights from the social identity approach (specifically self-categorization theory), we argue and show that for negotiators with a low standing in their group (but not for those with a high standing), their dispositional need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) is related to their motivation to be accepted by their group, which in turn influences the degree to which they act upon group norms when negotiating on behalf of their group.

Substantive and Relational Outcomes of Self-efficacy in Organizational Conflicts

Although some organizational studies have found a positive relation between self-efficacy and performance, recent research has shown that high self-efficacy could be dysfunctional in mixed motive situations, such as conflict and negotiation (Seijts, Latham & Whyte, 2000). This study analyzes the relationship between self-efficacy, conflict behavior and effectiveness in an organizational conflict. Subjects were asked to solve a conflict with a subordinate (a confederate) in a computer-mediated negotiation setting. Self-efficacy expectancies were induced using a false feedback technique. Results showed that: firstly, high self-efficacy enables higher substantive outcomes to be obtained; secondly, self-efficacy does not have a negative effect on relational outcomes; thirdly, high self-efficacy subjects had higher satisfaction levels than low self-efficacy subjects, and fourthly, gender differences were found in the use of avoiding behaviors to handle the conflict: low self-efficacy men used more avoiding behaviors than low self-efficacy women.

Group Member Prototypicality and Intergroup Negotiation: How One's Standing in the Group Affects Negotiation Behavior

How does a representative's position in the group influence behavior in intergroup negotiation? Applying insights from social identity theory, the effects of group member prototypicality, process accountability, and group attractiveness on competitiveness in intergroup bargaining were investigated. As representatives of their group, participants engaged in a computer-mediated negotiation with a simulated outgroup opponent. In Exp. 1, representatives with a peripheral status in the group sent more competitive and fewer cooperative messages to the opponent than did prototypical representatives, but only under process accountability. Exp. 2 replicated this finding, and showed that, under accountability, peripherals also made higher demands than did prototypicals, but only when group membership was perceived as attractive. Implications for intergroup negotiation, group member prototypicality research, and impression management are discussed.

The Interpersonal Effects of Emotions in Negotiations: A Motivated Information Processing Approach.

Three experiments tested a motivated information processing account of the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. In Experiment 1, participants received information about the opponent's emotion (anger, happiness, or none) in a computer-mediated negotiation. As predicted, they conceded more to an angry opponent than to a happy one (controls falling in between), but only when they had a low (rather than a high) need for cognitive closure. Experiment 2 similarly showed that participants were only affected by the other's emotion under low rather than high time pressure, because time pressure reduced their degree of information processing. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that negotiators were only influenced by their opponent's emotion if they had low (rather than high) power. These results support the motivated information processing model by showing that negotiators are only affected by their opponent's emotions if they are motivated to consider them.

The Interpersonal Effects of Emotions in Negotiations: A Motivated Information Processing Approach

Two experiments tested a motivated information processing account of the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. In the course of a computer-mediated negotiation, Ss received information about the opponent's emotion (anger, happiness, or none). Consistent with prior research, Ss made larger concessions to angry opponents than to non-emotional opponents, and they made smaller concessions to happy ones. As expected, this effect was moderated by dispositional need for cognitive closure (NFC): Ss with low NFC were strongly influenced by the other's emotion, whereas Ss with high NFC were unaffected. In Exp. 2, NFC was manipulated through time pressure. As predicted, Ss were only affected by the other's emotion under low rather than high time pressure, and this moderating effect of time pressure was mediated by Ss' degree of information processing. These results are fully consistent with the motivated information processing model.

Computer-Mediated Negotiation of an Escalated Conflict

This study analyzed style of handling an escalated conflict in a computer-mediated negotiation context. Literature focusing on negotiation and media evidenced two contradictory perspectives. One of them asserted that negotiators are less integrative when interacting in a computer-mediated context. The other perspective affirmed that a barrier in the communication enhances integrativeness. These contrary perspectives motivated the present study. In a computer-mediated negotiation setting a confederate escalated the conflict with the participants in a standardized way. Interactions were recorded and two groups of coders assessed the use of avoiding, compromising, problem solving, accommodating, and forcing. Results showed a higher use of avoiding and a decrease in forcing behavior along the computer-mediated interaction. Results from revised literature regarding face-to-face context show a different pattern consisting of an increase in forcing behavior and compromising along the encounter. Practical implications of results are discussed.

Look at Me When You Say That: An Electronic Negotiation Simulation

This article extends the growing body of research on computer-mediated communication to a negotiations setting. The author compares face-to-face negotiation outcomes with computermediated negotiation outcomes using an integrative (win-win) negotiation. There were two main results of interest. First, computer-mediated final agreements are somewhat more integrative than those negotiated face-to-face, suggesting there is no efficiency loss from negotiating long distance using information technology. Second, computer-mediated agreements tend to be significantly more equal than face-to-face agreements.