Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 69–93 | Cite as

Hostile Behavior and Profit in Virtual Negotiation: a Meta-Analysis

  • Alice F. Stuhlmacher
  • Maryalice Citera
Article

Abstract

Virtual negotiations are expected to differ from face-to-face negotiations in terms of both negotiator behavior and outcomes. Nonetheless, competing theories and mixed results characterize this literature. This paper meta-analytically reviews studies that compared face-to-face negotiation with virtual negotiation (e.g., audio, email/text, video-conferencing). Competing predictions from psychological distance theory and the barrier effect perspective were tested. Overall, results supported the psychological distance theory in that face-to-face negotiations were less hostile and resulted in higher profit than virtual negotiations. Three moderators (negotiation mode, anonymity in virtual negotiation, and further interaction within the experiment) were hypothesized to impact virtual negotiation. While some moderators were significant, they did not completely account for findings across all studies. Results and discussion provide a note of caution for individuals embracing e-business and conducting Internet negotiations as well as suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Social Psychology Social Issue Mixed Result High Profit Barrier Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adrianson, L., Hjelmquist, E. 1991Group processes in face-to-face and computer mediated communicationBehaviour & Information Technology10281296Google Scholar
  2. *Allerheiligen, R. P. (1986). Communications medium and product class: Their effect on negotiation medium. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, F., Raia, C. P. 1997The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performanceOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70175187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Arunachalam, V. (1991). Decision aiding in multi-party transfer pricing negotiation: The effects of computer-mediated communication and structured interaction. Doctoral Dissertation University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  5. *Arunachalam, V., & Dilla, W. N. (1992). Computer-mediated communication and structured interaction in transfer pricing negotiation. Journal of Information Systems, 6, 149–170Google Scholar
  6. *Arunachalam, V., & Dilla W. N. (1995). Judgment accuracy and outcomes in negotiation: A causal modeling analysis of decision-aiding effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 289–304Google Scholar
  7. Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., LaGanke, J. S. 2002Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysisOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes87156179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Barki, R. (1995). An empirical study of the impact of proximity, leader, and incentives on negotiation process and outcomes in a group decision support setting. Doctoral Dissertation Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. *Barsness, Z., & Tenbrunsel A.E. (1998). Technologically-mediated communication and negotiation: Do relationships matter? Annual conference for the International Association for Conflict Management, College Park, MA, June 7–10Google Scholar
  10. Bazerman, M. H., Neale, M. A. 1992Negotiating rationallyThe Free PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S. 1964The managerial gridGulf PublishingHouston TXGoogle Scholar
  12. Ben-Yoav, O., Pruitt, D. G. 1984Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiationJournal of Experimental Social Psychology20323335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13Google Scholar
  14. *Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120Google Scholar
  15. *Champagne, M. V., Wong Y.-C., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2001). The impact of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication on the negotiation process. Unpublished Manuscript DePaul UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. *Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya T. (2005). An experimental study of credibility in e-negotiations. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 163--179Google Scholar
  17. *Citera, M., & Beauregard, R. (1997). Credibility in computer-mediated bargaining: Bargainer beware. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  18. Clyman, D. R. 1995Measures of joint performance in dyadic mixed-motive negotiationsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes643848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., Valacich, J. S. 1990Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groupsManagement Science36689703Google Scholar
  20. *Croson, R. T. A. (1999). Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 23–37Google Scholar
  21. Dalkey, N. 1969The Delphi method: An experimental study of group decisionsRandSanta Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. 1984Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational designStaw, B. M.Cummings, L. L. eds. Research in organizational behaviorJAI PressGreenwich191233Google Scholar
  23. Dreu, C. K. W. 2003Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiationOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes92280295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., Kwon, S. 2000Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analysis review and test of two theoriesJournal of Personality and Social Psychology78889905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. *Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50Google Scholar
  26. El-Shinnawy, M., Vinze, A. S. 1997Technology, culture, and persuasiveness: A study of choice-shifts in group settingsInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies47473496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., Wells, M. T. 1996Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalizationPersonnel Psychology49275306Google Scholar
  28. *Fry, W. R. (1985). The effect of dyad Machiavellianism and visual access on integrative bargaining outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 51–62Google Scholar
  29. *Graetz, K., Barlow, C., Prouix, N., Odenweller, L., Weierman, S., Blankenship, C., & Strazzo, D. (1999). Negotiation at a distance: Why you might want to use the telephone. Poster presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TXGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedges, L. V., Olkin, I. 1985Statistical methods for meta-analysisAcademic PressSan Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. *Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–334Google Scholar
  32. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., Galegher, J. 1990The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating taskMIS Quarterly14313321Google Scholar
  33. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T. W. 1984Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communicationAmerican Psychologist3911231134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. *King, D. C., & Glidewell, J. C. (1980). Dyadic bargaining under individualistic and competitive orientation. Human Relations, 33, 781–803Google Scholar
  35. Latane, B. 1984The psychology of social impactAmerican Psychologist36343356Google Scholar
  36. *Lewis, S. A., & Fry, W. R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 20, 75–92Google Scholar
  37. *Lim, J. (2000). An experimental investigation of the impact of NSS and proximity on negotiation outcomes. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 329–338Google Scholar
  38. Martin, C. L., Nagao, D. H. 1989Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responsesJournal of Applied Psychology747280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. *Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision & Negotiation, 9, 507–529Google Scholar
  40. *Metate-Mejia, G. L. A. (1998). Power asymmetry in computer supported negotiating dyads: Effects on conflict management and power enactment. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  41. *Morley, L. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1969). Interpersonal and interparty exchange: A laboratory simulation of an industrial negotiation at the plant level. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 543–545Google Scholar
  42. *Morley, L. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1970). Formality in experimental negotiations: A validation study. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 383–384Google Scholar
  43. *Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice, 6, 89–100Google Scholar
  44. *Naquin, C. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 113–120Google Scholar
  45. Pinkley, R. L., Griffith, T. L., Northcraft, G. B. 1995“Fixed pie” a la mode: Information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreementsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes62101112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pruitt, D. G. 1981Negotiation behaviorAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Pruitt, D. G., Carnevale, P. J. 1993Negotiation in social conflictBrooks/ColePacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  48. Pruitt, D. G., Rubin, J. Z. 1986Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlementRandom HouseNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. *Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162–187Google Scholar
  50. *Rhee, H. S. (1993). A study of the impact of a negotiation support system on the negotiation process and outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruble, T. L., Thomas, K. W. 1976Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behaviorOrganizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes16142155Google Scholar
  52. *Schultz, J., & Pruitt, D. (1978). The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, 480–492Google Scholar
  53. *Sheffield, J. (1995). The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group Decision & Negotiation, 42, 159–179Google Scholar
  54. *Short, J. A. (1971). Cooperation and competition in an experimental bargaining game conducted over two media. Unpublished Communication Studies Group Paper no. E/71160/SH. Reported in Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie B., 1976. The social psychology of telecommunication. London: WileyGoogle Scholar
  55. *Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 225–234Google Scholar
  56. Short, J. A., Williams, E., Christie, B. 1976The social psychology of telecommunicationWileyLondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., McGuire, T. W. 1986Group processes in computer-mediated communicationOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes37157187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smilowitz, M., Compton, D. C., Flint, L. 1998The effects of computer-mediated communication on an individual ‘s judgment: A study based on the methods of Asch’s social influence experimentComputers in Human Behavior4311321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. *Smith, D. H. (1969). Communication and negotiation outcome. The Journal of Communication, 19, 248–256Google Scholar
  60. Stuhlmacher, A. F., Walters, A. E. 1999Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysisPersonnel Psychology52653677Google Scholar
  61. *Suarga (1997). Design and implementation of collective bargaining support system (CBSS) A web-based negotiation support system. Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 59-08A, p. 3083Google Scholar
  62. Thomas, K. W. 1976Conflict and conflict managementDunnette, M. eds. Handbook of industrial/organizational psychologyRand-McNallyChicago889935Google Scholar
  63. Thompson, L. 1990Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issuesPsychological Bulletin108515532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. 1990Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspectiveFulk, J.Stein, C. eds. Organizations and communication technologySageNewbury Park, CA7194Google Scholar
  65. *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1974). Phasing of concessions, differential power, and medium of communication; Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 228–230Google Scholar
  66. *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1976). Medium of communication, differential power, and phasing of concessions; Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Human Communication Research, 2, 262–270Google Scholar
  67. *Tysoe, M. (1984). Social cues and the negotiation process. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 61–67Google Scholar
  68. *Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998a). ‘A matter of trust’: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizations, 34, 211–238Google Scholar
  69. *Valley, K., Thompson, L., Gibbons, R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998b). Using dyadic strategies to outperform equilibrium models of communication in bargaining games. Working paper, Harvard Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  70. Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L. 1971Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision making effectivenessAcademy of Management Journal14202212Google Scholar
  71. *Wachter, R. M. (1993). An empirical investigation of the effects of communication media differences and the social relationships of individuals on the performance of two-party negotiations. Graduate thesis, School of Business, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
  72. Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Meyer, L. L. 1998Gender and negotiator competitivenessOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Watson, C. 1994Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomesNegotiation Journal10117127Google Scholar
  74. Wellens, A. R. 1986Use of psychological distancing model to assess differences in telecommunication mediaParker, L.Olgen, C. eds. Teleconferencing and electronic mediaVCenter for Interactive ProgramsMadison, WI347361Google Scholar
  75. Wellens, A. R. 1989Effects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: Some theoretical and empirical observationsIEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine41319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *Wichman, H. (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 114–120Google Scholar
  77. Williams, E. 1977Experimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated communication: A reviewPsychological Bulletin84963976CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.State University of New York at New PaltzUSA

Personalised recommendations