Advertisement

Impact of Negotiators’ Predispositions on Their Efforts and Outcomes in Bilateral Online Negotiations

  • Bo YuEmail author
  • Gregory E. Kersten
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 315)

Abstract

This study uses the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI) to analyze the negotiators’ predispositions in handling conflicts in online negotiations. It explores the impacts of the individual predispositions on the negotiation processes and outcomes. The results show that TKI scores are significantly related to both the efforts that the negotiators put in their negotiation activities and the achieved agreements. The results also show that the various compositions of individual predispositions in dyadic negotiations can lead to different results.

Keywords

Bilateral negotiation Online negotiation experiments Individual predispositions Thomas-Kilmann Instrument 

References

  1. 1.
    Butt, A.N., Choi, J.N., Jaeger, A.M.: The effects of self emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual level and dyad level dynamics. J. Organ. Behav. 26(6), 681–704 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelley, A.H., Stahelski, A.J.: Social interaction bases of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 16(1), 66–91 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bazerman, M.H., et al.: Negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51, 279–314 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paradis, N., et al.: E-negotiations via Inspire 2.0: the system, users, management and projects. In: 2010 Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiations (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomas, K.W., Kilmann, R.H.: Thomas-Kimann Conflict Mode Instrument. Xicom, Tuxedo (1974)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenhalagh, L., Chapman, D.I.: Joint decision making: the inseparability of relationship and negotiation. In: Kramer, R.M., Messick, D.M. (eds.) Negotiation as a Social Process, pp. 166–185. Sage, Thousands Oaks (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shell, G.R.: Teaching ideas: bargaining styles and negotiation: the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument in negotiation training. Negot. J. 17(2), 155–174 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S.: The Managerial Grid. Gulf, Houston (1964)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dévényi, M.: The role of integrative strategies and tactics in HR negotiations. Strateg. Manag. 21(2), 32–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rhoades, J.A., Carnevale, P.J.: The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: a test of the dual concern model. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(9), 1777–1802 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sorenson, R.L., Morse, E.A., Savage, G.T.: A test of the motivations underlying choice of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 10(1), 24–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahim, A.M., Magner, N.R.: Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: first-order factor model and its invariance across groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 80(1), 122–132 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kilmann, R.H., Thomas, K.W.: Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the “MODE” instrument. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 37(2), 309–325 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, C.J., et al.: Scissors cut paper: purposive and contingent strategies in a conflict situation. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 23(4), 344–361 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaubhut, N.A.: Technical Brief for the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Description of the Updated Normative Sample and Implications for Use. CPP Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, J.B., et al.: E-negotiation system development: using negotiation protocols to manage software components. Group Decis. Negot. 16(4), 321–334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J.: WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis. Support Syst. 25, 135–154 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaubhut, N.A.: Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. CPP Research Department (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sermat, V., Gregovich, R.P.: The effect of experimental manipulation on cooperative behavior in a chicken game. Psychon. Sci. 4(12), 435–436 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weingart, L.R., et al.: Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93(6), 994 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson, L.: Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychol. Bull. 108(3), 515 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beersma, B., et al.: Cooperation, competition, and team performance: toward a contingency approach. Acad. Manag. J. 46(5), 572–590 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olekalns, M., Smith, P.: Social value orientations and strategy choices in competitive negotiations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25(6), 657–668 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rowe School of BusinessDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.J. Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations