Search results

Using a four‐person email negotiation on a fictitious house‐sale as the context, this study explores the effects of (1) familiarity and similarity manipulations on agent‐agent relationships, and (2) the emotional attachments that novice agents and principals form and maintain over the course of a single negotiation. Results show that only agent‐agent pairs receiving both manipulations (similarity and familiarity) were uniquely more successful in achieving an agreement, and that positive feelings for novice agents begin aligned with the principal and end aligned with the other agent. This demonstrates that relationship‐building in the online environment may be easier for some partnerships than for others, and that the dual‐loyalty conflict facing agents seems to encourage one partnership being preferred to the other at any one point in time. Implications for theory and for email negotiations are discussed.

This chapter explores how electronic affective displays may influence individual perceptions, behavior and performance by conducting an exploratory analysis using a sample of real work emails (study 1), along with a laboratory experiment (study 2). The findings from both studies indicate that positive affective displays may have a stronger impact on individual perceptions (study 1) and invoke greater reciprocity from electronic partners (study 2) than negative affective displays. Moreover, some interesting gender effects with respect to affective displays and individual negotiation performance are observed. The implications for the field, along with limitations of the current research, are discussed.

As both workplace and personal interactions increasingly move into online discussions, the impact of various technological devices (such as cell phones and laptops) on behaviors and decisions must be better understood. This study aims to assess whether tasks done on cell phones or laptops prompt more deception for the sake of personal gain in decisions and negotiations, based on the associations held about each device.

Four empirical studies plus a single-study meta-analysis explore the rates of self-serving deceptive behavior based on the type of device used in decision-making tasks (ultimatum-game bargaining and negotiations).

Results show that using a laptop prompted more self-serving behavior than using a cell phone. Follow-up studies suggest that the dominant associations that people hold with each device – professional ones for the laptop and personal ones for cell phone – may help drive this effect.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to establish a link between technological device and behavioral outcomes in negotiations, even when the exact format of the information sent and received is identical (i.e. text-only format). The findings have implications for selecting devices for important negotiations and decisions, as some may promote more ethical behavior than others.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of humor in online negotiations and assess whether humor can act as a bridge for the otherwise relationship‐poor experience of negotiating via e‐mail.

Two experimental studies are conducted, using 122 executive MBA students and 216 MBA students respectively.

Study 1 demonstrates that beginning an e‐mail transaction with humor results in: increased trust and satisfaction levels; higher joint gains for the dyad; and higher individual gains for the party who initiated the humorous event. Analyses reveals that it is the exploration of compatible issues (as opposed to effective tradeoffs) – that increased the level of joint gain. Study 2 demonstrates that first offers in a purely distributive negotiation are more likely to be within the bargaining zone when e‐negotiations are initiated with humor, and the resulting final settlements in the humor condition are also more equally distributed between parties (more of an “even split”) than are transactions without a humorous start.

The highly controlled laboratory setting (the classroom) limits the generalizability and encourages future research in a more real‐world setting.

Managers may benefit by making personal connections in the online realm before engaging in professional communications, such as strategically employing humor at the outset of e‐mail negotiations.

This is the first study to empirically explore the direct role of humor in online negotiations a controlled experimental setting, and find its positive effects on the negotiation process.

The purpose of this research is to argue that people's inherent attitudes towards the various communication media (e‐mail, paper‐form, face‐to‐face) will change their reactions to identical performance feedback.

Using an empirical scenario study with 171 business school students as participants, peoples' attitudes were explored about the use of e‐mail for feedback by having participants enact the role of an organizational employee receiving (identical) feedback via e‐mail, paper‐form, or a face‐to‐face conversation.

It was found that people responded most positively to the feedback when they believed it was delivered via paper‐form, and most negatively when they believed it was delivered via e‐mail. Thus it is theoretically challenged that the notion that all text‐based media (i.e. paper‐form and e‐mail) should be considered identical, and empirically document differences. Further, the negative reaction to the concept of feedback delivered via e‐mail was magnified by a performance‐goal orientation as opposed to a learning goal‐orientation.

It is argued that the norms and expectations about each medium should play a significant role in determining appropriate feedback communication tools.

This research can help individuals and organizations decide the mode of communication they use to deliver feedback.

This paper aims to propose and empirically document the idea that people’s perceptions of having been treated fairly depend, in part, on whether the explanation provided to them of a product’s pricing is primarily based on the costs of labor (a service) versus materials (goods). Because materials are more fixed and tangible than the effort of labor, it is argued that people will have fewer counterfactual thoughts about how things could have been different with the cost of materials than those associated with labor. This has implications for fairness judgments more generally, as it suggests that people may be uneven in which types of data they attend to when making fairness judgments. Three experiments are presented that empirically test the relationship between the salience of goods versus services in the price paid and the resulting perceptions of fairness. Findings confirm that thoughts of money spent on a service were associated with lesser feelings of fairness than were thoughts of money spent on a good. This research uniquely identifies the mechanism by which some evaluations are considered fairer than others. Implications for organizational processes, such as procedural justice and fair compensation, are discussed.

Three experiments are presented that empirically test the relationship between the salience of goods versus services in the price paid, and the resulting perceptions of fairness.

Findings confirm that thoughts of money spent on a service were associated with lesser feelings of fairness than were thoughts of money spent on a good.

This research uniquely identifies the mechanism by which some evaluations are considered fairer than others. Implications for organizational processes, such as procedural justice and fair compensation, are discussed.