Study 2b: Videotaped MBA Integrative Negotiations
In order to replicate the effects in Study 2a and to rule out memory bias as a possible explanation for the results, we videotaped a new sample of MBA students completing an integrative negotiation case that they had prepared at home.
Method
Participants . Thirty five pairs of MBA students (51 males) who attended an advanced negotiation course at a top business school in the Midwestern United States completed an integrative negotiation.
Procedure & Materials . In the World Premier negotiation (Massey & Nolan, 2010), participants negotiate the production of a play on five issues that involve a combination of distributive, compatible, and variable-sum point distributions. Two research assistants coded participants’ videos on three criteria: first, whether or not the pairs shook hands at the start the negotiation, second, the total joint points that the pairs achieved, and third, whether or not the pairs shook hands at the end of the negotiation. Because participants were taught to negotiate using complete pre-calculated packages and therefore typically revealed their priorities only through full package offers instead of explicitly discussing their preferences for one issue at a time, we were unable to code for our predicted mediator of open priority exchange in the videos for this study.
Results
There was no disagreement between the research assistants on their coding (r = 1.0). Pairs who shook hands prior to the negotiation (n = 15) again garnered more joint points (M =1288.0, SD = 10.8) than pairs who did not shake hands (n = 20; M = 1275.5, SD = 21.4), t(33) =2.07, p = .047, d = 0.74, and were directionally more likely to shake hands upon the conclusion of the negotiation as well (handshake vs. no handshake: M = 80.0%, SD = 41.4% vs. M = 55.0%, SD = 51.0%), χ 2(1, 35) = 2.38, p = .12.
Discussion
Study 2b replicates the result of Study 2a, showing that pairs who shake hands earn higher joint negotiation outcomes. Of course, we cannot conclude that handshakes causally improve outcomes from these studies. It is possible, for instance, that people with more cooperative motives are just more likely to shake hands. In order to demonstrate the causal impact of shaking hands on improved outcomes, and to examine whether increased cooperative behavior—in the form of open exchange of negotiation priorities—drives the effect of handshakes on outcomes, we turn to a laboratory setting in Study 3.
Study 3: Integrative Negotiations in the Lab
|
|
|
We randomly assigned pairs of undergraduates to shake hands or not prior to completing a videotaped integrative negotiation with three issues. In this negotiation, the pairs had identical preferences on one issue and variable-sum preferences for the other two issues. By revealing how much they value one issue compared to the other issue, pairs can make optimal tradeoffs on the two issues, thereby maximizing their total points. To measure our predicted mediator of priority exchange, we asked two independent research assistants to code the videos for how openly the pairs discussed the two variable-sum issues.
Method
Participants . One hundred twenty undergraduate students (Mage = 20.9, SD = 4.9, 64 males) completed an integrative negotiation and received $3.
Procedure . Participants negotiated the job offer details for a new employee. After confirming that participants were unacquainted, we randomly assigned one of them to the role of “Boss” and the other to the role of “Candidate” in the negotiation. The experimenter explained the instructions separately to each participant and gave them their role information. We informed participants that the person who received the best score in the study would earn an additional $30.
We seated pairs at opposite ends of a large table during the negotiation. We randomly assigned half of the pairs to shake hands before sitting down. For these pairs, the experimenter led them toward the table, then paused and said: “It is customary for people to shake hands prior to starting a negotiation.” The experimenter waited until the participants had shaken hands, and then seated them. Participants in the no handshake condition were seated immediately, giving them no opportunity to shake hands (“It is customary to sit across from your partner when starting a negotiation”). Therefore, pairs were never explicitly instructed to shake hands or not, minimizing experimental demand concerns. Pairs negotiated for no more than 10 minutes on video, then completed a survey in separate rooms.
Materials . In the Job Search negotiation (Fishbach, 2013), the Boss and Candidate must decide upon the salary, start date, and office location for the candidate. Both parties prefer the same location but have opposite preferences for salary and start date. Because the Candidate cares more (i.e., has higher point magnitude) about salary but the Boss cares more about start date, the solution that maximizes joint points is to allow the Candidate the highest salary and the Boss the earliest start date.
|
|
|
The survey measured feelings about the negotiation experience with seven questions. Most relevant to our hypothesis, two of these questions directly asked participants about how cooperatively they behaved in the negotiation (r = 0.52, p < .01): What was your negotiation strategy? (included a description of possible strategies, 1 = Very competitive; 7 = Very cooperative); How open were you with your partner about your true underlying interests in the negotiation? (1 = Not at all open; 7 = Very open). Three of these questions asked about impressions toward the partner (α = 0.77): What was your overall impression of your partner? (1 = Very negative; 7 = Extremely positive); How much did you like your partner? (1 = Did not like at all; 7 = Extremely liked); How much did you enjoy the negotiation process with your partner? (1 = Did not enjoy at all; 7 = Extremely enjoyed). Finally, we also asked participants how they felt at the negotiation’s start and interest in negotiating again: How did you feel at the start of the negotiation? (1 = Very uncomfortable; 7 = Very comfortable); How much would you want to negotiate again with your partner? (1 = Not at all; 7 = Extremely).
Two research assistants who were blind to the hypothesis coded participants’ videos on six pre-determined criteria: openness of priority exchange (our predicted mediator), concessions, lies, talking after negotiation, shaking hands after negotiation, and posture. We resolved discrepancies on any criteria using a third coder, also blind to hypothesis. Openness was coded: 0 = no comparison of how much each party cared about the two issues; 1 = boss expressed strong preference for start date or candidate expressed strong preference for salary; 2 = boss expressed greater preference for start date than salary or candidate expressed greater preference for salary than start date. Openness was summed across the two parties. Concessions were defined as explicit offers that would bring the party fewer points than a prior offer. Lies were defined as offers made outside the stated boundaries in the case. Talking and shaking hands after reaching agreement were each dichotomous measures.3 Posture was coded: 1 = leaned away from each other; 2 = no leaning; 3 = leaned toward each other.
|
|
|
Results
Negotiation Outcomes . Shown in Figure 1, we conducted a 2 (role: Boss vs. Candidate) within-pair x 2 (handshake: present vs. absent) between-pair ANOVA on the pairs’ point outcomes. As predicted, pairs who shook hands achieved higher joint outcomes than pairs who did not shake hands, F(1, 58) = 6.67, p = .01, η p 2 = 0.10. Bosses achieved more points than candidates, F(1, 58) = 20.66, p < .01, η p 2 = 0.26, but there was no interaction, F(1, 58) = 0.29.
Behavior During Negotiations . Descriptive statistics for video coding are shown in Table 1. As predicted, pairs who shook hands discussed their preferences more openly on the two variable-sum issues, our proposed mediator, t(58) = 3.64, p < .01, d = 0.96. Handshaking had additional positive effects: pairs who shook hands lied less, t(58) = -2.28, p = .03, d = -0.60, were more likely to talk after reaching agreement, χ 2(1, 60) = 4.04, p = .04, φ = 0.18, were more likely to shake hands after reaching agreement, χ 2(1, 60) = 7.10, p < .01, φ = 0.24, and were more likely to lean toward each other, t(58) = 4.58, p < .01, d = 1.20, but did not make more concessions, t(58) < 1.
Negotiation Experiences . We conducted a 2 (role: Boss vs. Candidate) within-pair x 2 (handshake: present vs. absent) between-pair ANOVA on each of the seven survey items about negotiators’ experiences. Most relevant for our hypothesis, pairs who shook hands reported engaging in marginally more cooperative strategies than those who did not shake, F(1, 58) = 3.58, p = .06, η p 2 = 0.06, but just directionally reported being more open about their interests, F(1, 58) = 1.29, p = .26 (see Figure 2). Pairs also reported having a significantly more positive impression of their partner if they shook hands, F(1, 58) = 6.44, p = .01, η p 2 = 0.10. No other items from the survey differed by experimental condition, Fs(1, 58) < 1.92. Bosses felt more comfortable at the start of the negotiation, enjoyed the negotiation more, and reported being more open about theirinterests, Fs(1, 58) > 4.28, ps < .04, η p 2 > 0.07. Only one role by experimental condition interaction emerged, F(1, 58) = 4.62, p = .04, η p 2 = 0.07, such that bosses directionally enjoyed the negotiation less when they shook hands (handshake vs. no handshake: M = 4.94, SD = 1.69 vs. M = 5.52, SD = 1.18), t(58) = -1.53, p = .13, whereas candidates directionally enjoyed the negotiation more when they shook hands (handshake vs. no handshake: M = 4.77, SD = 1.09 vs. M = 4.28, SD = 1.33), t(58) = 1.59, p = .12.
|
|
|
Mediation . As predicted, how openly pairs discussed their preferences on video fully mediated the effect of handshake on joint point outcomes, eliminating the effect of the handshake (from β = 2.20, p = .01, to β = 0.48, p = .55) when included in the model. A 5000-sample bootstrap test estimated a significant indirect effect of 1.73 (SE = 0.56, 95% biasedcorrected CI [.81, 2.98]) (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Other behavioral variables that differed by condition (e.g., coded behaviors like posture or reported feelings like impression of partner) were not significant mediators. Likewise self-reported openness did not mediate the effect of handshake on point outcomes.4
Discussion
These results suggest that shaking hands induces greater openness about negotiators’ preferences on contentious issues and improves joint outcomes. While shaking hands caused several additional positive changes in negotiators’ behaviors consistent with cooperative motives, only openness played a critical role in producing better outcomes, as previous research on integrative negations would suggest (Weingart et al., 1996). Further, shaking hands predicted how openly participants actually behaved in the negotiation (β = 1.26, p < .01) more strongly than it predicted their self-reported openness (β = 0.75, p = .26).
The video coding of open behavior only weakly and non-significantly correlated with self-reported openness, r = 0.15, p = .27. We note that our self-report measure of openness may not closely reflect actual behaviors of openness for at least two reasons. First, participants likely considered how openly they shared information about all three issues of the case when rating their own openness. However, because both parties wanted the same location (Chicago)—and in fact all pairs optimally selected this location—we disregarded behavior regarding the issue of location in our video coding. If both parties believed they were open about their preference for Chicago, this would be reflected in their self-report score but not in our behavioral code. Second, self-report variables are unlikely to perfectly predict real behavior due to social desirability concerns (e.g., Arnold & Feldman, 1981); for instance, participants may have been inclined to report being more open than they actually were in the negotiation.
Дата добавления: 2018-11-24; просмотров: 239; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!