All three stimulus sets were prepared from recorded interviews. The first set, in American English, was a by-product of an experiment (Tilley 2005) in which students were interviewed about a scholarship application, which they had enhanced in their favor. The interviews were done via either VoIP or e-mail, and those done via VoIP were recorded with the camera recording only the interviewee. The second stimulus set, in Spanish, was created for another experiment (Lewis 2009). Spain was chosen because of the language difference (i.e., Spanish) and because Hofstede's measures indicate that Spaniards substantially differ from Americans across all five cultural dimensions (geert-hofstede.com/ dimensions.html). MBA students in Barcelona were asked to prepare a scholarship application and were then interviewed about it. The third stimulus set was created in 2011-2012. Indian students were asked to prepare scholarship applications and were then interviewed about them. Indians were chosen for the third stimulus set because Indians differ substantially from Americans on four of Hofstede's five cultural dimensions (all but the masculinity/femininity scale), and from Spaniards on two dimensions (i.e., power distance and uncertainty avoidance).To create each stimulus set, applicants were asked to provide their résumés, in order to establish ground truth in each case. Researchers then compared the résumé to the enhanced application in order to determine what was truthful and what was dishonest on the application. In all cases, the participants were encouraged to complete the application form so as to make themselves appear as top candidates for the scholarship. The participants were not told to lie explicitly, but they were told that they could enhance their information if they wanted to. In all cases, each student was interviewed by a third party who was ignorant of the design of the study and of the study hypotheses. As such, both the interviewers and interviewees were independent of the researchers and were equally naïve as to the research purpose of the interviews. Interviewers were told to ask any questions they wanted about the scholarship application, and interviewees were asked to defend anything

No abstract

This article reports on an experiment investigating the differences between computermediated and face-to-face negotiations and between negotiators being deceptive about hidden agendas and negotiators without hidden agendas. Our results supported the hypotheses that individuals negotiating via instant messaging are more likely to use forcing negotiating, experience more tension, and have lower deception detection accuracy than individuals negotiating face-to-face. Unexpectedly, it was found that individuals negotiating via instant messaging were more satisfied with the negotiation process than were face-to-face negotiators. Finally, results supported the hypothesis that those being deceptive about hidden agendas experienced higher tension than those without hidden agendas. These findings have several implications for organizations: higher levels of tension from computer-mediated negotiations and from deception can affect the long-term effectiveness of employees, undetected deception in computer-mediated negotiations can have a negative impact on negotiations, and computer-mediation can lead to the use of a forcing negotiation style, which may improve the effectiveness of negotiators with individualistic goals.

No abstract

No abstract