No abstract

Five studies examined the relationship between talent and team performance. Two survey studies found that people believe there is a linear and nearly monotonic relationship between talent and performance: Participants expected that more talent improves performance and that this relationship never turns negative. However, building off research on status conflicts, we predicted that talent facilitates performance-but only up to a point, after which the benefits of more talent decrease and eventually become detrimental as intrateam coordination suffers. We also predicted that the level of task interdependence is a key determinant of when more talent is detrimental rather than beneficial. Three archival studies revealed that the too-much-talent effect emerged when team members were interdependent (football and basketball) but not independent (baseball). Our basketball analysis also established the mediating role of team coordination. When teams need to come together, more talent can tear them apart.

Three studies examined the hypothesis that shared cognition and group identification can be each other's catalysts as well as driving forces behind multiparty negotiation outcomes that might not otherwise be realized. Experiment 1 demonstrates that clear links exist between communication, the development of shared cognition and group identification, and integrative outcomes. The subsequent experiments isolated the causal directions of these links. Experiment 2 showed that stronger group identification before interaction was associated with the development of shared cognition in a subsequent phase of negotiation, which then increased the attainment of integrative outcomes. Conversely, a direct manipulation of shared cognition in Experiment 3 resulted in stronger identification during negotiation, which then led to more integrative outcomes. Thus, we find support for the theoretical claim that group identification can be both the product of, and precursor to, the development of shared cognition, with communication functioning as the interface between the two.

We hypothesized that in online, virtual formats, negotiators receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language; furthermore, we predicted that this strategy would be more effective when occurring early in the negotiation rather than at the end, and should also be effective across both independent and interdependent cultures. Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was conducted in Thailand and demonstrated that negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's language in the first 10 min of the negotiation obtained higher individual gain compared to those mimicking during the last 10 min, as well as compared to control participants. Experiment 2 replicated this effect in the United States (with Dutch and American negotiators) and also showed that trust mediated the effect of virtual linguistic mimicry on individual negotiation outcomes. Implications for virtual communication, strategic mimicry, and negotiations are discussed.

It seems to me that the latter is the more influential of the two, and that it becomes more so every day. Yet this fact is not reflected in our perception of ourselves, and the inheritance we invoke most frequently is the vertical one." (Maalouf, 2000, p. 102) To many in the West, Islamic religious fundamentalism appears regressive, conservative and destructive. How is it that scores of people are converted by a rhetoric that would seem to place them and their family at risk, and bring their community mostly misery? Historically, this is hardly an isolated phenomenon. During the reformation in 16 th and 17 th century Europe, heated debates over Christianity unleashed carnage and destruction, prompting some religious

The purpose of this study is to examine how language affects coalition formation in multiparty negotiations. The authors relied on communication accommodation theory for theoretical framing and hypothesized that language can help coalition partners reach an agreement when it is used to increase a sense of unity. Findings of an experimental study support this hypothesis, demonstrating that greater linguistic convergence and assent increase agreements between potential coalition partners whereas the expression of negative emotion words decrease agreement. The implications for coalition formation and the study of language in negotiations are discussed.

The first-offer effect demonstrates that negotiators achieve better outcomes when making the first offer than when receiving it. The evidence, however, primarily derives from studies of Westerners without systematic power differences negotiating over one issue-contexts that may amplify the first-offer effect. Thus, the present research explored the effect across cultures, among negotiators varying in power, and in negotiations involving single and multiple issues. The first two studies showed that the first-offer effect remains remarkably robust across cultures and multi-issue negotiations. The final two studies demonstrated that low-power negotiators benefit from making the first offer across single- and multi-issue negotiations. The second and fourth studies used multi-issue negotiations with distributive, integrative, and compatible issues, allowing us to show that first offers operate through the distributive, not the integrative or compatible issues. Overall, these results reveal that moving first can benefit negotiators across many organizational and personal situations.

RODERICK I. SWAAB is a doctoral candidate at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research. He received his master's degree in communication and organizations at the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on the role of information and communication in negotiation processes.TOM POSTMES is a senior lecturer at the School of Psychology, University of Exeter. He holds a doctorate in social psychology from the University of Amsterdam. He is affiliated with the Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, and holds a fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). He is currently an Associate Editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology. His research and teaching is concerned with computer-mediated communication, social influence in groups, and collective behavior.PETER NEIJENS is a senior professor in communications at the University of Amsterdam and scientific director of the Amsterdam School of Communications Research. He holds a doctorate in methodology and statistics from the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on corporate communication, decision-making, communication campaigns and media effects, and public opinion. MARIUS H. KIERS is a senior consultant at TNO building and construction research.He earned his master's degree in economics at the Free University Amsterdam. He specializes in innovation and technology management, as well as in spatial economics and regional development. ADRIE C.M. DUMAY is the head of medical informatics of TNO Prevention and Health.He holds a doctorate in information and communication theory from Delft University of Technology. The research was carried out while he was head of the Virtuality Lab of TNO. His present work focuses on simulation and information systems in medicine.ABSTRACT: The study examines a method for supporting multiparty negotiations by means of a Negotiation Support System (NSS). More specifically, this study investigated the effect of visualization support on the development of shared mental models among negotiators who resolved a spatial planning dispute. The objective of this study is to determine how to support the development of shared mental models in order to stimulate more productive negotiations. A further goal is to provide guidelines for the design of NSS. Compared with a control condition, visualization improved three Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:32 31 May 2015 130 SWAAB ET AL.aspects of negotiations: visualization support aided negotiators' convergence of perceptions of reality and had positive socio-emotional consequences in terms of increasing cohesiveness and entitativity. As a result, groups with visualization support reached consensus more easily and were more satisfied with the process. In sum, the current study provides support for the idea that presenting negotiators with unambiguous information helps negotiators develop shared mental models.KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: multiparty negotiation, negotiation support systems, prosocial climate, shared mental model, visual...