The Influences of Deception and Computer-Mediation on Dyadic Negotiations

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.

The effects of ethical climate on group and individual level deception in negotiation

“…Owing to changes in technology over the years, more and more negotiations are taking place via the computer (Giordano et al, 2007). This is both a result of technology enhancements such as programs that can be used in email and instant messenger negotiations as well as globalization, as business is being conducted with parties all around the world.…”

Construction Dispute Research

“…Distributive tactics are individualistic, used to gain concessions from the other party, and concerned with getting resources on only one side of the negotiation (Giordano et al 2007;Sullivan et al 2006). Integrative tactics are concerned with tradeoffs in fulfilling the interests of all of the negotiators, allowing creative solutions and maximising joint benefits (Giordano et al 2007;Weingart et al 1996). The frequency of using the two types of negotiating tactics was measured on a 10-point scale from 1 for 'least frequent' to 10 for 'most frequent'.…”

When Cultures Clash Electronically

“…1999; Morris, Nadler, Kurtzberg, & Thompson, 2002), decreased satisfaction with the negotiation (Naquin & Paulson, 2003), heightened tensions (Giordano, Stoner, Brouer, & George, 2009), lower levels of trust (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006), and increased exclusion from coalition agreements (Swaab, Kern, Diermeier, & Medvec, 2009). Whether the findings are favorable or unfavorable, research comparing the effects of email negotiations to negotiations that occur faceto-face has principally been conducted in Western cultures (e.g., Croson, 1999;Morris et al, 2002;Naquin & Paulson, 2003;Purdy, Nye, & Balakrishnan, 2000;Swaab et al, 2009).…”