Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Personalised Negotiation Training on Learning and Performance in Electronic Negotiations

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individuals have different learning styles and thus require different methods for knowledge acquisition. Whereas learning theories have long acknowledged this fact, personalised negotiation trainings especially for electronic negotiations have rarely been developed. This paper integrates learning styles and negotiation styles and reports on an implementation of this integration. We will discuss personalised negotiation trainings, namely an enactive training and a vicarious training, that we developed to match the learners’ learning styles. Such a matching is proposed to be beneficial regarding learning outcomes. Furthermore, positive effects on the dyadic negotiation outcomes are assumed. To this end, an experiment with participants from different European countries was conducted. The results show tendencies that personalised negotiation trainings lead to better skill acquisition during the training and also to fairer negotiation outcomes. Overall, this paper contributes an integration of the theories on individual differences from the domains of negotiation and learning as well as valuable insights for further experiments on individual differences in negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allinson CW, Hayes J (1988) The Learning Style Questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb’s inventory? J Manage Stud 25(3):269–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Yoav O, Banai M (1992) Measuring conflict management styles: a comparison between the MODE and ROC-II Instruments using self and peer ratings. Int J Confl Manag 3(3):237–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake RR, Mouton JS (1964) The Managerial Grid. Gulf, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom BS, Krathwohl DR, Masia BB (1984) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals, Bd. 1. Longman

  • Bostrom RP, Olfman L, Sein MK (1990) The importance of learning style in end-user training. MIS Q 14(1):101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2(2):141–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis SA, Bostrom RP (1993) Training end users: an experimental investigation of the roles of the computer interface and training methods. MIS Q 17(1):61–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CK, Boles TL (1998) Share and share alike or winner take all?: the influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76(3):253–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney MM, Foroughi A, Perkins WC (1997) An empirical study of the efficacy of a computerized negotiation support system (NSS). Decis Support Syst 20(3):185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff A, Duffy T (2002) Psychometric properties of Honey & Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ). Personal Individ Differ 33(1):147–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field AP (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: and sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger J, Dannenmann A, Druckman D, Filzmoser M, Mitterhofer R, Reiser A, Schoop M, Vetschera R, Wijst P, Koszegi S (2012) Impact of and interaction between behavioral and economic decision support in electronic negotiations. In: Hernández JE (ed) Decision support systems—collaborative models and approaches in real environments, vol 121. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–165

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Anson R (2014) Do I Matter? J Organ End User Comput 26(2):60–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Bostrom RP (2006) End-user training methods. In: Shayo C, Kaiser K, Ryan T (eds) the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference, p 172

  • Gupta S, Bostrom RP, Huber M (2010) End-user training methods. SIGMIS Database 41(4):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Hult TG, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2014) A primer on partial least squares structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede GH (1984) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Abridged edn. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey P, Mumford A (1992) The manual of learning styles, 3rd edn. Peter Honey Learning, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey P, Mumford A (2000) The learning styles helper’s guide. Peter Honey Learning, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria M, Guimaraes T, Davis GB (1995) Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. J Manag Inform Syst 11(4):87–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai YB (2006) Constructionism. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 35–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilmann RH, Thomas KW (1992) Conflict mode instrument, 35th edn. Mountain View

  • Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb DA (2000) Facilitator’s Guide to Learning. Hay/McBer

  • Köszegi S, Kersten G (2003) On-line/Off-line: joint negotiation teaching in Montreal and Vienna. Group Decis Negot 12(4):337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine TR, Hullett CR (2002) Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Comm Res 28(4):612–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Liang D, Erkus A, Tabak A (2012) The impact of group-oriented values on choice of conflict management styles and outcomes: an empirical study in Turkey. Int J Hum Resour Manag 23(18):3776–3793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer P, Schoop M (2014a) Individual end-user training for information systems using learning styles. In: Brooks L, Wainwright D, David W (eds) UK Academy of information systems conference proceedings 2014 (UKAIS 2014)

  • Melzer P, Schoop M (2014b) Towards individual negotiation training for negotiation support systems. In: Zaraté P, Camilleri G, Kamissoko D, Amblard F (eds) Proceedings of group decision and negotiation conference 2014, pp 40–45

  • Messick DM, McClintock CG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc Psychol 4(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moura JA, Seixas Costa APC (2015) NegPlace platform a web negotiation support system that incorporates negotiators’ styles and personalities. In: Kaminski B, Kersten GE, Szufel P, Jakubczyk M, Wachowicz T (eds) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on group decision and negotiation 2015. Warsaw School of Economics Press, Warsaw, pp 291–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill series in psychology, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns M, Smith PL (1999) Social value orientations and strategy choices in competitive negotiations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(6):657–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer E, Köszegi ST (2006) Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: the impact of communication mode. Group Decis Negot 15(2):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D, Taggart W (1983) Issues in cognitive style measurement: a response to schweiger. Acad Manag Rev 8(1):152–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruble TL, Stout DE (1993) Learning styles and end-user training: an unwarranted leap of faith. MIS Q 17(1):115–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M, Jertila A, List T (2003) Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl Eng 47(3):371–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M (2005) A language-action approach to electronic negotiations. Syst Signs Actions 1(1):62–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M (2010) Support of complex electronic negotiations. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Advances in group decision and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 409–423

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sein MK, Bostrom RP (1989) Individual differences and conceptual models in training novice users. Hum Comput Interact 4(3):197–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaft TM, Vessey I (2006) The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship between Software Comprehension and Modification. MIS Q 30(1):29–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell GR (2001) Teaching ideas: bargaining styles and negotiation: the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument in negotiation training. Negot J 17(2):155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller J (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr 4(4):295–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (1990) The influence of experience on negotiation performance. J Exp Soc Psychol 26:528–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I (1991) Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci 22(2):219–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R, Kersten G, Köszegi S (2006) User assessment of internet-based negotiation support systems: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Elect Commerce 16(2):123–148

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems Group I, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany

    Philipp Melzer & Mareike Schoop

Authors
  1. Philipp Melzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mareike Schoop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Melzer.

Appendix: Survey items for face-to-face and e-negotiation skill acquisition

Appendix: Survey items for face-to-face and e-negotiation skill acquisition

Construct

Item

Negotiation skill acquisition

NEGOXP_1

I intuitively know how to negotiate

NEGOXP_2R (excluded)

When it comes to negotiations I do not know what to do

NEGOXP_3

I like to negotiate

NEGOXP_4R (excluded)

The underlying concepts of negotiations are difficult to understand

NEGOXP_5

I know how to use my negotiation knowledge for my advantage in negotiations

NEGOXP_6 (excluded)

I am familiar with negotiation concepts

E-negotiation skill acquisition

NSSXP_1

I intuitively know how to use the Negoisst system

NSSXP_2R

When it comes to negotiations with the Negoisst system I do not know what to do

NSSXP_3 (excluded)

I like to negotiate using the Negoisst system

NSSXP_4R

The underlying concepts of the Negoisst system are difficult to understand

NSSXP_5 (excluded)

I know how to use my knowledge of the Negoisst system for my advantage in electronic negotiations

NSSXP_6

I am familiar with the concepts of the Negoisst system

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melzer, P., Schoop, M. The Effects of Personalised Negotiation Training on Learning and Performance in Electronic Negotiations. Group Decis Negot 25, 1189–1210 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9481-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9481-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation