Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 141–155 | Cite as

You can’t shake hands with clenched fists: potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services

  • Ofir Turel
  • Yufei Yuan


Trust in the context of e-negotiation is a multifaceted cognition about various trustees, including the e-negotiation website, the e-negotiation service provider, the other negotiator, and the neutral third party (if it exists). This set of trust cognitions is important because it can facilitate the adoption of e-negotiation services. As such, this manuscript presents a review of relevant trust-related literature streams, and integrates them into two models: (1) trust relations in e-negotiations, and (2) potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services. The trust relations model identifies and distinguishes between various facets of trust that are relevant in e-negotiations. This model facilitates a clear conceptualization and communication of trust issues in e-negotiation research. The trust effects model conceptualizes the roles of the different trust facets in predicting e-negotiation adoption behavior. Overall, these theory-based models advance the field and can serve as the basis for future investigations of trust in e-negotiations.


E-negotiation Online negotiations Negotiation support systems Negotiation Trust Technology adoption 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bafoutsou G, Mentzas G (2002) Review of functional classification of collaborative systems. Int J Inf Manage 22(2):281–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler JK (1999) Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation effectiveness and efficiency. Group Organ Manage 24(2):217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chong B (2004) How buyer experience in online auctions affects the dimensionality of trust in sellers: an unexpected finding. Paper presented at the Twenty-fifth international conference on information systems, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Chong B, Yang Z, Wong M (2003) Asymmetrical impact of trustworthiness attributes on trust, perceived value and purchase intention: a conceptual framework for cross-cultural study on consumer perception of online auction. Paper presented at the the 5th international conference on Electronic commerce, Pittsburgh, USA (Sept 30–Oct 3)Google Scholar
  5. Corritore CL, Kracher B, Wiedenbeck S (2003) On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(6):737–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crosby LA, Evans KR, Cowles D (1990) Relationship Quality in Services Selling—an Interpersonal Influence Perspective. J Mark 54(3):68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J␣Mark 61(2):35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drolet AL, Morris MW (2000) Rapport in conflict resolution: accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. J Exp Soc Psychol 36(1):26–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elofson G (2001) Developing trust with intelligent agents: an exploratory study. In: Castelfranchi C, Tan Y-H (eds) Trust and deception in virtual societies, vol 125–138. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  12. Hampton-Sosa W, Koufaris M (2005) The effect of web site perceptions on initial trust in the owner company. Int J E Commer 10(1):55–81Google Scholar
  13. Jones AJI (2002) On the concept of trust. Decis Support Syst 33(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kantowitz BH, Hanowski RJ, Kantowitz SC (1997) Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Hum Factors 39(2):164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution, 1st edn. Jossey–Bass, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Kee HW, Knox RE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. J Conflict Resolut 14(2):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kersten GE (2002) The science and engineering of e-negotiation: an introduction. Paper presented at the the 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’ 03), Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Kersten GE (2004) E-negotiation systems: Interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts. Paper presented at the InterNeg International Seminar: markets, negotiations and dispute resolution in new economy, Montreal, Canada (October 12–13)Google Scholar
  19. Kimmel MJ, Pruitt DG, Magenau JM, Konargoldband E, Carnevale PJD (1980) Effects of Trust, Aspiration, and Gender on Negotiation Tactics. J Pers Soc Psychol 38(1):9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirk T (2005) Personal communication regarding the adoption of e-customer services. Ottawa, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. Koufaris M, Hampton-Sosa W (2004) The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Inf Manage 41(3):377–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer RM (1994) The Sinister attribution error—paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motiv Emot 18(2):199–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuan H-H, Bock G-W (Forthcoming) Trust transference in brick and click retailers: an investigation of the before-online-visit phase. Information & ManagementGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee J, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 40(3):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lim L-H, Benbasat I (1993) A theoretical perspective of negotiation support systems. J Manage Inf Syst 9(3):27–45Google Scholar
  27. Lindskold S, Han G (1988) Grit as a foundation for Integrative bargaining. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 14(2):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lisco CC (2005) Personal communication regarding the adoption of e-customer services. San␣Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integration model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):707–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002a) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002b) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. J Strateg Inf Syst 11(3–4):297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olson JS, Olson GM (2000) I2i trust in e-commerce. Commun ACM 43(12):41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parks CD, Hulbert LG (1995) High and low trusters responses to fear in a payoff matrix. J Conflict Resolut 39(4):718–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pavlou PA, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf Syst Res 15(1):37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Payne RL, Clark MC (2003) Dispositional and situational determinants of trust in two types of managers. Int J Hum Resour Manage 14(1):128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pennington R, Wilcox HD, Grover V (2003) The role of system trust in business-to-consumer transactions. J Manage Inf Syst 20(3):197–226Google Scholar
  37. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Rempel JK, Holmes JG, Zanna MP (1985) Trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 49(1):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riegelsberger J, Sasse MA, McCarthy JD (2003) The researcher’s dilemma: evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(6):759–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross L, Ward A (1995) Psychological barriers in dispute resolution. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 27. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp 255–304Google Scholar
  41. Ross W, LaCroix J (1996) Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: a literature review and integrative model. Int J Conflict Manage 7(4):314–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross W, Wieland C (1996) Effects of interpersonal trust and time pressure on managerial mediation strategy in a simulated organizational dispute. J Appl Psychol 81(3):228–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salem RA (1993) The Interim guidelines need a broader perspective. Negot J Process Dispute Settlement 9(4):309–312Google Scholar
  44. Shell GR (1991) Opportunism and trust in the negotiation of commercial contracts - toward a new cause of action. Vanderbilt Law Review 44(2):221–282Google Scholar
  45. Stewart KJ (2003) Trust transfer on the World Wide Web. Organ Sci 14(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strader TJ, Ramaswami SN (2002) The value of seller trustworthiness in C2C online markets. Commun Acm 45(12):45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Terry S (1987) Conciliation: responses to the emotional content of disputes. Mediation Q 16(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turel O, Yuan Y (2005a) A critical review of NSS research: new directions. Paper presented at the the joint conference of the INFORMS section on group decision and negotiation and the EURO working group on group decision support systems (GDN), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  49. Turel O, Yuan Y (2005b) Online negotiation services: benefits and challenges of users and service providers. Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution, October:62–77Google Scholar
  50. Turel O, Serenko A, Boutis N (2007) User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing received value. Inform Manage 44(1):63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turel O, Yuan Y (Forthcoming). User acceptance of web-based negotiation support systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decision and NegotiationGoogle Scholar
  52. Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am Sociol Rev 61(4):674–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waern Y, Hagglund S, Lowgren J, Rankin I, Sokolnicki T, Steinemann A (1992) Communication knowledge for knowledge communication. Int J Man Mach Stud 37(2):215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wrightsman LS (1991) Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In: Robinson PR, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (eds) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, vol 1. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  55. Young OR (1975) Strategic interaction and bargaining. In: Young OR (ed) Bargaining: formal theories of negotiation. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu J, Ha I, Choi M, Rho J (2005) Extending the TAM for a t-cornmerce. Inf Manage 42(7):965–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yuan Y, Head M, Du M (2003) The effects of multimedia communication on web-based negotiation. Group Decis Negot 12(2):89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yuan Y, Turel O (2004) From usability lab testing to business market study: New dimensions. Paper presented at the CORS/INFORMS Joint international meeting, Banff, AB, Canada (May 16–21)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The College of Business and EconomicsCalifornia State University, FullertonFullertonUSA
  2. 2.DeGroote School of BusinessMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations