Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 573–592 | Cite as

The Effect of Screen Size and E-Communication Richness on Negotiation Performance

  • Terri R. KurtzbergEmail author
  • Sanghoon Kang
  • Charles E. Naquin


Using an empirical study, this paper investigated how each screen size and different presentation modes (video or text-only) can trigger meaningful differences when interacting with a partner in a negotiation. In a simulated multi-issue negotiation between a buyer and a seller, participants were instructed to communicate through either a large (laptop) or small (mobile phone) screen in either a video conversation or a text-based communication. The findings revealed that (a) negotiators communicating through a large screen performed better than negotiators interacting via small screen; (b) negotiators communicating through video conversation performed better than negotiators interacting via text-based communication; (c) negotiators communicating through video conversation formed higher levels of trust and satisfaction than negotiators interacting via text-based communication; and (d) negotiators communicating through video conversations over large screens achieved the highest joint outcome. Implications for the use of technology during negotiations is discussed, with attention given to the need to preserve more naturalistic cues through larger screens and the use of video conversations for best effect.


Negotiation Computer-mediated communication Screen size Video Text 


  1. Balslev T, De Grave W, Muijtjens A, Scherpbier A (2005) Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem-based learning format. Med Educ 39(11):1086–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benartzi S (2016) Why I don’t make financial decisions on my smartphone. Accessed 4 Aug 2016
  3. Berger J (2013) Beyond viral: interpersonal communication in the Internet age. Psychol Inq 24(4):293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bono JE, Judge TA (2003) Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. Eur J Pers 17:S5–S18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson G, Wright Z (2002) Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factors Comput Syst 4(1):135–140Google Scholar
  6. Brayfield A, Rothe H (1951) An index of job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 35(5):307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brett J (2000) Culture and negotiation. Int J Psychol 35(2):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant SM, Albring SM, Murthy U (2009) The effects of reward structure, media richness and gender on virtual teams. Int J Account Inf Syst 10:190–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon JK, Bonito JA, Ramirez A, Dunbar NE, Kam K, Fischer J (2002) Testing the interactivity principle: effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. J Commun 52(3):657–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho CH, Phillips JR, Hageman AM, Patten DM (2009) Media richness, user trust, and perceptions of corporate social responsibility: an experimental investigation of visual web site disclosures. Account Audit Account J 22(6):933–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crossley L, Woodworth M, Black PJ, Hare R (2016) The dark side of negotiation: examining the outcomes of face-to-face and computer-mediated negotiations among dark personalities. Personal Individ Differ 91:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings L, Bromiley P (1996) The organizational trust inventory (OT). In: Kramer RM, Tyler TY (eds) Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 302–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Currall SC, Judge TA (1995) Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64(2):151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daft R, Lengel R (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeGroot T, Motowidlo S (1999) Why visual and vocal interview cues affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance. J Appl Psychol 84(6):986–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennis A, Valacich J (1999) Electronic brainstorming: illusions and patterns of productivity. Inf Syst Res 10(4):375–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis A, Fuller R, Valacich J (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Derks D, Bos A, von Grumbkow J (2007) Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: the importance of social context. Comput Hum Behav 23:842–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Detenber B, Reeves B (1996) A bio-informational theory of emotion: motion and image size effects on viewers. J Commun 46:66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher R, Ury W (1987) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Forgas J (2000) Affect and information processing strategies: an interactive relationship. In: Forgas JP (ed) Feeling and thinking: the role of affect in social cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 253–280Google Scholar
  22. Forgas J, George J (2001) Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: an information processing perspective. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 86(1):3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galin A, Gross M, Gosalker G (2007) E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed—if anything? Comput Hum Behav 23(1):787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilson LL, Maynard MT, Young NCJ, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M (2015) Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J Manag 41(5):1313–1337Google Scholar
  25. Giordano GA, Stoner JS, Brouer RL, George JF (2007) The influences of deception and computer-mediation on dyadic negotiations. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(2):362–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonzalez R, Griffin D (1999) The correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the distinguishable case. Pers Relationsh 6(4):449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gunawardena CN (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int J Educ Telecommun 1(2):147–166Google Scholar
  28. Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Judge T, Bono J, Locke E (2000) Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. J Appl Psychol 85(2):237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiesler S, Zubrow D, Moses A (1985) Affect in computer mediated communication: an experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human Comput Interact 1(1):77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim K, Sundar S (2016) Mobile persuasion: can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust? Human Commun Res 42:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim P, Dirks K, Cooper C (2009) The repair of trust: a dynamic bilateral perspective and a multilevel conceptualization. Acad Manag Rev 34(3):401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kong DT, Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2014) Interpersonal trust within negotiations: meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Acad Manag J 57(5):1235–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kraut RE (1978) Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. J Pers Soc Psychol 36(4):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurtzberg T (1998) Creative thinking, cognitive aptitude, and integrative joint gain: a study of negotiator creativity. Creat Res J 11:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kwon S, Weingart L (2004) Unilateral concessions from the other party: concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. J Appl Psychol 89(2):263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leigh T, Summers J (2002) An initial evaluation of industrial buyers’ impressions of salespersons’ nonverbal cues. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 22:41–53Google Scholar
  38. Levin D, Kurtzberg T, Phillips K, Lount R Jr (2010) The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 14(2):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lombard M (1995) Direct responses to people on the screen: television and personal space. Commun Res 22:288–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Mediat Commun. Google Scholar
  41. Meehan J, Triggs T (1992) Apparent size and distance in an imaging display. J Human Factors Ergon Soc 34(3):303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mehrabian A (1971) Silent messages. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  43. Nadler J, Thompson L, Morris M (2004) New Car. Dispute Resolution Research Center, Kellogg School of Management, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  44. Paczkowski J (2011) Note is Creating ‘Phablet’ Market, Says Samsung. Accessed 4 Dec 2016
  45. Parsons CK, Liden RC (1984) Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: a multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. J Appl Psychol 69(4):557–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Predebon J (1992) The influence of object familiarity on magnitude estimates of apparent size. Perception 21(1):77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reeves B, Lombard M, Melwani G (1992) Faces on the screen: pictures or natural experience? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Miami, May 1992Google Scholar
  48. Reeves B, Detenber B, Steuer J (1993) New Televisions: The Effects of Big Pictures and Big Sound on Viewer Responses to the Screen. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC, May 1993Google Scholar
  49. Reeves B, Lang A, Kim E, Tatar D (1999) The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychol 1(1):49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rice R (1992) Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: a multisite exploration of media richness. Organ Sci 3:475–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roscoe S (1993) The eyes prefer real images. In: Ellis S, Kaiser M, Grunwald A (eds) Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, pp 577–585Google Scholar
  52. Rouhshad A, Wigglesworth G, Storch N (2016) The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Lang Teach Res 20(4):514–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rutter D (1987) Communicating by telephone. Pergamon, ElmsfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Rutter D, Stephenson G (1979) The role of visual communication in social interaction. Curr Anthropol 20:124–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shell R (2006) Bargaining for advantage. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Sundar SS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: Metzger M, Flanagin A (eds) Digital media, youth, and credibility. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson L (1991) Information exchange in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 27:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thurlow C, Lengel L, Tomic A (2004) Computer mediated communication. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  60. Tu CH, McIsaac M (2002) The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Am J Distance Educ 16(3):131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Koert R (2003) E-media in development: combining multiple e-media types. First Monday 8(2):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walther J (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23:3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walther J (2012) Interaction through technological lenses: computer-mediated communication and language. J Lang Soc Psychol 31(4):397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zebrowitz L, Montepare J (1992) Impressions of baby-faced individuals across the life span. Dev Psychol 28:1143–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers Business SchoolRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Kellstadt Graduate School of BusinessDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations