Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that it is not possible to have one side of a negotiation using a video mode and the other using a text-only mode, so congruence can only be discussed and studied in the screen-size area.

  2. Though satisfaction was not directly hypothesized, we included it in the data collection and analyses to get a more complete picture of participants’ feelings. The satisfaction scale was a modified version of the 5 item measure developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). The original measure has 18 items but it is typically used in the shortened 5 item format (e.g., Bono and Judge 2003; Judge et al. 2000). We modified the 5 items to be more appropriate for a negotiation context.

  3. Both trust and satisfaction scores of individuals within a dyad were averaged to test the mediation effects of both trust and satisfaction as individual level and dyad level trust and satisfaction are generally highly correlated with one another (Currall and Judge 1995; Gonzalez and Griffin 1999), and indeed were in this data set as well (r = .40, p < .001).

  4. Though not reported, the composite satisfaction scale showed the identical pattern of results as the trust scale, and was significant in all the same relationships.

References

  • 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):1086–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi S (2016) Why I don’t make financial decisions on my smartphone. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/your-money/why-i-dont-make-financial-decisions-on-my-smartphone.html. Accessed 4 Aug 2016

  • Berger J (2013) Beyond viral: interpersonal communication in the Internet age. Psychol Inq 24(4):293–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–S18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):135–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Brayfield A, Rothe H (1951) An index of job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 35(5):307–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett J (2000) Culture and negotiation. Int J Psychol 35(2):97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant SM, Albring SM, Murthy U (2009) The effects of reward structure, media richness and gender on virtual teams. Int J Account Inf Syst 10:190–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):657–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):933–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 91:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 302–330

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Currall SC, Judge TA (1995) Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64(2):151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft R, Lengel R (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot T, Motowidlo S (1999) Why visual and vocal interview cues affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance. J Appl Psychol 84(6):986–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis A, Valacich J (1999) Electronic brainstorming: illusions and patterns of productivity. Inf Syst Res 10(4):375–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis A, Fuller R, Valacich J (2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Q 32(3):575–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derks D, Bos A, von Grumbkow J (2007) Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: the importance of social context. Comput Hum Behav 23:842–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detenber B, Reeves B (1996) A bio-informational theory of emotion: motion and image size effects on viewers. J Commun 46:66–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Ury W (1987) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 253–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas J, George J (2001) Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: an information processing perspective. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 86(1):3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galin A, Gross M, Gosalker G (2007) E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed—if anything? Comput Hum Behav 23(1):787–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1313–1337

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):362–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R, Griffin D (1999) The correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the distinguishable case. Pers Relationsh 6(4):449–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena CN (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int J Educ Telecommun 1(2):147–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge T, Bono J, Locke E (2000) Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. J Appl Psychol 85(2):237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):77–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim K, Sundar S (2016) Mobile persuasion: can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust? Human Commun Res 42:45–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim P, Dirks K, Cooper C (2009) The repair of trust: a dynamic bilateral perspective and a multilevel conceptualization. Acad Manag Rev 34(3):401–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1235–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut RE (1978) Verbal and nonverbal cues in the perception of lying. J Pers Soc Psychol 36(4):380–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg T (1998) Creative thinking, cognitive aptitude, and integrative joint gain: a study of negotiator creativity. Creat Res J 11:283–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon S, Weingart L (2004) Unilateral concessions from the other party: concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. J Appl Psychol 89(2):263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh T, Summers J (2002) An initial evaluation of industrial buyers’ impressions of salespersons’ nonverbal cues. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 22:41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin D, Kurtzberg T, Phillips K, Lount R Jr (2010) The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 14(2):123–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M (1995) Direct responses to people on the screen: television and personal space. Commun Res 22:288–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Mediat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehan J, Triggs T (1992) Apparent size and distance in an imaging display. J Human Factors Ergon Soc 34(3):303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian A (1971) Silent messages. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler J, Thompson L, Morris M (2004) New Car. Dispute Resolution Research Center, Kellogg School of Management, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Paczkowski J (2011) Note is Creating ‘Phablet’ Market, Says Samsung. http://allthingsd.com/20111229/samsungs-note-creates-phablet-market/. Accessed 4 Dec 2016

  • 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):557–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Predebon J (1992) The influence of object familiarity on magnitude estimates of apparent size. Perception 21(1):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1992

  • 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 1993

  • 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):49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice R (1992) Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: a multisite exploration of media richness. Organ Sci 3:475–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 577–585

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):514–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutter D (1987) Communicating by telephone. Pergamon, Elmsford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter D, Stephenson G (1979) The role of visual communication in social interaction. Curr Anthropol 20:124–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shell R (2006) Bargaining for advantage. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (1991) Information exchange in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 27:161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurlow C, Lengel L, Tomic A (2004) Computer mediated communication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu CH, McIsaac M (2002) The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. Am J Distance Educ 16(3):131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Koert R (2003) E-media in development: combining multiple e-media types. First Monday 8(2):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther J (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun Res 23:3–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther J (2012) Interaction through technological lenses: computer-mediated communication and language. J Lang Soc Psychol 31(4):397–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zebrowitz L, Montepare J (1992) Impressions of baby-faced individuals across the life span. Dev Psychol 28:1143–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, 100 Rockafeller Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Terri R. Kurtzberg & Sanghoon Kang

  2. Kellstadt Graduate School of Business, DePaul University, 1 East Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL, 60604, USA

    Charles E. Naquin

Authors
  1. Terri R. Kurtzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanghoon Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles E. Naquin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terri R. Kurtzberg.

Appendix A: Trust and Satisfaction Survey Questions

Appendix A: Trust and Satisfaction Survey Questions

Directions: Please answer each statement below by putting a circle around the number that best reflects your degree of agreement or disagreement with that statement. Please use the following scale:

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurtzberg, T.R., Kang, S. & Naquin, C.E. The Effect of Screen Size and E-Communication Richness on Negotiation Performance. Group Decis Negot 27, 573–592 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9574-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9574-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation