Skip to main content

Hostile Behavior and Profit in Virtual Negotiation: a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Virtual negotiations are expected to differ from face-to-face negotiations in terms of both negotiator behavior and outcomes. Nonetheless, competing theories and mixed results characterize this literature. This paper meta-analytically reviews studies that compared face-to-face negotiation with virtual negotiation (e.g., audio, email/text, video-conferencing). Competing predictions from psychological distance theory and the barrier effect perspective were tested. Overall, results supported the psychological distance theory in that face-to-face negotiations were less hostile and resulted in higher profit than virtual negotiations. Three moderators (negotiation mode, anonymity in virtual negotiation, and further interaction within the experiment) were hypothesized to impact virtual negotiation. While some moderators were significant, they did not completely account for findings across all studies. Results and discussion provide a note of caution for individuals embracing e-business and conducting Internet negotiations as well as suggestions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • L. Adrianson E. Hjelmquist (1991) ArticleTitleGroup processes in face-to-face and computer mediated communication Behaviour & Information Technology 10 281–296

    Google Scholar 

  • *Allerheiligen, R. P. (1986). Communications medium and product class: Their effect on negotiation medium. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California

  • K. G. Allred J. S. Mallozzi F. Matsui C. P. Raia (1997) ArticleTitleThe influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 175–187 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.1997.2705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Arunachalam, V. (1991). Decision aiding in multi-party transfer pricing negotiation: The effects of computer-mediated communication and structured interaction. Doctoral Dissertation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  • *Arunachalam, V., & Dilla, W. N. (1992). Computer-mediated communication and structured interaction in transfer pricing negotiation. Journal of Information Systems, 6, 149–170

    Google Scholar 

  • *Arunachalam, V., & Dilla W. N. (1995). Judgment accuracy and outcomes in negotiation: A causal modeling analysis of decision-aiding effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 289–304

    Google Scholar 

  • B. B. Baltes M. W. Dickson M. P. Sherman C. C. Bauer J. S. LaGanke (2002) ArticleTitleComputer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 156–179 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.2001.2961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Barki, R. (1995). An empirical study of the impact of proximity, leader, and incentives on negotiation process and outcomes in a group decision support setting. Doctoral Dissertation Ohio State University

  • *Barsness, Z., & Tenbrunsel A.E. (1998). Technologically-mediated communication and negotiation: Do relationships matter? Annual conference for the International Association for Conflict Management, College Park, MA, June 7–10

  • M. H. Bazerman M. A. Neale (1992) Negotiating rationally The Free Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • R. R. Blake J. S. Mouton (1964) The managerial grid Gulf Publishing Houston TX

    Google Scholar 

  • O. Ben-Yoav D. G. Pruitt (1984) ArticleTitleResistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20 323–335 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0022-1031(84)90029-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13

  • *Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • *Champagne, M. V., Wong Y.-C., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2001). The impact of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication on the negotiation process. Unpublished Manuscript DePaul University

  • *Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya T. (2005). An experimental study of credibility in e-negotiations. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 163--179

    Google Scholar 

  • *Citera, M., & Beauregard, R. (1997). Credibility in computer-mediated bargaining: Bargainer beware. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO

  • D. R. Clyman (1995) ArticleTitleMeasures of joint performance in dyadic mixed-motive negotiations Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64 38–48 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.1995.1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Connolly L. M. Jessup J. S. Valacich (1990) ArticleTitleEffects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups Management Science 36 689–703

    Google Scholar 

  • *Croson, R. T. A. (1999). Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 23–37

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Dalkey (1969) The Delphi method: An experimental study of group decisions Rand Santa Monica, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • R. L. Daft R. H. Lengel (1984) Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design B. M. Staw L. L. Cummings (Eds) Research in organizational behavior JAI Press Greenwich 191–233

    Google Scholar 

  • C. K. W. Dreu ParticleDe (2003) ArticleTitleTime pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 92 280–295 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00022-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. K. W. Dreu ParticleDe L. R. Weingart S. Kwon (2000) ArticleTitleInfluence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analysis review and test of two theories Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 889–905 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.889 Occurrence Handle10821196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50

    Google Scholar 

  • M. El-Shinnawy A. S. Vinze (1997) ArticleTitleTechnology, culture, and persuasiveness: A study of choice-shifts in group settings International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 47 473–496 Occurrence Handle10.1006/ijhc.1997.0138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Erez M. C. Bloom M. T. Wells (1996) ArticleTitleUsing random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization Personnel Psychology 49 275–306

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fry, W. R. (1985). The effect of dyad Machiavellianism and visual access on integrative bargaining outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 51–62

    Google Scholar 

  • *Graetz, K., Barlow, C., Prouix, N., Odenweller, L., Weierman, S., Blankenship, C., & Strazzo, D. (1999). Negotiation at a distance: Why you might want to use the telephone. Poster presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX

  • L. V. Hedges I. Olkin (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis Academic Press San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–334

    Google Scholar 

  • L. M. Jessup T. Connolly J. Galegher (1990) ArticleTitleThe effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task MIS Quarterly 14 313–321

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Kiesler J. Siegel T. W. McGuire (1984) ArticleTitleSocial psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication American Psychologist 39 1123–1134 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0003-066X.39.10.1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *King, D. C., & Glidewell, J. C. (1980). Dyadic bargaining under individualistic and competitive orientation. Human Relations, 33, 781–803

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Latane (1984) ArticleTitleThe psychology of social impact American Psychologist 36 343–356

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lewis, S. A., & Fry, W. R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 20, 75–92

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lim, J. (2000). An experimental investigation of the impact of NSS and proximity on negotiation outcomes. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 329–338

    Google Scholar 

  • C. L. Martin D. H. Nagao (1989) ArticleTitleSome effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses Journal of Applied Psychology 74 72–80 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0021-9010.74.1.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision & Negotiation, 9, 507–529

    Google Scholar 

  • *Metate-Mejia, G. L. A. (1998). Power asymmetry in computer supported negotiating dyads: Effects on conflict management and power enactment. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California Los Angeles

  • *Morley, L. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1969). Interpersonal and interparty exchange: A laboratory simulation of an industrial negotiation at the plant level. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 543–545

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morley, L. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1970). Formality in experimental negotiations: A validation study. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 383–384

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice, 6, 89–100

  • *Naquin, C. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 113–120

    Google Scholar 

  • R. L. Pinkley T. L. Griffith G. B. Northcraft (1995) ArticleTitle“Fixed pie” a la mode: Information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62 101–112 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.1995.1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. G. Pruitt (1981) Negotiation behavior Academic Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • D. G. Pruitt P. J. Carnevale (1993) Negotiation in social conflict Brooks/Cole Pacific Grove, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • D. G. Pruitt J. Z. Rubin (1986) Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement Random House New York

    Google Scholar 

  • *Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162–187

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rhee, H. S. (1993). A study of the impact of a negotiation support system on the negotiation process and outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University

  • T. L. Ruble K. W. Thomas (1976) ArticleTitleSupport for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 16 142–155

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schultz, J., & Pruitt, D. (1978). The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, 480–492

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sheffield, J. (1995). The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group Decision & Negotiation, 42, 159–179

    Google Scholar 

  • *Short, J. A. (1971). Cooperation and competition in an experimental bargaining game conducted over two media. Unpublished Communication Studies Group Paper no. E/71160/SH. Reported in Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie B., 1976. The social psychology of telecommunication. London: Wiley

  • *Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 225–234

    Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Short E. Williams B. Christie (1976) The social psychology of telecommunication Wiley London

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Siegel V. Dubrovsky S. Kiesler T. W. McGuire (1986) ArticleTitleGroup processes in computer-mediated communication Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 157–187 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0749-5978(86)90050-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Smilowitz D. C. Compton L. Flint (1998) ArticleTitleThe effects of computer-mediated communication on an individual ‘s judgment: A study based on the methods of Asch’s social influence experiment Computers in Human Behavior 4 311–321 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0747-5632(88)90003-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Smith, D. H. (1969). Communication and negotiation outcome. The Journal of Communication, 19, 248–256

    Google Scholar 

  • A. F. Stuhlmacher A. E. Walters (1999) ArticleTitleGender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis Personnel Psychology 52 653–677

    Google Scholar 

  • *Suarga (1997). Design and implementation of collective bargaining support system (CBSS) A web-based negotiation support system. Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 59-08A, p. 3083

  • K. W. Thomas (1976) Conflict and conflict management M. Dunnette (Eds) Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology Rand-McNally Chicago 889–935

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Thompson (1990) ArticleTitleNegotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues Psychological Bulletin 108 515–532 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. K. Trevino R. L. Daft R. H. Lengel (1990) Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective J. Fulk C. Stein (Eds) Organizations and communication technology Sage Newbury Park, CA 71–94

    Google Scholar 

  • *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1974). Phasing of concessions, differential power, and medium of communication; Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 228–230

  • *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1976). Medium of communication, differential power, and phasing of concessions; Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Human Communication Research, 2, 262–270

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tysoe, M. (1984). Social cues and the negotiation process. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • *Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998a). ‘A matter of trust’: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizations, 34, 211–238

    Google Scholar 

  • *Valley, K., Thompson, L., Gibbons, R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998b). Using dyadic strategies to outperform equilibrium models of communication in bargaining games. Working paper, Harvard Business School

  • A. H. Ven ParticleVan de A. L. Delbecq (1971) ArticleTitleNominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision making effectiveness Academy of Management Journal 14 202–212

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wachter, R. M. (1993). An empirical investigation of the effects of communication media differences and the social relationships of individuals on the performance of two-party negotiations. Graduate thesis, School of Business, Indiana University

  • A. E. Walters A. F. Stuhlmacher L. L. Meyer (1998) ArticleTitleGender and negotiator competitiveness Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 1–29 Occurrence Handle10.1006/obhd.1998.2797 Occurrence Handle9756737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • C. Watson (1994) ArticleTitleGender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes Negotiation Journal 10 117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • A. R. Wellens (1986) Use of psychological distancing model to assess differences in telecommunication media L. Parker C. Olgen (Eds) Teleconferencing and electronic media EditionNumberV Center for Interactive Programs Madison, WI 347–361

    Google Scholar 

  • A. R. Wellens (1989) ArticleTitleEffects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: Some theoretical and empirical observations IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 4 IssueID9 13–19 Occurrence Handle10.1109/62.35664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wichman, H. (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 114–120

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Williams (1977) ArticleTitleExperimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review Psychological Bulletin 84 963–976 Occurrence Handle10.1037//0033-2909.84.5.963

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice F. Stuhlmacher.

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 18th annual meeting of The Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychologists in Orlando, Fl 2003. We thank Kara Waugh for her coding assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stuhlmacher, A.F., Citera, M. Hostile Behavior and Profit in Virtual Negotiation: a Meta-Analysis. J Bus Psychol 20, 69–93 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-6984-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-6984-y

Keywords

  • Social Psychology
  • Social Issue
  • Mixed Result
  • High Profit
  • Barrier Effect