Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 537–566 | Cite as

Caught Telling the Truth: Effects of Honesty and Communication Media in Distributive Negotiations

  • Paul W. Paese
  • Ann Marie Schreiber
  • Adam W. Taylor


In the present research, the authors varied the presence versus absence of an honest disclosure in two-party negotiations. Confederates who posed as participants and followed a script carried out the disclosure manipulation. In Experiment 1, communication mode (face-to-face vs. telephone vs. electronic mail) was crossed with disclosure, and an interaction was observed. Specifically, the remote media (phone and e-mail) were found to induce competitive negotiation behavior, but only when there was no honest disclosure; that is, the honest disclosure suppressed the competitive behavior that was otherwise induced by the remote media. Experiment 2 replicated the e-mail condition of Experiment 1, with the only difference being that negotiators were anonymous to one another. Despite the anonymity, the honest disclosure continued to have the same cooperation-inducing effect. Implications of these results and future research directions are discussed.

communication media distributive negotiation electronic mail honesty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. (1986). “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  2. Bolton, G. E. (1991). “A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence,” American Economic Review 81, 1096–1136.Google Scholar
  3. Brodt, S. E. (1994). “'Inside Information' and Negotiator Decision Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58, 172–202.Google Scholar
  4. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and Practice, 3rd Ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R. B., S. L. Brown, B. P. Lewis, C. Luce, and S. L. Neuberg. (1997). “Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One Into One Equals Oneness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 481–494.Google Scholar
  6. Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby. (1992). “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange,” in J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds.), The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Drolet, A. L. and M. W. Morris. (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
  8. Farrell, J. and R. Gibbons. (1989). “Cheap Talk with Two Audiences,” American Economic Review 79, 1214–1223.Google Scholar
  9. Frank, R. N. (1988). Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,” American Sociological Review 25, 161–178.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman, E., K. A. McCabe, and V. L. Smith. (1996). “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games,” American Economic Review 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffman, E., K. A. McCabe, and V. L. Smith. (1998). “Behavioral Foundations of Reciprocity: Experimental Economics and Evolutionary Psychology,” Economic Inquiry 36, 335–352.Google Scholar
  13. Kiesler S., J. Siegel, and T. W. McGuire. (1984). “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication,” American Psychologist 39, 1123–1134.Google Scholar
  14. Lax, D. A. and J. K. Sebenius. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lewicki, R. J., J. A. Litterer, J. A. Minton, and D. M. Saunders. (1994). Negotiation, 2nd Ed. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  16. McGinn, K. L. and A. T. Keros. (2002). “Improvisation and the Logic of Exchange in Socially Embedded Transactions,” Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 442–473.Google Scholar
  17. McGuire, T. W., S. Kiesler, and J. Siegel. (1987). “Group and Computer-Mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 917–930.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, D. A., T. R. Kurtzberg, L. L. Thompson, and M. W. Morris. (1999). “Long and Short Routes to Success in Electronically Mediated Negotiations: Group Affiliations and Good Vibrations,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77, 22–43.Google Scholar
  19. Morris, M. W., D. L. H. Sim, and V. Girotto. (1995). “Time of Decision, Ethical Obligation, and Causal Illusion: Temporal Cues and Social Heuristics in the Prisoner's Dilemma, in R. M. Kramer and D. M. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a Social Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Murnighan, J. K. (1994). “Game Theory and Organizational Behavior,” in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 16. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 83–123.Google Scholar
  21. Murnighan, J. K. and M. M. Pillutla. (1995). “Fairness Versus Self-Interest: Asymmetric Moral Imperatives in Ultimatum Bargaining,” in R. M. Kramer and D. M. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a Social Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman. (1991). Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Paese, P. W. and D. A. Gilin. (2000). “When an Adversary is Caught Telling the Truth: Reciprocal Cooperation Versus Self-Interest in Distributive Bargaining,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 79–90.Google Scholar
  24. Pruitt, D. G. and P. J. Carnevale. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  25. Pruitt, D. G. and M. J. Kimmel. (1977). “Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique, Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future,” Annual Review of Psychology 28, 363–392.Google Scholar
  26. Pruitt, D. G. and J. Z. Rubin. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  27. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Regan, R. T. (1971). “Effects of a Favor and Liking on Compliance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 7, 627–639.Google Scholar
  29. Roth, A. E. (1995). “Bargaining Experiments,” in J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shafir, E. and A. Tversky. (1992). “Thinking Through Uncertainty: Nonconsequential Reasoning and Choice,” Cognitive Psychology 24, 449–474.Google Scholar
  31. Siegel, J., V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler, and W. T. McGuire. (1986). “Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51, 157–187.Google Scholar
  32. Tinsley, C. H., K. M. O'Connor, and B. A. Sullivan. (2002). “Tough Guys Finish Last: The Perils of a Distributive Reputation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88, 621–642.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, L. (1998). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, L. and J. Nadler. (2002). “Negotiating Via Information Technology: Theory and Application,” Journal of Social Issues 58, 109–124.Google Scholar
  35. Turoff, M. and S. R. Hiltz. (1982). “Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,” IEEE Transactions on Communication 30, 82–90.Google Scholar
  36. Valley, K. L., J. Moag, and M. H. Bazerman. (1998). “'A Matter of Trust”: Effects of Communication on the Efficiency and Distribution of Outcomes,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34, 211–238.Google Scholar
  37. Valley, K., L. Thompson, R. Gibbons, and M. Bazerman. (2002). “How Communication Improves Efficiency in Bargaining Games,” Games and Economic Behavior 38, 127–155.Google Scholar
  38. Wichman, H. (1970). “Effects of Isolation and Communication on Cooperation in a Two-Person Game,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, 113–120.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, E. (1975). “Coalition Formation over Telecommunications Media,” European Journal of Social Psychology 5, 503–507.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, E. (1977). “Experimental Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Mediated Communication: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin 84, 963–976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul W. Paese
    • 1
  • Ann Marie Schreiber
    • 2
  • Adam W. Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri - St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of Missouri - St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations