Blinded by Power: Untangling Mixed Results Regarding Power and Efficiency in Negotiation

Wong, Ricky S.; Howard, Susan

doi:10.1007/s10726-016-9495-5

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This lack of attention is problematic because empirical inferences are made about a large body of data generated by past research. Research-problem statements may correctly or incorrectly claim that past research is “one-sided” (e.g., Schaerer et al, 2018 , p. 73) or has yielded “mixed” results ( Wong & Howard, 2017 , p. 216), or that it relies too heavily on a particular experimental paradigm ( Schweinsberg et al, 2012 ). These examples illustrate inferences that make broad judgments on aspects of past research.…”

Section: Current Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge

Schweinsberg

Thau

Pillutla

2023

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four validity types evaluate the approximate truth of inferences communicated by primary research. However, current validity frameworks ignore the truthfulness of empirical inferences that are central to research-problem statements. Problem statements contrast a review of past research with other knowledge that extends, contradicts, or calls into question specific features of past research. Authors communicate empirical inferences, or quantitative judgments, about the frequency (e.g., “few,” “most”) and variability (e.g., “on the one hand,” “on the other hand”) in their reviews of existing theories, measures, samples, or results. We code a random sample of primary research articles and show that 83% of quantitative judgments in our sample are vague and do not have a transparent origin, making it difficult to assess their validity. We review validity threats of current practices. We propose that documenting the literature search, reporting how the search was coded, and quantifying the search results facilitates more precise judgments and makes their origin transparent. This practice enables research questions that are more closely tied to the existing body of knowledge and allows for more informed evaluations of the contribution of primary research articles, their design choices, and how they advance knowledge. We discuss potential limitations of our proposed framework.

show abstract

Section: Current Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge

Schweinsberg

Thau

Pillutla

2023

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, there is empirical evidence to support that negotiators with more power will employ the tactic of bluffing more than their counterparts with less power (Crott et al , 1980). On the other hand, there is evidence to support the notion that when negotiators know there is a power imbalance, they will be more open and provide information (Olekalns et al , 2014; Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004; Wong and Howard, 2017). Stoermer et al (2016) suggest that cultures characterized by high collectivism tend to be more inclusive than those characterized by individualism.…”

Section: Theory and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethically questionable negotiation tactics: the differential roles of national, societal and individual cultural values

Stefanidis

Banai

Schinzel³

et al. 2021

CCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to refine theory of negotiation by empirically investigating the extent to which national-, societal- and individual-level cultures relate to negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics.Design/methodology/approachTo assess the hypothesized relationships between culture and ethically questionable negotiation tactics at three cultural levels of analysis, the authors collected data from Turks who reside in Turkey and in Germany and from Greeks who reside in Greece and in Cyprus. Respondents' national-level cultural values were inferred from their nationality, respondents' societal-level cultural values were inferred from their country of residency, and respondents' individual-level cultural values were inferred from their discrete and unique individuality.FindingsAt the national level, the authors found that Turks in Turkey and Germany scored significantly higher than Greeks in Greece and Cyprus on the endorsement of pretending negotiation tactics. At the societal level, the authors found that Turkish negotiators in Germany displayed higher levels of lying negotiation tactics and lower levels of pretending negotiation tactics than Turkish negotiators in Turkey. Greek negotiators in Greece endorsed deceiving and lying tactics more than Greek negotiators in Cyprus. At the individual level, the authors found that negotiators who score high on vertical individualism and collectivism endorse questionable negotiation tactics significantly more than negotiators who score high on horizontal individualism and collectivism.Originality/valueThe authors empirically demonstrate how national-, societal- and individual-level cultures differentially influence negotiators' tendency to endorse questionable negotiation tactics. The study's trilevel analysis allows for integrating the societal-level theories of negotiators' acculturation and cultural adjustment to a host culture, highlighting the importance of bicultural identity.

show abstract

“…Note that individualism and power distance are society-level cultural dimensions, hence shared ways of thinking, not attributes of individuals. The difference in social status between two individuals may impact their relative power in bilateral negotiation, but negotiation power itself is a different topic (Wong and Howard 2017). Adair et al (2004) provide empirical evidence for the relevance of power distance for negotiation processes.…”

Section: Culture In a Trade Gamementioning

confidence: 99%

The Lemon Car Game Across Cultures: Evidence of Relational Rationality

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cross-cultural business negotiation, culture is known to influence negotiation processes. As a lens to study this effect we deployed the Lemon Car Game, an online negotiation game developed for this purpose (Hofstede et al. in: Proceedings of 39th international simulation and gaming association conference (ISAGA). Technologia, Kaunas, pp 39-46, 2009a; Hofstede et al. in: David, Sichman (eds) Multi-agentbased simulation IX, international workshop, MABS 2008, revised selectedpapers, LNAI 5269. Springer, Berlin, pp 1-16, 2009b). In this article we report the results from the game, obtained from over 800 players from more than 70 countries. We employ several complementary analyses in a mixed-methods approach. Our findings show that to make sense of the players' actions during negotiation, economic rationality falls short. A pan-cultural individual-level analysis of actions and stated intentions also fails to yield a coherent picture. Within countries, however, actions and intentions do cohere, as shown by an ecological country-level factor analysis, from which three factors emerge for the sellers at country level: trustworthiness, opportunism, and fairness. We conclude from these findings that, in this game, players are driven by what we call relational rationality: they are rational from the perspective of the social world in which they live, with interpersonal relationships weighing heavily. Relational rationality changes players' perspective of economic rationality, and thus their observed behaviour in negotiation. Based on this evidence, we extrapolate that relational rationality significantly influences negotiation processes in all cultures.

show abstract

Blinded by Power: Untangling Mixed Results Regarding Power and Efficiency in Negotiation

Cited by 4 publications

References 60 publications

Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge

Research-Problem Validity in Primary Research: Precision and Transparency in Characterizing Past Knowledge

Ethically questionable negotiation tactics: the differential roles of national, societal and individual cultural values

The Lemon Car Game Across Cultures: Evidence of Relational Rationality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About