‘Numerical trap’. A new look at outcome representation in studies on choice behaviour

121

Negotiation research and theory tends to focus on interests and ignores values. This experiment compared the influence of negotiations about interests with negotiations about values under low or high time pressure. Results showed that (1) individuals got locked into early impasses more often under low than high time pressure, (2) getting locked into early impasse produced a switch from low levels of integrative behaviour early in the negotiation to high levels late in the negotiation, but only when interests rather than values were negotiated, (3) individuals reached higher joint outcomes when interests rather than values were negotiated, especially when time pressure was low rather than high, because of (4) the relatively greater switch to high levels of integrative behaviour in the case of low time pressure and conflict of interest.

Section: Contribution To Theorymentioning

confidence: 62%

Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: the importance of time pressure and temporary impasses

Harinck

Dreu

2004

121

“…With only a few exceptions (e.g. Grzelak, 1982Grzelak, , 1986Grzelak et al, 1988Grzelak et al, , 1989 they were assessed by having people allocate money or points (which usually refered to money) to themselves and/or one other person who was in a similar situation as the allocator. However, in the present study, these restrictions were removed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each participant, Spearman rank-order correlations (with corrections for ties) were computed between the participant's rank order and the perfect rank orders in Table 1 and Table 2 (Wieczorkowska, 1982;Grzelak et al, 1988). Each correlation was transformed into a Fisher-z coefficient.…”

Section: Computation Of the Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences for changing power positions and power distances: a social value orientations approach

Poppe

2002

Self Cite

Participants were asked to put themselves in the position of one of three persons who differed in the amount of power they had in a small work unit. Subsequently, they could allocate points on a power scale to themselves and the two others, and thus, change the power positions and the power distances between the positions. The least powerful individuals had the strongest tendency to increase their power. They wanted to reduce the power distance to the person in the higher position more than the power distance to the person in the middle position. The most powerful wanted to increase the power distance to the person in the middle position but not the power distance to the least powerful. Most results were consistent with social comparison theory and contrary to power distance theory. Because the dependent measures were derived from the social value orientations model, the scope of this model has been expanded. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Many relationships, groups, and organizations are stratified because people differ in how much power they have. Bosses usually have more power than foremen and foremen usually have more power than workers. Often people want to change the power differences. Understanding power dynamics is an important element of understanding the functioning of relationships, groups, and organizations. In this article we will focus on two theories which explain why and how people want to change power differences. One theory, power distance theory, has been developed especially for understanding people's preferences to change power differences. The other, social comparison theory, is a more general theory that can be applied to preferences for changing power differences. Because some of the hypotheses which can be derived from the two theories are contradictory, an experiment will be described in which some hypotheses were refuted and others supported. In power dynamics, several tendencies-e.g. a tendency to change one's absolute power and a tendency to change one's relative power (compared to that of another person)-are entangled. To disentangle these tendencies methods were borrowed from research on social value orientations. The central aim of this article is to evaluate the two theories with respect to power dynamics. Further, we hope to demonstrate that the social value orientations paradigm is a useful framework to study interpersonal phenomena such as social power.

“…Grzelak, Poppe, Czwartosz, & Nowak (1988) report that cooperative and altruistic motives are more strongly activated when own and other's satisfaction with money are represented iconically (i.e. smiling versus frowning faces) than when represented geometrically (i.e.…”

Section: Representation Of Resources To Be Distributedmentioning

confidence: 96%

On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup bias

Gaertner

Insko

2001

Contrary to most other research conducted in the minimal group paradigm tradition, Bornstein, Crum, Wittenbraker, Harring, Insko and Thibaut (1983a) found little evidence of ingroup favoritism when they employed a revised measurement system (i.e. the Multiple Alternative Matrices; MAMs). The current experiment examined whether Bornstein et al.'s effects could be attributed to norms that prohibit intergroup discrimination, which are made salient by framing the outcome values in the intergroup allocation task as monetary payment. We manipulated the salience of prohibitive norms by varying whether participants allocated on the MAMs monetary payment, bonus money or feelings. Participants more strongly associated`having to be fair and equal' with payment than with bonus or feelings and category members made fewer allocations that maximized the ingroup's relative and absolute pro®t and more allocations that minimized intergroup differences when allocating monetary payment than when allocating bonus money or feelings.