Differences in Computer Mediated Versus Face to Face Negotiation

Ninety Cal Poly students participated in a study to test the hypothesis that e-negotiators would be more likely than face-to-face (FTF) negotiators to employ unethical or competitive negotiation styles in a subsequent negotiation after being lied to in a previous negotiation. Sixty-four Cal Poly students were randomly assigned to partake in a computer mediated or FTF negotiation over the sale of a car. After the initial negotiation was completed, buyers in each condition were led to believe they had been lied to about the accident history of the car. Participants then completed The Incidents in Negotiation Questionnaire by Robinson, Lewicki, and Donahue (2000) and The Conflict Behaviors Questionnaire (Rahim, 1983). These questionnaires were used to compare e-negotiators' view of unethical behavior and competitive negotiation styles to views of FTF negotiators. Twenty-six participants did not negotiate but completed surveys and acted as a comparison group. An independent means t test was conducted, and a significance level of p< . 05 was used. Contrary to the hypothesis, FTF negotiators reported a higher likelihood of using competitive negotiation styles, competitive bargaining, misrepresentation, and overall unethical behavior in future negotiations. Differences in Computer Mediated Versus Face to Face Negotiation 3 Negotiation is a process in which two or more people make mutual decisions concerning the distribution of scarce resources (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Information technology as a communication medium is increasing in prevalence, and thus negotiation is more often completed via technological means. This trend has undoubtedly raised theoretical and practical questions on how electronic negotiations vary from face-to-face (FTF) negotiations (Turban, Lee, King, & Chung, 2000). The most fundamental difference between these negotiations is that e-negotiators communicate electronically and the parties involved usually do not see each other (Thompson & Nadler, 2002). A large amount of research has centered on how e-negotiation and FTF negotiation differ in regards to deception. In traditional negotiations, business associates frequently defend deceptive practices because they are accepted as standard (Schweitzer & Croson, 1999). In turn, these deceptive practices are encouraged to help increase a negotiator’s power and control (Lewicki, 1983). However, deception may be even more prevalent in e-negotiations where potential consequences are removed and deception is harder to detect. Research has supported that deception is more difficult to detect in e-communication because there is a decrease in the amount of information that can be transmitted at a given point in time (Trevino, Daft, & Lengol, 1990). Similarly, FTF communication is more vulnerable to deception detection due to nonverbal behaviors (facial expressions, eye contact, body movement), aural cues (loudness, speed, speech hesitation), and status cues (control, power). Many of these cues are lacking in e-communication, and thus there is less fear that deception will be detected (Schweitzer & Croson). Citera, Beauregard, and Mitsuya (2005) tested the suggestion that because lying was harder to detect in e-negotiations, it would also be more prevalent. However, lying did not vary Differences in Computer Mediated Versus Face to Face Negotiation 4 significantly from FTF to e-negotiations in their experiment. Results suggested that e-negotiators were more likely to advocate using dishonesty in the future. Similarly, theoretical explanations such as the burned bridge bias and squeaky wheel bias have suggested an increase in unethical behavior in computer mediated negotiation. The burned bridge bias is the tendency for e-negotiators to engage in risky interpersonal behaviors they would not engage in when interacting FTF. The squeaky wheel bias is the tendency for negotiators to adopt a harsher emotional style when interacting through a media lacking in communication cues such as email. The squeaky wheel bias emphasizes that the same individual may use a positive emotional style when interacting FTF. This bias has been supported by research showing that strangers negotiating over email are more likely to negatively confront one another and behave rudely or impulsively. Possible explanations for squeaky wheel behavior include people’s tendency to pay more attention to content than etiquette in email, and the perception that the squeaky wheel strategy is effective in getting your way (Thompson & Nadler). In addition to the squeaky wheel strategy, negotiators may employ a variety of bargaining styles including competing, collaborating, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding (Shell, 2001). In negotiations individuals often find themselves in mixed motive situations where they are motivated to cooperate and reach an agreement, but also motivated to be competitive and reach a fair agreement (Komorita & Parks, 1995). People generally view mixed-motive negotiations as competitive situations, implying that people act more competitively in negotiations (Fairfield & Allred, 2007). However, research by Andes (1992) suggested that bargaining style may vary depending on media because it will affect the content and process of negotiation as well as the relationship between negotiators. Dorado, Medina, Munduate, Differences in Computer Mediated Versus Face to Face Negotiation 5 Cisneros, and Euwema (2002) extended research on styles used in computer mediated negotiation and concluded that computer mediated negotiators used a higher level of avoiding, and lower forcing behavior. Morgan (1998) investigated whether the bargaining style in an initial negotiation would influence the bargaining style used in a subsequent negotiation. He concluded that a previous cooperative or competitive negotiation experience between groups did not influence a subsequent negotiation task. Clearly, research on negotiation styles seems to vary significantly with the task and aspects of the negotiation at hand. The conclusions of past researchers and theoretical explanations suggest that enegotiators are more likely to use unethical behavior in negotiations than FTF negotiators. However, research has failed address the impact of negotiators’ deception. In particular, how will being lied to by an opponent impact future unethical or competitive behavior? The research at hand offers the hypothesis that in addition to lying, enegotiation buyers will report a higher likelihood of using unethical tactics or competitive bargaining styles in future negotiations than FTF negotiators after being deceived.