# Electrophysiological Hyperscanning of Negotiation During Group-Oriented Decision-Making
## 1 Introduction  
In real-world workgroups, decision-making conversations can either foster agreement and group cohesion or deepen conflicts and amplify discord. A crucial determinant in steering these conversations toward constructive outcomes is the promotion of negotiation and compromise. Encouraging these strategies has been shown to enhance exploration and the exchange of diverse perspectives, facilitating a more integrative and adaptive approach to decision-making. Notably, dyads that adopt a compromise-oriented mindset tend to achieve more harmonious and mutually satisfactory outcomes than those engaging in competition [1]. Previous research on decision-making conversations highlights two primary factors that shape their trajectory: intentions (as starting points) and communication strategies(which are adopted over the course of the conversation) [2; 3]. First, the success of a decision-making conversation often hinges on individuals' underlying intentions--their opinions, goals, and needs. These intentions, in turn, shape the communication strategies adopted to bridge differences and reach agreements. Effective negotiation relies on strategies that align thoughts and emotions, fostering shared understanding and consensus. The interplay between intention and communication strategies ultimately determines the effectiveness of the negotiation process and the quality of the final agreement. A first key factor of conversational intentions is an individual's decision-making orientation, which can be individual- or group-focused. While individual-oriented people may prioritize personal gains or fixed perspectives, group-oriented individuals are more inclined to integrate multiple viewpoints, making them less susceptible to biases, overconfidence, and cognitive errors [4]. This openness to diverse perspectives not only improves decision accuracy but also fosters the creation of innovative, high-quality solutions [5; 6]. In negotiation-driven conversations, group-oriented individuals tend to perceive the goal of acting as a cohesive unit as both socially and personally meaningful, reinforcing their commitment to cooperative dialogue. The second key factor influencing decision-making conversations is the explicit goal of the interaction, which can be competitive or cooperative. These goals significantly shape the communication strategies employed. A cooperative mindset, strongly associated with group orientation, is characterized by prosocial intentions that prioritize joint success rather than individual gain. Dyads with cooperative goals actively engage with each other's ideas, fostering a dynamic exchange that enhances learning, adaptation, and innovation [7; 8]. Research has consistently linked cooperation to greater creativity and cognitive flexibility, which are essential for effective problem-solving and decision-making [9; 10; 11; 12; 13]. Critically, cooperation is deeply intertwined with negotiation behaviors [14; 15]. Negotiation involves the exchange of information about interests and perspectives, followed by strategic trade-offs that maximize collective benefits [16]. Given its reliance on perspective-taking and shared goal-setting, negotiation thrives in environments where group orientation is strong. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying negotiation within group-oriented individuals during real-time, naturalistic decision-making interactions. In neuroscience, negotiation and cooperative behaviors have been investigated using various tasks, including games, problem-solving activities, creativity exercises, mathematical challenges, and behavioral synchronization [17]. These studies have employed both single-brain and brain-to-brain experimental paradigms, utilizing different neuroscientific tools. While communication between participants is a key element in this research, no study has specifically examined negotiation through a communicative ecologically valid scenario that involves synchrony and turn-taking [18].