This study analyzed style of handling an escalated conflict in a computer-mediated negotiation context. Literature focusing on negotiation and media evidenced two contradictory perspectives. One of them asserted that negotiators are less integrative when interacting in a computer-mediated context. The other perspective affirmed that a barrier in the communication enhances integrativeness. These contrary perspectives motivated the present study. In a computer-mediated negotiation setting a confederate escalated the conflict with the participants in a standardized way. Interactions were recorded and two groups of coders assessed the use of avoiding, compromising, problem solving, accommodating, and forcing. Results showed a higher use of avoiding and a decrease in forcing behavior along the computer-mediated interaction. Results from revised literature regarding face-to-face context show a different pattern consisting of an increase in forcing behavior and compromising along the encounter. Practical implications of results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, M. H. , Beekun, R. I., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Performance evaluation in a dynamic context. A laboratory study of a prior commitment to the ratee. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 873-876.
2.
Bordia, P. (1997). Face to face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-120.
3.
Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiating globally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Brett, J. M. , Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bond of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.
5.
Carnevale, P. , & Isen, A. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13.
6.
De Dreu, C. K. W. , Nauta, A., & Van de Vliert, E. (1995). Self-serving evaluations of conflict behavior and escalation of the dispute. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2049-2066.
7.
De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309-328.
8.
Graetz, K. A. , Boyle, E., Kimble, C. E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J. L. (1998). Information sharing in face to face, teleconferencing, and electronic chat groups. Small Group Research, 29, 714-743.
9.
Harink, F. , & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001, June). Interest versus values. The effect of conflict issue, and resistance to yielding on Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes. Paper presented to annual meeting of the International Association for Conflict Management, Cergy, Paris.
10.
Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
11.
Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
12.
Kiesler, S. , & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
13.
Kraut, R. , Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyny, T., & Scherhs, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being. American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
14.
Lewis, S. , & Fry, W. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 75-92.
15.
Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: Gender makes a difference. Computer in Human Behavior, 7, 137-145.
16.
Medina, F. J. , Dorado, M. A., Munduate, L., Martínez, I., & Cisneros, I. F. J. (2002, June). Types of conflict and personal and organizational consequences. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the International Association for Conflict Management, Salt Lake City, UT.
17.
Mikolic, J. M. , Parker, J. C., & Pruitt, D. G. (1997). Escalation in response to persistent annoyance: Groups versus individuals and gender effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 151-163.
18.
Olekalns, M. , Smith, P. L., & Walls, T. (1996). The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 68-77.
19.
Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war and surrender. Urbana-Champagne: University of Illinois Press.
20.
Peterson, B. E. , Winter, D. G., & Doty, R. M. (1994). Laboratory test of a perceptual model of conflict escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 719-745.
21.
Poole, M. S. , Shannon, D. L., & De Sanctis, G. (1992). Communication media and negotiation processes. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 46-66). London: Sage.
22.
Pruitt, D. G. (1998). Social conflict. In D. T. Gisbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 470-503). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
24.
Pruitt, D. G. , & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363-392.
25.
Pruitt, D. G. , Parker, J. C., & Mikolic, J. M. (1997). Escalation as a reaction to persistent annoyance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 252-270.
26.
Purdy, J. M. , Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162-187.
27.
Putnam, L. L. (1990). Reframing integrative and distributive bargaining. A process perspective. Research on Negotiation in Organization, 2, 3-30.
28.
Rubin, J. Z. , Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Schoorman, F. D. , & Holahan, P. J. (1996). Psychological antecedents of escalation behavior: Effects of choice, responsibility and decision consequences, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 786-794.
30.
Sermat, V. (1967). The effect of an initial cooperative or competitive treatment upon a subject’s response to conditional cooperation. Behavioral Science, 12, 301-313.
31.
Shell, G. R. (1995). Computer-assisted negotiation and mediation: Where we are and where we are going. Negotiation Journal, 11, 117-121.
32.
Simons, T. L. , & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
33.
Spears, R. , & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
34.
Van de Vliert, E. , & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreableness and activeness as component of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674-687.
35.
Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271-281.
36.
Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A., Euwema, M. C., and Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23-38). London: Sage.
37.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
38.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
39.
Wheeler, M. (1995). Computers and negotiation: Backing into the future. Negotiation Journal, 11, 169-175.
40.
Youngs, G. A. (1986). Patterns of threat and punishment reciprocity in a conflict setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 541-546.
41.
Zapf, D. , & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497-522.
