This experiment examines how members' individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affect the processes and outcomes of negotiating groups. A total of 228 students participated in a three-person negotiation simulation where motivational orientations were induced through written instructions and members were aware of each other's orientations. Results showed that groups with only cooperative members were more satisfied with their negotiations than were groups with other member compositions. Conversely, groups with only individualistic members achieved higher joint gains than did groups with other member compositions. Process analyses indicated that individualistic groups increased their integrative activities and decreased their distributive activities toward the end of their negotiations. Our results challenge the dominant view that individualistic orientations are detrimental for group processes and outcomes.
Bazerman, M.H., Mannix, E.A., & Thompson, L. (1988). Groups as mixed-motive negotiations. In E. J. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 195-216). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 227-252.
3.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2005). Conflict's consequences: Effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 358-374.
4.
Brett, J.M. (1991). Negotiating group decisions. Negotiation Journal, 7, 191-310.
5.
Brett, J.M. (2001). Negotiating globally. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
6.
Carnevale, P.J., & Lawler, E.J. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 636-659.
7.
Curhan, J.R., Elfenbein, H.A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 493-512.
8.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Carnevale, P.J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 235-293). New York: Academic Press.
9.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E.S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22, 645-668.
10.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: The disruptive effects of punitive capability . Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 408-422.
11.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Koole, S., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed-pie: Toward a motivated information-processing model of integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.
12.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
13.
Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V.H. (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83, 1131-1140.
14.
George, J.M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
15.
George, J.M., & James, L.R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798-804.
16.
Harinck, F., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2004). Negotiating interests or values and reaching integrative agreements: The importance of time pressure and temporary impasses. European Journal of Social Psychology , 34, 595-611.
17.
Holmes, M.E. (1992). Phase structures in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 83-105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology , 69, 85-98.
19.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
20.
Kelley, H.H., & Stahelski, A.J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66-91.
21.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
22.
Kramer, R.M. (1991). The more the merrier? Social psychological aspects of multiparty negotiations in organizations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 3, 307-332.
23.
Lewis, S.A., & Fry, W.R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 75-92.
24.
Mannix, E.A. (1994). Will we meet again? The effects of power, distribution norms, and scope of future interaction in small group negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 343-368.
25.
Mannix, E.A., Thompson, L.L., & Bazerman, M.H. (1989). Negotiation in small groups . Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 508-517.
26.
Olekalns, M., Brett, J.M., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Phases, transitions and interruptions: Modeling processes in multi-party negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 191-211.
27.
Pruitt, D.G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiation in organizations (pp. 35-50). London : Sage.
28.
Pruitt, D.G., & Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
29.
Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
Rhoades, J.A., & Carnevale, P.J. (1999). The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: A test of the dual concern model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1777-1802.
31.
Rubin, J. (1991). Some wise and mistaken assumptions about conflict and negotiation. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 195-209.
32.
Schei, V., & Rognes, J.K. (2003). Knowing me, knowing you: Own orientation and information about the opponent's orientation in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 43-59.
33.
Schei, V., & Rognes, J.K. (2005). Small group negotiation: When members differ in motivational orientation. Small Group Research, 36, 289-320.
34.
Shapiro, D.L., & Rognes, J.K. (1996). Can a dominating orientation enhance the integrativeness of negotiated agreements? Negotiation Journal, 12, 81-90.
35.
Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
36.
Ten Velden, F., Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007). Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: The moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 259-268.
37.
Tripp, T.M., & Sondak, H. (1992). An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and Pareto efficiency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 272-295.
38.
Weingart, L.R., Bennett, R.J., & Brett, J.M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 504-517.
39.
Weingart, L.R., Brett, J.M., & Olekalns, M. (2002). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups . Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Denver.
