Team confidence, motivated information processing, and dynamic group decision making

According to the Motivated Information Processing in Groups (MIP-G) model, groups should perform ambiguous (non-ambiguous) tasks better when they have high (low) epistemic motivation and concomitant tendencies to engage in systematic (heuristic) information processing and exchange. The authors tested this prediction in an experiment with four-person groups performing a complex and dynamic decision making task. Group confidence was measured after extensive training and prior to actual group decision-making. Task ambiguity was manipulated. Results showed that when task ambiguity was low, group confidence indeed benefits decision quality and group performance. But when task ambiguity was high, group confidence hurt decision quality and group performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed

Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance

Conflict theory and research has traditionally focused on conflict management strategies, in relation to individual and work-team effectiveness and productivity. Far less attention has been devoted to "soft" outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and individual health and well-being. This state of affairs is unfortunate because it isolates conflict theory and research from broader issues in organizational psychology and organizational behaviour research. It also impedes applied work in that it remains uncertain how interventions influence not only conflict and effectiveness, but also satisfaction and well-being. This introductory article deals with these problems in detail. The articles in this Special Issue each in their own way deal with one of these issues in more depth, shedding light on how conflict theory and research can be connected to organizational psychology in general

Negotiation processes and outcomes in prosocially and egoistically motivated groups

This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on interpersonal trust, negotiation behavior, amount of impasses, and joint outcomes in three-person negotiations. Students participated in a joint venture negotiation, in which motivational orientation was manipulated by allocating individual incentives (egoistic motive) vs. team incentives (prosocial motive). Results indicated that prosocially motivated negotiators achieved more integrative agreements and fewer impasses, and reported higher trust, more problem solving, and less contending behavior than egoistically motivated negotiators. Hierarchical regression suggested that the finding that prosocial groups achieved higher joint outcomes can be explained by higher levels of trust, more problem solving behavior, and less contending behavior in prosocial groups

Social motivation in integrative negotiation: The mediating influence of procedural justice

Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negotiation, little is known about how social motives affect procedural fairness judgments in negotiation. In two experiments concerned with small group negotiation, we manipulated group members' social motives (prosocial vs. egoistic), and measured joint negotiation outcomes and procedural fairness. Experiment 1 showed that, compared to group members with an egoistic motivation, those with a pro-social motive experienced more procedural fairness, which was partly responsible for the higher joint outcomes they obtained. In Experiment 2, we manipulated social motives and decision rule. Results showed that pro-social groups experienced more procedural fairness than egoistic groups when a majority rule was applied, but not when a unanimity rule was applied

Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: effects of task structure, dicision rule, and social motive

This study examined the interactive effects of task structure,decision rule, and social motive on small-group negotiation processesand outcomes. Three-person groups negotiated either within an asymmetrical task structure (in which a majority of groupmembers have compatible interests) or within a symmetrical task structure (in which no such majority exists). Groups negotiated either under unanimity rule or under majority rule, and group members were either egoistically or prosocially motivated. Results revealed cumulative main effects and the predicted three-way interaction: Groups in an asymmetrical task structure engaged in more distributive and less integrative behavior, reached lower joint outcomes, and experienced a less positive group climate especially when they had an egoistic rather than prosocial motivation and unanimity rather than majorityrule applied. Theoretical implications and avenues for future researchare discussed

Goal expectations meet regulatory focus: How appetitive and aversive competition influence negotiation

Although negotiators' motivation has long been a central topic of inquiry, little is known about the effects of competitive motivation on negotiator cognition and behavior. This study addresses these issues by integrating Goal Expectation Theory (Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977), Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998), and the Motivated Information Processing Model of Negotiation (De Dreu & Carnevale, 2003). We distinguish between two forms of competitive motivation: Appetitive competition (the desire to come out ahead) and aversive competition (the desire to not fall behind). We examined the interplay between these competitive motives, expectations about one's counterpart's cooperativeness, and negotiators' need for cognitive closure. As predicted, whereas aversive competitors experienced more anxiety than appetitive competitors, and conceded more when they expected a cooperative rather than competitive counterpart, appetitive competitors were not influenced by expectations about their counterpart. These effects were stronger when negotiators had a high rather than low need for cognitive closure and were mediated by anxiety