Emotional strategies have been well discussed in the face-to-face negotiation, but few studies have explored its application in the electronic negotiation system (ENS). The popularity of enegotiation has made this issue critical not only to commercial negotiators or businesses, but to the researchers who studied negotiations and developers of ENS. Aiming to reveal the relationships between the emotional negotiation strategy, negotiation behavior and results on the ENS, a model was developed and tested in this study. Four emotional strategies were investigated in this study: Positive Emotion Strategy, Negative Emotion Strategy, Positive/Negative Emotion Strategy, and Negative/ Positive Emotion Strategy so as to disclose (1) which strategy will reach the greater joint outcome and achieve a win-win solution; (2) which strategy will lead to an broken up result. An ENS system was also developed explicitly for this study in order to conduct the experiment and questionnaire survey. Findings are expected to shorten the negotiation time and cost via facilitating the trust between negotiators by using an effective emotional strategy

Doong, Her-Sen

Liao, An-Ti

Wang, Hui-Chih

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)PACIS 2007 Proceedings Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems(PACIS)2007The Effects of Emotion Strategies on E-negotiationBehavior and OutcomeHer-Sen DoongNational Chiayi University, hsdoong@mail.ncyu.edu.twAn-Ti LiaoNational Chiayi University, S0941309@mail.ncyu.edu.twHui-Chih WangNational Chung-Cheng University, hcwang@mis.ccu.edu.twFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007This material is brought to you by the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has beenaccepted for inclusion in PACIS 2007 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, pleasecontact elibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationDoong, Her-Sen; Liao, An-Ti; and Wang, Hui-Chih, "The Effects of Emotion Strategies on E-negotiation Behavior and Outcome"(2007). PACIS 2007 Proceedings. 138.http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/13811th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems19146. The Effects of Emotion Strategies on E-negotiation Behavior andOutcomeHer-Sen DoongDepartment of MISNational Chiayi Universityhsdoong@mail.ncyu.edu.twAn-Ti LiaoDepartment of MISNational Chiayi UniversityS0941309@mail.ncyu.edu.twHui-Chih WangDepartment of MISNational Chung-Cheng University hcwang@mis.ccu.edu.twAbstractEmotional strategies have been well discussed in the face-to-face negotiation, but few studieshave explored its application in the electronic negotiation system (ENS). The popularity of e-negotiation has made this issue critical not only to commercial negotiators or businesses, butto the researchers who studied negotiations and developers of ENS. Aiming to reveal therelationships between the emotional negotiation strategy, negotiation behavior and results onthe ENS, a model was developed and tested in this study. Four emotional strategies wereinvestigated in this study: Positive Emotion Strategy, Negative Emotion Strategy,Positive/Negative Emotion Strategy, and Negative/ Positive Emotion Strategy so as todisclose (1) which strategy will reach the greater joint outcome and achieve a win-winsolution; (2) which strategy will lead to an broken up result. An ENS system was alsodeveloped explicitly for this study in order to conduct the experiment and questionnairesurvey. Findings are expected to shorten the negotiation time and cost via facilitating thetrust between negotiators by using an effective emotional strategy.Keywords: Electronic Negotiation Systems, Emotion StrategyIntroductionElectronic Negotiation (E-Negotiation) is the negotiation conducted via the Internet, and thesystem that supports e-negotiation is called the E-Negotiation System (ENS) (Kersten &Noronha 1999). E-Negotiation has become a common activity for businesses nowadays(Yuan et al 2003) as it avoids the sentimental declination and geographical limitation whichoccur in a traditional face to face negotiation (Foroughi 1998).Although emotional strategies have been studied in the face-to-face negotiation (Li & Roloff2004) few researchers have investigated the impact of emotional strategies on negotiator’sbehaviors and negotiation results when using ENS. Past e-negotiation researches focused onhow to design a more friendly system interface or design , and more useful system structure(Hoslapple et al. 1996, 1998). According to Media Richness Theory, the different media willaffect the display of multiple cues and feedback immediacy. That is, in an E-Negotiationenvironment, multiple cues and feedback immediacy are more limited if compared to a face-to-face environment. For example, we cannot see the opponent’s expressions or movement,and we cannot hear his/her voice tone in an E-Negotiation environment. Kahai & Cooper(1996) asserted that under different communication media, the agreement process and resultswill be affected differently - such as clarity of emotions and message. Therefore, how theemotional strategy will impact on the negotation agreement process and result on an ENSshould be clarified.11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems20Further, past researches only investigated how the single emotion such as positive emotion,negative emotion, and neutral emotion will affect the negotiator in setting up his/her strategicdecision (Barsade 2002). None of these studies have discussed the issue of mixed emotions,not to mention to apply the emotion as a strategy that could be used to get their desired resultin a negotiation. Past studies indicated that emotional strategies can be categorized as‘positive’, ‘neutral’, and ‘mixed’ strategy (Kopelman et al. 2006). However, the result andprocess difference between using a mixed and single emotion strategy during negotiations hasyet to be revealed.Thus, the current study was designed to reveal the influence of emotion strategies onthe satisfaction, perceived deception, offer acceptance and further interaction intentiontowards the opposite negotiator in the context of an ENS. More specifically, the researchobjectives of the current study were:1. To study the effects that different emotion strategies will have on the satisfaction,perceived deception and offer acceptance towards the opposite negotiator.2. To reveal the influence that the satisfaction, perceived deception and offeracceptance towards the opposite negotiator have on the future interaction intentionwith the same opposite negotiator.3. To indicate the most efficient emotion strategy mix that can be applied in an E-Negotiation.Base on the research objectives, a research model was developed (see Figure 1) andsupporting literature and hypotheses were presented in the next section.Emotional Strategy• Positive/Negative emotion• Negative/Positive emotion• Positive emotion• Negative emotionSatisfaction• Counterpart• Process• OutcomeOffer acceptancePerceived deceptionIntention to interactFigure 1: Research FrameworkLiterature Review and HypothesesEmotional StrategyEmotional states are perceived as predictors of negotiated outcomes and how emotions affectinterdependent decision making have been well investigated (Barsade 2002). The focus toapply emotional strategies in a negotiation was not only the outcomes related to thenegotiable items on the table, but also outcomes related to the social relationship between theparties at the table (McGinn & Keros 2002). Barry (1999) argued the important role thatemotions may play at a negotiation and asserted that “the willful use of emotional display orexpression [can be used] as a tactical gambit by an individual negotiator.”11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems21Emotion is a differentiated response to a specific situation (e.g., Barry 1999) which isrelatively short-lived and is either triggered by an identifiable event or brought on as a meansto achieving an aspired end if compared to the enduring mood. Emotions that may take placein a negotiation could be divided into intrapersonal effects and interpersonal effects (Morris& Keltner 2000). Intrapersonal effects refer to the influence of a negotiator’s emotions onhis/her owns negotiation behavior. Interpersonal effects refer to the influence of onenegotiator’s emotions on the other negotiator’s behavior.Emotions could also be used as a strategy to achieve a desire result. These emotionalstrategies, i.e. positive, negative, or neutral, may impact the social interaction betweennegotiators.1. First, displayed emotions may convey information and influence strategic informationprocessing (e.g., Forgas & George 2001). For instance, when some issues werementioned, and counterparty’s emotion will become astatic, which conveyed thatcounterparty is very care about those issues. Negotiators can take information intoaccount and elevating ascendance of oneself.2. Second, emotions may serve as a means of persuasion (e.g., Forgas & George 2001) andthus may constitute a manipulative negotiation tactic that leads the other party to act in away he otherwise would not have otherwise chosen. For instance, when negotiatorsdisplayed their emotions which want counterparty to know what was they care for, andwishing counterparty can make some concessions.Research argued that the positive emotions lead to cooperative behaviors, better decisionmaking, greater joint gains, and a more preferable future relationship. Negative emotionshave been shown to decrease joint gains, lead to more competitive behavior, and negativelyaffect future relationship. Neutral strategy suggests that a negotiator is best advised to neitherfeel nor express emotion at the bargaining table because emotion is viewed as a weakness andleads to vulnerability (Kopelman 2006).Hilty & Carnevales’ (1993) black-hat/white-hat strategy is a well-known one that usesemotions. Black hat is the negative emotion that takes a tough and competitive stance towardthe adversary whilst the white hat is the positive emotion that takes a softer and morecooperative stance. Base on this strategy, the current study develops and examines four typesof emotional strategies:1. Positive emotions: Negotiators who have positive emotions, takes a softer, morecooperative stance, happiness, fairness, and so on.2. Negative emotions: Negotiators who have negative emotions, takes a tough andcompetitive stance toward the adversary, and so on.3. Positive/Negative emotions: Negotiators who mix positive and negative emotionsin the sequences, and the first are positive emotions, and second are negativeemotions.4. Negative/Positive emotions: Negotiators who mix negative and positive emotionsin the sequences, and the first are negative emotions, and second are positiveemotions.11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems22SatisfactionOverall satisfaction (or cumulative satisfaction) is “an overall evaluation based on the totalpurchase a consumption experience with a good or service over time.” The whole satisfactionis formed by satisfaction with counterpart, process, and outcome of negotiation. Thedifference between negotiators expectations and outcomes is significantly correlated withnegotiator satisfaction and when negotiator get better outcome, they will have a highersatisfaction (Li & Roloff 2004). Hwee (2004) argued that personal emotions will influenceon consumer’s satisfaction. Supportively, Oliver (1993) asserted that positive and negativeemotions will directly influence on consumer’s satisfaction.Base on these studies, it is thus hypothesized that:H1? Different emotion strategies will lead to significant different level of negotiatorsatisfaction.H1a?In terms of the counterpart satisfaction level under different emotional strategy,negative/positive emotion> positive emotion> positive/negative emotion> negative emotion.H1b? In terms of the process satisfaction level under different emotional strategy,negative/positive emotion> positive emotion> positive/negative emotion> negative emotion.H1c? In terms of the result satisfaction level under different emotional strategy,negative/positive emotion> positive emotion> positive/negative emotion> negative emotion.Offer AcceptanceReasons to accept an negotiation offer could be (Kahai and Cooper 1999)?1. He is satisfied with the problem-solving process.2. He has other tasks pending and is dissatisfied with the inability to apply closure tothe current task.3. He dose not wish to create a conflict with another participant.It is common in a negotiation that negotiators did not agree with counterparty’s offers butaccepted or felt unfair/angry with the offer but accepted it at the end (Pillutla & Murnighan1996). Kopelman et al. (2006) reported that emotions will greatly influence whether anegotiation offer was accepted or not. Hilty & Carnevale (1993) also revealed that blackhat/white hat strategy had the highest level of offer acceptance whilst the white hat/black hatstrategy had the lowest level of that. It is thus hypothesized that:H2?Different emotion strategies will lead to significant different level of offer acceptance.H2a: In terms of the offer acceptance level under different emotional strategy,negative/positive emotion> positive emotion> positive/negative emotion> negative emotion.Perceived DeceptionDeception is a sender send an attempting message to receiver intentionally and making themhad an incorrect viewpoint or conclusion (Buller and Burgoons ,1996). Biters would aidemotions generally, such as using negative emotion within-days (Zhou et al., 2004) and usemore affective information to convince counterparty than an honest man. Schweitzer (2005)argued that deceptive behavior can take many forms, ranging in severity from bluffing, anaccepted part of the negotiation process, to outright misrepresentations of material facts,which may constitute fraud.Deception has become one of the main barriers in online electronic transactions, negotiationand bargaining. Studies of detecting deception investigated how the media richness of a11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems23media platform and synchronicity can aid deception detect (Carlson and George 2004), andhow to use the information-processing model to reveal whether an online deception detect issuccessful (Grazioli 2004). Although Zhou et al. (2004) reported that a biter will use emotionstrategies to convince counterparty, there is no clearer statement about whether a use ofemotion strategies will make the counterpart perceive a cognitive deception. To furtherexplore this issue, it is thus hypothesized that:H3?Different emotion strategies will lead to significant different level of perceiveddeception.H3a: In terms of the perceived deception level under different emotional strategy,negative/positive emotion> positive emotion> positive/negative emotion> negative emotion.Satisfaction level was asserted to influence the future interaction intention (Garbarino &Johnson 1999). Ganesan (1994) also argued that the belief was a key factor in the long-termrelationship and future interaction. That is, if the counterpart in a negotiation perceived adeception in the process, he/she may not want to interact with the same negotiator in thefuture. Supportively, Pillutla (1996) indicated that some negotiators refused propositionssimply because they did not want to work on or interact with the counterpart. Thus, it washypothesized that:H4? The negotiator’s satisfaction level will positively influence the future interactionintentions.H5? The negotiator’s offer acceptance level will positively influence the future interactionintentions.H6? The negotiator’s perceived deception level will positively influence the futureinteraction intentions.Expected FindingsCurrently, the ENS developed explicitly for this study was tested and ready for theexperiment planned to be conducted in the following two weeks. After that, the collecteddata will be analyzed using multivariate procedures in SPSS to test the research hypothesesproposed above. Significant results for each hypothesis were expected.Acknowledgment: This study is supported by NSC in Taiwan, under the funding number ofNSC 95-2416-H-415-007- )ReferencesBarry, B., and Oliver, R. L. “Affect in Dyadic Negotiation: A Model and Propositions,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (67), 1996, pp.127-143.Barsade, S. G. “The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on GroupBehavior,” Administrative Science Quarterly (47), 2002, pp. 644-675.Buller, D. B., and Burgoon, J. K. “Interpersonal Deception Theory,” Communication Theory(6), 1996, pp. 203-242.Carlson, J. R., George, J. F., Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., and White, C. H. “Deception inComputer-Mediated Communication,” Group Decision and Negotiation (13), 2004, pp.5-28.11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems24Forgas, J. P., and George, J. M. “Affective Influences on Judgments and Behavior inOrganizations: An Information Processing Perspective,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes (86:1), 2001, pp. 3-34.Foroughi, A. “Minimizing Negotiation Process Losses with Computerized NegotiationSupport Systems,” Journal of Applied Business Research (14:4), 1998, pp. 15-26.Hilty, J. A., and Carnevale, P. J. “Black-Hat/White-hat Strategy in Bilateral Negotiation,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (55), 1993, pp. 444-469.Holsapple, C. W., Lai, H., and Whinston, A. B. “A Formal Basis for Negotiation SupportSystem Research,” Decision Support Systems (7), 1998, pp. 203-227.Holsapple, C. W., Lai, H., and Whinston, A. B. “Implications of Negotiation Theory forResearch and Development of Negotiation Support Systems,” Group Decision andNegotiation (6:3), 1996, pp. 255-274.Hwee, H. T., Maw, D. F., and Min, H. K. “The Effects of Customer Personality Traits on theDisplay of Positive Emotions,” Academy of Management Journal (47), 2004, pp. 287-296.Kahai, S., and Cooper, R. B., “The Effect of Computer-Mediated Communication onAgreement and Acceptance,” Journal of Management Information Systems (16:1), 1999,pp. 165-188.Kersten, G. E., and Noronha, S. J. “WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design,Implementation, and Use,” Decision Support Systems (25), 1999, pp. 135-154.Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., and Thompson, L. “The Three Faces of Eve: Strategic Displaysof Positive, Negative, and Neutral Emotions in Negotiations,” Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes (99), 2006, pp. 81-101.Li, S., and Roloff, E. “Strategic Negative Emotion in Negotiation,” IACM 17th AnnualConference, 2004.McGinn, K. L., and Keros, A. T. “Improvisation and the Logic of Exchange in SociallyEmbedded Transactions,” Administrative Science Quarterly (47:3), 2002, pp. 442-473.Morris, M. W., and Keltner, D. “How Emotions Work: An Analysis of the Social Functionsof Emotional Expression in Negotiations,” Research in Organizational Behavior (22),2000, pp. 1-50.Pillutla, M. M., and Murnighan, J. K. “Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections ofUltimatum Offers,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (68), 1996,pp. 208-224.Schweitzer, M. E. “Negotiators Lie,” Negotiation, 2005.Yuan, Y., Head, M., and Du, M. “The Effects of Multimedia Communication on Web-BasedNegotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation (12), 2003, pp. 89-109.Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T., and Nunamaker, J. F. “A Comparison ofClassification Methods for Predicting Deception in Computer-MediatedCommunication,” Journal of Management Information Systems (20:4), 2004, pp. 139-165.

The Effects of Emotion Strategies on E-negotiation Behavior and Outcome

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&amp;context=pacis2007

The Effects of Emotion Strategies on E-negotiation Behavior and Outcome

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)