Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations

Don A. Moore, Terri R. Kurtzberg, Leigh L. Thompson, Michael W. Morris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

221 Scopus citations

Abstract

To understand why e-mail negotiations break down, we investigated two distinct elements of negotiators' relationships with each other: shared membership in a social group and mutual self-disclosure. In an experiment, some participants negotiated with a member of an outgroup (a student at a competitor university), whereas others negotiated with a member of an ingroup (a student at the same university). In addition, some negotiators exchanged personal information with their counterparts, whereas others did not. When neither common ingroup status nor a personalized relationship existed between negotiators, negotiations were more likely to end in impasse. These results are attributable to the positive influence of mutual self-disclosure and common group membership on negotiation processes and rapport between negotiators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)22-43
Number of pages22
JournalOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Volume77
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1999

Funding

Thanks to Steve Su for help with data collection. This paper benefited from the comments of Daniel Ilgen and two anonymous reviewers. This research was generously supported by the Dispute Resolution Research Center at Northwestern University and by the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Don Moore, Department of Organization Behavior, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston IL 60202. E-mail: [email protected]. 22

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: Group affiliations and good vibrations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this