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 ...
This study examines how group members’ individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations impa...
This experiment examines how members' individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affec...
-Author manuscript, published in "Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11,3(2008) 371-385" Copyrig...
This study examined the interactive effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive on s...
In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. ...
Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negoti...
Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negoti...
In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. ...
Small heterogeneous groups are increasingly used to negotiate important decisions. This study exami...
This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on inte...
Small heterogeneous groups are increasingly used to negotiate important decisions. This study exami...
This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on inte...
Two studies tested the effects of social motives during negotiation on postnegotiation group perform...
Negotiators’ social motives (cooperative versus individualistic) influence their strategic behaviors...
This experiment examines how members’ individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affec...
This study examines how group members’ individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations impa...
This experiment examines how members' individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affec...
-Author manuscript, published in "Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11,3(2008) 371-385" Copyrig...
This study examined the interactive effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive on s...
In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. ...
Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negoti...
Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negoti...
In organizational groups, often a majority has aligned preferences that oppose those of a minority. ...
Small heterogeneous groups are increasingly used to negotiate important decisions. This study exami...
This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on inte...
Small heterogeneous groups are increasingly used to negotiate important decisions. This study exami...
This experiment examined the effects of motivational orientation (prosocial versus egoistic) on inte...
Two studies tested the effects of social motives during negotiation on postnegotiation group perform...
Negotiators’ social motives (cooperative versus individualistic) influence their strategic behaviors...
This experiment examines how members’ individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affec...
This study examines how group members’ individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations impa...
This experiment examines how members' individualistic or cooperative motivational orientations affec...
-Author manuscript, published in "Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11,3(2008) 371-385" Copyrig...