Leigh Thompson

Learning and Transfer: A General Role for Analogical Encoding.

Teaching by examples and cases is widely used to promote learning, but it varies widely in its effectiveness. The authors test an adaptation to case-based learning that facilitates abstracting problem-solving schemas from examples and using them to solve further problems: analogical encoding, or learning by drawing a comparison across examples. In 3 studies, the authors examined schema abstraction and transfer among novices learning negotiation strategies. Experiment 1 showed a benefit for analogical learning relative to no case study. Experiment 2 showed a marked advantage for comparing two cases over studying the 2 cases separately. Experiment 3 showed that increasing the degree of comparison support increased the rate of transfer in a face-to-face dynamic negotiation exercise. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Social perception in negotiation

Abstract Many negotiations provide opportunities for integrative agreements in which parties can maximize joint gains without competing for resources in a direct win-lose fashion. However, negotiators often settle for suboptimal compromise agreements rather than search for mutually beneficial, or integrative, agreements. We hypothesized that misperceptions of the other partys interests are a primary cause of suboptimal outcomes. Two studies examined the role of social perception in negotiation and the relationship between judgment accuracy and negotiation performance. Results indicated that: most negotiators enter negotiation expecting the other partys interests to be completely opposed to their own; negotiators learn about the potential for joint gain during negotiation; most learning occurs within the first few minutes of interaction; accurate perception of the other partys interests leads to better negotiation performance; negotiators who learn about the other partys interests in the early stages of negotiation earn higher payoffs than do those who learn during the later stages of negotiation; a substantial number of negotiators fail to realize when they have interests that are completely compatible with those of the other party and settle for suboptimal agreements; and the two types of judgment error, Fixed Sum Error and Incompatibility Error, appear to be unrelated, distinct judgment errors. We discuss the role of social judgment in negotiation and the generalizability of the results to real world negotiations.

Battle of the Sexes: Gender Stereotype Confirmation and Reactance in Negotiations

The authors examined how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt womens performance relative to men. The authors hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. In Experiment 4, the authors examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).

Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: effects of self-esteem and threat

In two studies, we explored the effects of trait self-esteem and threats to the self-concept on evaluations of others. In Study 1, subjects high, moderate, and low in self-esteem received either success, failure, or no feedback on a test and later evaluated three pairs of targets: in-groups and out-groups based on a minimal intergroup manipulation, those who scored above average and those who scored below average on the test, and themselves and the average college student. Study 2 explored the effects of self-esteem and threat on in-group favoritism in a real-world setting, campus sororities. Together, the results of these studies indicate that individuals high in self-esteem, but not those low in self-esteem, respond to threats to the self-concept by derogating out-groups relative to the in-group when the group boundaries have evaluative implications.

Socially Shared Cognition, Affect, and Behavior: A Review and Integration

In this article, we review 4 classes of models of socially shared cognition and behavior: supraindividual models, information-processing models, communication models, and social interaction models. Our review draws on research and theory in social psychology, sociology, and organization behavior. We conclude that these innovative perspectives on socially shared behavior represent a new approach to the study of groups and are distinct from traditional models of the group mind and crowd behavior. The key processes implicated in these models focus on the potency of immediate interaction, reciprocal influence processes between individuals and groups, goal-directed behavior, negotiated processing of information and ideas, and the maintenance and enhancement of social identity. This approach to socially shared understanding is not antagonistic toward the analysis of individual-level processes but rather maintains that individual-level processes are necessary but not sufficient to build a social psychology of shared understanding.

Analogical encoding facilitates knowledge transfer in negotiation.

Information learned in one situation often fails to transfer to a similarly structured situation. However, prior findings suggest that comparing two or more instances that embody the same principle can promote abstraction of a schema that can be transferred to new situations. In two lines of research, we examined the effects of analogical encoding on knowledge transfer in negotiation situations. In Experiment 1, undergraduates were more likely to propose optimal negotiation strategies and less likely to propose compromises (a suboptimal strategy) when they received analogy training. In Experiment 2, graduate management students who drew an analogy from two cases were nearly three times more likely to incorporate the strategy from the training cases into their negotiations than were students given the same cases separately. For both novices and experienced participants, the comparison process can be an efficient means of abstracting principles for later application.

Negotiating via Information Technology: Theory and Application

In this review article, we examine how people negotiate via e-mail and in particular, how the process and outcomes of e-negotiations differ from those of traditional face-to-face bargaining. We review the key tasks of negotiation and then undertake a review of the research literature that has examined e-negotiations. We outline four theories of interaction that provide insights about social behavior in e-media: rapport building, social contagion, coordination, and information exchange. Our research program has focused on the interpersonal factors and social identity factors that can enhance the quality of e-negotiations. E-negotiators often succumb to the temporal synchrony bias, the burned bridge bias, the squeaky wheel bias, and the sinister attribution bias. We discuss social psychological factors that can reduce these biases and the future of research on e-negotiations.

Stereotype Reactance at the Bargaining Table: The Effect of Stereotype Activation and Power on Claiming and Creating Value

Two experiments explored the hypothesis that the impact of activating gender stereotypes on negotiated agreements in mixed-gender negotiations depends on the manner in which the stereo-type is activated (explicitly vs. implicitly) and the content of the stereotype (linking negotiation performance to stereotypically male vs. stereotypically female traits). Specifically, two experiments investigated the generality and limits of stereotype reactance. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that negotiated outcomes become more one-sided in favor of the high power negotiator when masculine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In contrast, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that negotiated outcomes are more integrative (win-win) when feminine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In total, performance in mixed-gender negotiations is strongly affected by the cognitions and motivations that negotiators bring to the bargaining table.

GENDER STEREOTYPES AND NEGOTIATION PERFORMANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Abstract Whether gender differences exist at the negotiation table is a timeless question. To address this question, we identify five major theoretical perspectives attempting to account for gender differences at the bargaining table. We distinguish these theoretical perspectives on the basis of the origin of gender differences and the research questions they address. A common thread that runs through each perspective is the gender stereotype, which presumes masculine skills are more valuable at the bargaining table than feminine skills. We then consider the empirical support for this basic assumption as approached by each theoretical perspective. Our review includes the two dominant bargaining paradigms identified by Nash (1950) – cooperative and non-cooperative (e.g. prisoner’s dilemmas) negotiations – and non-interactive and group-level tasks. We then look forward by identifying a research agenda on this timely question for the new millennium.

Tainted Knowledge vs. Tempting Knowledge: People Avoid Knowledge from Internal Rivals and Seek Knowledge from External Rivals

We compare how people react to good ideas authored by internal rivals (employees at the same organization) versus external rivals (employees at a competitor organization). We hypothesize that internal and external rivals evoke contrasting kinds of threats. Specifically, using knowledge from an internal rival is difficult because it threatens the self and its competence: It is tantamount to being a “follower” and losing status relative to a direct competitor. By contrast, external rivals pose a lower threat to personal status, so people are more willing to use their knowledge. We conducted three studies. Study 1 showed that internal and external rivalry involved opposite relationships between threat and knowledge valuation: The more threat internal rivals provoked, the more people avoided their knowledge, whereas the more threat external rivals provoked, the more people pursued their knowledge. Study 2 explored the types of threat that insiders and outsiders evoked. In particular, people assumed that they would lose more personal status if they used an internal rivals knowledge and, therefore, reduced their valuation of that knowledge. Finally, Study 3 found that self-affirmation attenuated these patterns. We suggest that the threats and opportunities for affirmation facing the self dictate how people respond to rivals and, ultimately, their willingness to value new ideas.