This study investigated the effects of social motives and speaking structure on the joint outcomes of multi-party negotiations with a dictator-like leader present. It was hypothesized that...Show moreThis study investigated the effects of social motives and speaking structure on the joint outcomes of multi-party negotiations with a dictator-like leader present. It was hypothesized that prosocially motivated groups would achieve higher joint outcomes than pro-self motivated groups, and that structured speaking would improve outcomes for prosocial groups, but worsen them for pro-self groups; similar to previously found results for online negotiations. A 2 (prosocial vs. pro-self motivated) by 2 (structured vs. unstructured speaking) experimental design was used, involving the ‘Aloha Beach Club’ negotiation task with 41 groups of three participants each. ANOVA results showed a significant effect of social motive on the joint outcome, but speaking structure had no significant impact on this. Future research should further explore the underlying factors of online negotiations that influence the effect of social motives on joint outcomes of group negotiations.Show less
This study examined how different levels of power influence outcomes in group negotiations. Hereby, triads of friends (n=81) or strangers (n=74) either had a powerholder with almighty decisional...Show moreThis study examined how different levels of power influence outcomes in group negotiations. Hereby, triads of friends (n=81) or strangers (n=74) either had a powerholder with almighty decisional power, a merely appointed leader, or no leader. It was expected that different motivational orientations affect whether a powerholder is beneficial or harmful. Results from the three-person “Aloha Beach Club” group negotiation task confirmed this prediction as cooperative groups reached more integrative agreements than individualistic groups. Although it was expected that power would animate cooperative leaders to organize the negotiation, no such structuring behaviour was found. Moreover, opposite than predicted, individualistic powerholders attained higher scores in groups of friends than in groups of strangers. Overall, results showed that it is irrelevant whether leaders have almighty power or are merely appointed – in both cooperative and individualistic groups they attained similar outcomes.Show less
