• No results found

Social behavior’s influence on business performance : the effects of social distance on business negotiations

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Social behavior’s influence on business performance : the effects of social distance on business negotiations"

Copied!
74
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Social behavior’s influence on business performance

The effects of social distance on business negotiations

Master thesis final version Written by: Eline van Hameren Student no.: 10006370

Submission date: 24 June 2016

MSc Business Administration – Marketing track Amsterdam Business School

University of Amsterdam Supervisor: dhr. Dr. A. Zerres

(2)

Abstract

This study researches the relationship between social distance among negotiators and the outcomes of business negotiations. It aims to explore the use of social distance (and herewith construal levels) as indicator of the outcomes of negotiations. Previous research has used friendship as an indicator for different outcomes in negotiations but literature review revealed that the results of studies using this concept could not be taken into practice due to the scattered (development of) social ties within organizations. Through analysis of negotiations between dyads with either high or low social distance, a start is made in viewing the effects of different levels of social distance on the outcomes of negotiations as well as the state of mind of negotiators after business negotiations. 41 dyads were analyzed, 20 of these were socially distanced from one another; 21 were socially close. Only significant results were found in the objective outcomes of the negotiation, not in the hypotheses about the state of mind of negotiators after the negotiation. The findings conclude that for organizations to reach better outcomes in negotiations, these can best be done by socially distanced negotiators. There is no significant proof that sentiments about the negotiation are affected more for either socially close or socially distanced negotiators. Implications of these results and suggestions for future research are made.

(3)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Eline van Hameren who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11 2.1 BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS 11 2.2 EFFECTS OF NEGOTIATIONS 12 2.4.1 OBJECTIVE MEASURES 13 2.4.2 SUBJECTIVE MEASURES 13 2.3 ROLE EFFECTS IN NEGOTIATIONS 15 2.4 MENTAL MODELS IN NEGOTIATIONS 16

2.5 CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY 17

2.5.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE 18 2.5.2 SOCIAL DISTANCE 19 2.5.3 OTHER FORMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE AND NEGOTIATIONS 19 2.6 FRIENDSHIP IN NEGOTIATIONS 20 2.6.1 FRIENDSHIP 21 2.7 FRIENDSHIP VS. SOCIAL DISTANCE 24 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 25 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 25 3.2 NUMERICAL OUTCOMES OF THE NEGOTIATION 26 3.2.1 JOINT GAIN 26 3.2.2 INDIVIDUAL GAIN 27 3.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF THE NEGOTIATION 29 3.3.1 FEELINGS ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTAL OUTCOME 29 3.3.2 FEELINGS ABOUT THE SELF 31 3.3.3 FEELINGS ABOUT THE PROCESS 32 3.3.4 RELATIONS BETWEEN COUNTERPARTS 33 4. METHOD 34 4.1 MEASURES 34 4.1.1 TREATMENTS 36 4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 37 4.3 DATA COLLECTION 37 4.3.1 SAMPLE 38 4.3.2 NEGOTIATION TASK 38 4.3.3 PROCEDURE 39 4.5 DATA ANALYSIS 40 5. RESULTS 41 5.1 NUMERICAL OUTCOMES 41 5.2 SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES 44 6. DISCUSSION 49 6.1 FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 49 6.2 IMPLICATIONS 52 6.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 53 7. CONCLUSION 55

(5)

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 1 Different treatments of social distance p. 37

Table 2 Comparison of joint gain by social distance p. 43 Table 3 Comparison of differences in individual gain by social distance p. 44 Table 4 Comparison of subjective value measures by social distance p. 46

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual framework p. 26

(6)

1. Introduction

When looking for a (new) job and workplace, people take into account many factors. Reasonably obvious, salary is one of them. Next to this, secondary working conditions like co-workers, values and culture are important in choosing a working place for many of us as well (Becker, n.d.).

Organizations are aware of applicants looking for more than just a nice salary, so they promote additional advantages of the company next to their primary working conditions. Many organizations go on ski trips together, or organize leisure weekends for teams. If you aim at working at the Big Four (the nickname for the four largest international accountancy firms worldwide), imagine crazy Christmas parties with an open bar in the Ritz: “Talk about nice” (Benavides, 2014)

“My colleagues are also my friends, which makes it so much more fun” is a declaration that many people in the process of applying for jobs heard at least once. For employees, social connections with co-workers can indeed impact how they perceive and connect with their organization (Carmeli, 2009 in Ozcelik & Barsade, 2011).

It can also be the case that people are less connected or become disconnected to their colleagues, and herewith to their organization. Emotional withdrawal from an organization can be triggered by various things, one of them is loneliness at work. Previous research showed that loneliness at work has an impact on employee work performance (Ozcelik & Barsade, 2011).

Because of all these effects caused by social connections, organizations aim at connecting their employees, and employees aim at working in an organization where they feel connected to their co-workers and the organization. For both parties there are benefits to reap from this connectedness.

(7)

But, as with many things in organizations, can social connections also have negative effects on organizations? For instance, if people produce less output due to many close social ties that have to be maintained within the organization this is not beneficial for reaching goals or growing the organization. Then again, no organization would want to have employees that cannot get along with each other in informal settings or after working hours. Some argue that social relationships within organizations can be the start of a work environment that can be seen as life enhancing (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009), others find that friends are less effective and accurate in doing business (Thompson, Peterson & Brodt, 1996). So how good are social connections for businesses?

The primary goal of personnel at work in an organization is to achieve business goals. These goals are reached through different ways of working and teams working together, and can therefore lead to conflicts. Conflicts can be resolved through negotiations. The process of negotiation can be defined as “a mutual decision-making situation in which two or more persons make joint decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources”, a common and important form of social interaction (Bazerman & Neale, 1983; Neale & Bazerman, 1991 in Thompson, Peterson & Brodt, 1996).

Negotiations influence the way employees connect with each other and with their organization. Whether you are friends with your colleagues or not, disputes have be resolved in order to move on. What are the effects of different kinds of friendships or becoming acquainted with your colleagues on these negotiations? The possibilities for social connections among colleagues are often used by organizations to attract applicants (Franzen, & Hangartner, 2006; Rynes, & Barber, 1990). If employees feel happy due to the social

(8)

are friendships and familiarity among colleagues actually beneficial regarding conflict management and business performance?

In 1996, an attempt to research the effects of friendship on integrative and distributive bargaining was done by Thompson, Peterson and Brodt (1996). The outcomes of their research were the opposite of their expectations.

Based on the assumptions that friends would exchange more information than non-friends, expected was that friends would claim a larger share of the joint resources available in the negotiation (Thompson et al., 1996). On the contrary, teams of non-friends were the ones to reach better integrative agreements. Non-friends were more concerned about information sharing as well as more accurate in judging the given information (Thompson et al., 1996) than friends.

But how did these friends feel afterwards? Did they feel as good about the negotiation as the non-friends, worse, better? The remaining feelings after negotiations can also be of great importance for organizations.

Thompson et al. (1996) used friendship to divide the participants in their study. A remark on this is that there was no clear definition used of friendship. The participating friends knew each other for at least three months (Thompson et al., 1996) but still differed in their friendship intensity. A closer look to several studies around friendship shows that this concept is hard to grasp, and can indeed exist at several levels of intensity (Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Caroline, 1993; Sias & Cahill, 1998). Especially on the work floor, friendship can emerge and be interpreted differently than in private circumstances (Sias & Cahill, 1998).

The term friends can, just like friends, be interpreted in various ways. The non-friends used in the research (Thompson et al., 1996) were total strangers, but non-non-friends

(9)

could also have been acquaintances or close colleagues that do not classify their connection as being friends, but still are connected socially.

Using the term friendship in research about business negotiations seems very specific while at work there can be so many kinds of social relations between people. Researching friends that developed their friendships in private matters can lead to different outcomes than researching people that would define themselves as friends on the work floor. Therefore, findings of studies about business negotiations should reflect something that actually occurs in business life so that outcomes do not only add to theory but also bring something to practice. Thompson et al. (1996) shared some interesting findings, only they were not easy to take away into organizations. This raises the question of what would be a good measure for friendships and acquaintances on the work floor?

After the publication of the study of Thompson et al. (1996), Construal Level Theory emerged in literature. According to Construal Level Theory (known as CLT), objects or events can be represented in people’s mind at several levels (Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006). These levels of construal elicit different kinds of thinking about the same object. The higher the level of construal, the more abstract and distanced information is conceptualized; the general meaning of the event is the point of focus. On the contrary, low levels of construal conceptualize information about the event in a specific and concrete way, taken into account its uniqueness (Fujita et al., 2006).

The basic premise of CLT is based on psychological distance. This is, the more psychologically distant the event or object is, the more abstract it will be represented in the mind, at higher construal levels (Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007). Psychological distance can exist in four subcategories: temporal, spatial, hypothetical and social distance. They all

(10)

represent psychological distance in their own domain, respectively: time, space, social closeness and probability (Trope et al., 2007).

CLT could have been an explanation for the outcomes of Thompson et al.’s (1996) study. Their results could have been explained by social distance, eliciting lower levels of construal in negotiations of teams of friends and higher levels of construal in teams of non-friends.

Thompson et al. (1996) explored the effects of social connections on negotiations but lacked a good construct for actual possible connections and relations that occur in the workplace. Being able to use CLT as a theoretical explanation for distance between people, in this case social distance, this can be a good measure for capturing the range of friendships, acquaintances, and connections that can occur in the workplace.

These findings lead to the formulation of the main question that is answered in this thesis: What are the effects of social distance on business negotiations?

The current research will revise the idea of the study conducted by Thompson et al. (1996), using new measures so that findings can be applicable more broadly than when only using the outcomes of measuring the effects of friendship on negotiations. It will lead to the start of a theoretical framework where further research can build on, so that eventually the effects of different social ties on organizations and employees are mapped in a complete way.

This study will look into what aspects of negotiations are affected by differences in intensity of social ties. Because the objective as well as subjective outcomes of negotiations will be measured, a holistic view derives on what parts of an organization are affected when social networks change or grow.

(11)

The current research can serve as a base for organizations to map the impact of business negotiations between different socially connected employees (i.e. only the numbers are affected or also employees’ sentiments). Based on this, they can decide to what extent they wish to promote social connections or invest in a more professional culture.

This thesis starts with building a theoretical framework, which is discussed in chapter 2. It provides deeper understanding of the underlying theory where this study is based on. In chapter 3, the theoretical framework is presented as well as the argumentation that leads to the formulation of the hypotheses. After this, chapter 4 explains the methods used of gathering data and analyzing the outcomes. Chapter 5 presents the results of this analysis. Lastly, chapter 6 will explain what these findings mean and what they can add to theory as well as to practice. Also, recommendations for future research and limitations of the research are discussed. Chapter 7 shortly sums up what has been done in the current study.

(12)

2. Literature review

In this section, relevant existing literature is reviewed as foundation for the current research. Topics are explained by starting with business negotiations in general, following up with the effects that negotiations can cause on objective as well as subjective measures, where after role effects in business negotiations are discussed. The last paragraphs cover mental models that can affect behavior in negotiations, Construal Level theory, friendships in negotiations and finally, friendship and social distance are compared.

2.1 Business negotiations

Negotiations occur everywhere. Whenever people are not able to achieve their goal, negotiating takes place (Thompson, Wang & Gunia, 2010). When you were a kid you most probably negotiated about coming home later from birthday parties than your parents would want you to. In some countries negotiating prices in stores is day-to-day business. Not only in private matters, but also in business negotiations are usual matters. Disagreements are resolved with negotiations, mergers and acquisitions are settled through the process of negotiation, and new hires often negotiate about the agreements of their position.

Negotiations have several components. Look at the example of the job negotiation. Salary is an obvious part to discuss in the negotiation, but also holidays are negotiatable, and maybe even a lease car. Are both parties equally interested in these components? For every participating party in a negotiation, various aspects can be of different value. Also, how the distribution of resources would be seen as optimal is often different for opposing parties.

An obvious aspect people might think of firstly when negotiating comes up in their mind is: how much do I gain from this negotiation? This thought touches upon the distributive components of negotiations. The distributive part of a negotiation is about how the resources

(13)

available are divided amongst the negotiators (Thompson, et al., 2010). A distributive negotiation is characterized by negotiators that are not necessarily interested in the joint outcome of all negotiating parties together, but mostly in their own economic outcome.

Contrasting distributive components, the integrative part of a negotiation is approximately about the opposite of competition: cooperation. Integrative negotiators work together to make sure an optimal outcome for both parties is reached (Thompson, et al., 2010). If one would view a negotiation as a pie that can be divided amongst the negotiators but also still has to be baked, integrative components lead to enlargement of this pie: more resources (ingredients) for all parties. In an optimal integrative situation, none of the available resources will be left undistributed (Barry & Friedman, 1998): all ingredients are taken off the table and put in the pie. The distribution of these resources, or pieces, among the negotiators is again about the distributive part of the negotiation.

An example of an optimal agreement in negotiations is Pareto Optimality, named after the Italian economist Pareto. A Pareto Optimal situation is a situation where the outcome of the negotiation cannot be improved anymore without hurting any of the parties’ outcomes (Thompson et al., 2010).

2.2 Effects of negotiations

In negotiations, ‘the pie’ can be enlarged and divided in many ways. Usually, decisions about the distributive and integrative components lead to the allocation of the resources discussed: a settlement is reached. For long, this settlement, and its distribution, was seen as the main measure to decide whether or not a negotiation succeeded its objective (Curhan, Elfenbein & Xu, 2006). Starting in the late 1970s, voices emerged stating that next to objective behavioral outcomes, social psychological measures of negotiations deserved attention (Curhan et al.,

(14)

2006). Participating in a negotiation can have effects on objective measures, but also on subjective measures such as feelings.

2.4.1 Objective measures

In conflicting situations, negotiations are the opportunity for solving the problem (Thompson et al., 2010). The negotiation process is about how negotiations are performed and how interactions between parties occur. If the negotiation process eventually leads to a mutual agreement, the negotiation outcome is the product of the bargaining situation (Thompson, 1990).

The most obvious objective measure of a negotiation is the outcome, often expressed in economic or numerical terms (Agndal, 2007). In integrative negotiations, this numerical outcome can differ between negotiators (or teams) depending on their social behavior. Other examples of objective measures are efficiency, such as settlement time, or whether the negotiation ends in an agreement at all (Agndal, 2007).

Objective outcomes are important for determining the value that is created in the negotiation. It can reflect very concrete what the total economic gain was in a negotiation and how this total gain is divided amongst parties, how long it took to reach a settlement, and so on. Still, objective measures are not to only valuable source of information available in negotiations.

2.4.2 Subjective measures

During the negotiation process, other, not objectively measurable events occur as well: subjective measures of negotiations (Agndal, 2007). These psychological measures can add to the understanding of the success of a negotiation. For many years, subjective measures were

(15)

not taken into account, while they can actually provide much useful information (Curhan, Elfenbein & Xu, 2006).

Social imprints caused by negotiations are a valuable pool of information that can be measured to understand the negotiators’ social worlds (Thompson, 1990). The way people perceive a situation holds information that can be helpful for understanding the negotiation and its outcomes on a different level than objective outcomes offer. The most important elements in social perception of negotiations are found to be the perception of the opponent, of the self, and of the bargaining situation (Thompson & Hastie, 1990 in Thompson, 1990).

Perceptions of the opponent can be about inferences that are made about the other party, or if the opponent can be trusted (Thompson, 1990). Perceptions of the self can be any judgment of the self, such as fairness or cooperativeness. Perceptions of the bargaining situation reflect how a person experiences the process and the outcome, its fairness, expectations of the negotiator and other comparable constructs (Thompson, 1990).

There have been many attempts to incorporate social factors in studies about negotiations but until 2006, they were never merged into a framework all together. So until Curhan, Elfenbein & Xu (2006) created the Subjective Value Inventory, studies on subjective value could not be compared to one another in an optimal way. The Subjective Value Inventory (from now on SVI) consolidates all social, subjective factors within negotiations into a questionnaire that can be filled in by negotiators after the bargaining process. The SVI measures the effects of the negotiation in a social psychological way.

Through research and analysis of the three important components in the social perception of negotiations as mentioned above, a survey was created that can be used to measure subjective values in negotiations. The end product includes four categories in total, ending up with the following constructs that are measured by the SVI: feelings about the

(16)

instrumental outcome, feelings about the self, feelings about the process and feelings about the relationship with the counterpart.

2.3 Role effects in negotiations

Due to differing referent points, the mindset of negotiators can affect their behavior within a negotiation and herewith the outcome (Neale & Bazerman, 1992). Well-known effects within negotiations that elicit changing behavior due to different referent points are role effects. Role effects refer to the role that a person occupies within the negotiation: either buyer or seller.

Buyer and seller effects cause different mindsets. Buyers are usually the ones that try to capture the asset by spending as little as possible on it (Zerres, Hüffmeier, Freund, Backhaus & Hertel, 2013). On the other hand, sellers will aim at vending the asset and receiving as much as possible for it (Zerres et al., 2013). These two polarized mindsets consequently reveal different preferences for negotiation strategies. Because buyers have to pay at the end of the negotiation, they often are slightly stubborn and less open for doing concessions (Schei, Rognes, & Mykland, 2006). Sellers on the other hand, the ones that receive the monetary outcome at the end of the negotiation, are more persuasive towards their buyer and very active in obtaining information from the other party (Zerres et al., 2013).

Research on role effects has covered many subjects, including the impact that different roles have on negotiations. Various literature states that characteristics of the seller are more important than characteristics of the buyer when it comes to the outcome and process of the negotiation (e.g. Schei et al., 2006). Others found that buyers structurally outperform sellers in terms of negotiated price (Van Poucke & Buelens, 2002).

(17)

2.4 Mental models in negotiations

Being a buyer or a seller affects the mindset a negotiator adopts. In general, the mindset that people adopt will guide their decisions. Within negotiations, someone’s mindset can also be influenced by past experiences or expectations (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003), and organizes people’s way of thinking.

The mindset and mental model people use in negotiations can affect the outcome of the negotiation. When looking at group negotiations, shared mental models can fuel better outcomes than when participants do not share their mental models (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Team mental models, when a team shares the same mental model (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), can encourage trust and thereby group cohesion. When team mental models are active, participants are likely to put in high effort, display risk-taking behavior and guide group decision-making, herewith enhancing effectiveness (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994).

Optimal settlements are reached more often when mental models of team members are similar (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003). Also, understanding the pay off structure of integrative negotiations contributes to reaching optimal settlements (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003).

Protective behavior is something that often occurs in negotiations, negotiators guarding only their own interests instead of taking into account what the opposite party wants (or needs) as well. In distributive negotiations this behavior is not peculiar, since here the issue is about fixed sums of resources that have to be allocated among parties (Barry & Friedman, 1998). Integrative negotiations on the other hand, will not benefit from such protective behavior.

(18)

benefits for both parties. Similar mental models between and among negotiators can fuel this understanding.

2.5 Construal Level Theory

Besides a similar mindset, context can also have effects on human behavior, affecting negotiation outcomes. There are many theories explaining the effects of context on human behavior, Construal Level Theory is one of them. As it was shortly discussed in the introduction, the theory is explained more detailed below.

Construal Level Theory (from now on CLT) is based on the idea that an event can be mentally construed at several levels. The higher the level of construal active in one’s mind, the more abstract available information is conceptualized (Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006). The lower the level of construal, the more concrete and specific one’s evaluation and judgment is.

Levels of construal can display effects on behavioral tendencies. In negotiations, the higher the construal level, the more people are likely to focus on similarities instead of dissimilarities between one another (Giacomantonio, De Dreu & Mannetti, 2010). Also, high construal levels create a focus on central features of negotiations (or objects), leading people to see the bigger picture of the situation. Low levels of construal on the contrary, cause people to think detailed and incidental about events or objects, seeing them as specific and unique (Fujita et al., 2006).

Imagine a TV commercial about interior design. Someone with high construal levels active, perhaps a person that moved to a new home a few years ago, links the advertisement to enjoying the house you live in and being happy. This person sees the broad and overall message that is spread by the commercial. If someone else just bought a house two days ago, the same advertisement elicits lower construal levels. This person might be comparing the

(19)

house in the commercial with how he/she wants the interior to be, connecting more concrete, detailed and unique thoughts to the object.

When an object or event feels distant, people cannot experience it directly and lack context. This leads to high construal levels in one’s mind (Giacomantonio et al., 2010). On the other hand, when low levels of construal are active in someone’s representation, an event or object can be placed into (detailed) context and linked to personal experience. The item or event will feel much closer. This closeness can manifest itself in several ways, based on psychological distance.

2.5.1 Psychological distance

When an object or event is construed at a high level, the person likely feels less close than when thinking of a subject with lower construal levels active. The level of mental construal at play in one’s mind originates in the psychological distance he or she experiences, this can exist in four categories.

Temporal, spatial, hypothetical and social distances all represent psychological distance in a certain way (Liberman, Trope & Stephan, 2007). Respectively, these different dimensions are about distance in time, in space, in terms of how likely a situation or event is to occur and about how close or familiar one feels about the event or the people involved in it. When an event is far ahead in time, construal levels are high compared to an event that is going to happen tomorrow (temporally close): thinking of the latter will evoke low construal levels. The same effect occurs in the other dimensions of psychological distance. The further away in psychological distance an event occurs, the higher the levels of construal active in one’s mind, the less detailed and concrete, yet the more abstract and global the event is thought of. The other way around, if an event occurs psychologically close, low construal

(20)

levels are active. The event is represented in a detailed and unique way and can be linked to personal experience.

2.5.2 Social distance

As previously mentioned, all forms of psychological distance influence construal levels in the same way. Social distance is about how close people feel to an event or to one another, or if they are able to relate. This can be about being friends or not, but also about group membership (Giacomantonio et al., 2010) or the feeling of similarity or identification with another person (Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007).

Thinking of an event or someone that is socially distanced will draw out high construal levels. People that are socially close to the event or object will likely think more specific and less broadly about it, using low levels of construal to represent the situation in their minds. Social distance is the independent variable of the current study.

2.5.3 Other forms of psychological distance and negotiations

Research on the effects of spatial distance and temporal distance on negotiations has been done by several academics (Henderson, 2010; Henderson, Trope & Carnevale, 2006). Overall, when psychological distance in negotiations is high, thoughts are global and the focus lies on interests: the overarching features of the negotiation (Giacomantonio et al., 2010). When psychological distance is low, low construal levels’ activity creates a focus on issues (Giacomantonio et al., 2010). Here economic and concrete factors are taken into account and negotiators have a narrow focus.

These general effects of psychological distance are indeed confirmed by the research that was done on spatial and temporal distance.

(21)

Due to the technological changes within business, long distance negotiations and meetings are taking place more and more often. Based on CLT, Henderson (2010) tested the effects of spatial distance on negotiations by adjusting the experienced distance between negotiators. His findings are in line with predictions: large amounts of experienced distance between negotiators lead to more integrative agreements than when experienced spatial distance was close (Henderson, 2010).

Due to the higher levels of mental construal adopted when a negotiation is temporally distant, negotiations taking place in different time perspectives evoke the same kind of thinking (Henderson et al., 2006). Protective behavior, piecemeal focus and single-issue considerations are displayed when negotiations take place temporally close (Henderson et al., 2006). This behavior was not found for temporally distanced negotiations.

2.6 Friendship in negotiations

In 1996, Thompson, Peterson & Brodt researched team versus solo negotiations, but also the role of friendship within negotiations. They found that having at least one team in a negotiation nourished integrative agreements, compared to having only solo negotiators at the table (Thompson, Peterson & Brodt, 1996).

Next to the outcomes about solo negotiations versus team negotiations, their research offered interesting insights about friendships in negotiations. Based on the literature available at that time, their prediction was that friends would reach better integrative outcomes in negotiations, because friends would coordinate their behavior more than non-friends (Thompson et al., 1996). What they found was the opposite: non-friends were able to reach more integrative outcomes than friends. Non-friends focus more on understanding the issues at stake within a negotiation than friends (Thompson et al., 1996).

(22)

The differentiating aspect between the teams of friends and non-friends was found to be cohesiveness(Thompson et al., 1996). Before negotiations started, non-friends teams were less cohesive than friends, and had lower levels of trust and understanding amongst individuals. During the negotiation process, the levels of trust and understanding between friends and non-friends almost reached equal heights, except for cohesion (Thompson et al., 1996).

Cohesion lagged in increase compared to trust and understanding. This lagging was explained by the different meaning that friends and non-friends attribute the construct, as well as to trust and understanding (Thompson et al., 1996). Cohesion among non-friends may be the understanding of the situation and agreement on issues, whereas for friends it can refer to supporting each other and sticking together (Thompson et al., 1996). These different interpretations divide the two groups respectively into either information focused or relationship focused; both based on their own understanding of cohesiveness.

2.6.1 Friendship

Thompson et al. (1996) decided to research the effects of friendship on negotiations. Their research posts some interesting outcomes; only these are not likely to be taken into practice. Friendship has to be reviewed in order to see why a different construct would fit research about negotiations in a business context better.

Thompson et al. (1996) did not clearly define friendship in their research. The participants they used were people that were friends for a minimum of three months, without a set maximum for this duration. Also, the participants in their study differed in the (experienced) intensity of their friendships. Literature about friendship points out that it is a concept that is hard to define.

(23)

Approaching friendship from a psychiatric viewpoint, Caroline (1993) shed light on the inconsistency in definitions of friendship, especially becauseit is a meaningful and significant human activity (Caroline, 1993). Through the concept analysis she conducted, she identified and described adult dyadic friendships known as close or best friends, as an interpersonal relationship. The outcome: “Close friendship has been defined as a voluntary, primary, and enduring relationship without clear legal or social norms that can be engaged in through most of the life span. Although having some limits, it is a relationship with a reciprocal quality of exchange that includes intense intimacy and love” (Caroline, 1993, p. 241 - 242).

Many aspects in this definition are recognizable, only not necessarily as being highly present in the workplace. Close colleagues can feel familiar, but sharing intimacy and love with someone like this can still be unthinkable. Besides, it can be questioned if friendships departing in a work environment are as enduring as privately commenced friendships. When using friendship that is defined as above, research outcomes might not be easily taken onto the workplace, where friendships might have different characteristics.

Therefore, it is interesting to look at how it does work when friends enter the workplace together. Because two decades ago social context in which relationships are embedded were fairly ignored in existing literature, Bridge & Baxter (1992) examined blended friendships on the work floor. These friendships were defined as “close friends who are embedded in the same work environment, from a relational dialectics perspective” (Bridge & Baxter, 1992, p. 200). The results of their study show that there is higher tension between friends when organizations are highly formal, and more tension is experienced by less close friends. Their research divided friendship into three categories: good friends, very good friends and best friends.

(24)

As Caroline (1993) remarked as well, this research also implies that friendship is a concept hard to grasp in one manifestation but that it can exist at many levels. Also, bringing friendships that were created in private matters onto the work floor creates a tension (Bridge & Baxter, 1992) that might not exist between friends whose relationship emerged on the work floor itself, as they were never used to being connected only privately.

In response to the need for research on friendships that do commence on the work floor, Sias & Cahill (1998) researched the development of workplace friendships. Three transitions were found that occur in evolving co-workers relationships: from co-worker/acquaintance to friend (1), from friend to close friend (2) and from close friend to almost best friend (3). The first transition primarily occurred through working together in close proximity, the sharing of common ground and socializing outside of the organization. The second transition was perceived to be associated with problems in one’s personal and work experience. The third transition occurred through passage of time and was associated with work related problems and life-events (Sias & Cahill, 1998). The closer the relationship between co-workers, the less superficial and cautious their communication becomes, the broader their communication will be as well as more intimate (Sias & Cahill, 1998).

Once again, these findings show that measuring friendship purely based on how long people know each other might not be specific enough to take outcomes and implications for social relations onto the workplace or into general practice at all. How friendships begin, where this commencement occurs, and through which processes they emerge, all affect how these ‘friends’ behave in and experience negotiations.

(25)

2.7 Friendship vs. social distance

Using friendship in negotiations without defining it clearly or without bounding the kind of friendship used, does not create a useful foundation for taking research findings into practice and onto the actual work floor.

In the workplace, relationships can have various manifestations. Colleagues can be close and familiar with each other without defining their relationship as actual friends. Also, teams of people cannot all be friends at the same level, or all share the same history of becoming friends. Creating friendships on the work floor can occur via different routes and stages, affecting the intensity, cautiousness and broadness of the communication between co-workers (Sias & Cahill, 1998).

Having CLT available to use for explaining behavior in negotiations, social distance would be a better measure to use in negotiation research. Social distance can refer to friends, to the similarity of an individual compared to oneself (Trope, Liberman & Wakslak, 2007), to people that became acquainted through work but not necessarily define their closeness as friendship, and so on. This concept can grasp a broader range of social relationships that do occur on the work floor, creating opportunity to actually take research findings actually into practice.

The literature discussed above serves as a base for the following section, which will build on the previously presented constructs to explain the theoretical framework of this study and to introduce the hypotheses that are tested.

(26)

3. Theoretical framework

The following section introduces the hypotheses that are central to this research and explains the line of reasoning where these expectations are built on. The theoretical framework is introduced, showing the all hypotheses that are tested in this research as well as their interconnectedness.

3.1 Research question and conceptual framework

To main goal of the current research is answering the overall research question: What are the effects of social distance on business negotiations?

In order to answer this question, six hypotheses are tested that all shed light on a different outcome or effect of the negotiation; both objective and subjective measures are tested. The results of all these sub measures can eventually be taken all together in order to draw conclusions about the effects of social distance on business negotiations from several viewpoints.

The total of all hypotheses that are tested is presented in the conceptual framework below:

(27)

3.2 Numerical outcomes of the negotiation

As discussed previously, the numerical outcome of a negotiation has long been seen as the most important measure to assess if a negotiation succeeded its objective (Curhan et al., 2006). Nowadays, different, subjective measures have proven to be of great importance as well. The recognition of the importance of subjective measures does not rule out the need for objective measures. Measuring both will reap the most holistic benefits for analysis. Therefore, objective measures are tested in Hypothesis 1 and 2.

3.2.1 Joint gain

The most obvious measure for negotiation’s success is the outcome that is reached between parties. Due to the different focuses elicited by either high or low levels of construal, negotiators construing the situation on high levels tend to reach better outcomes (Giacomantonio et al., 2010). A focus on primary features, interests (Giacomantonio et al., 2010) and seeing the bigger picture (Henderson et al., 2006), lead to construing the situation or the event on high levels. Focusing on secondary features, issues (Giacomantonio et al., 2010), and thinking in piecemeal instead of holistic solutions (Henderson et al., 2006), cause people to construe situations on low levels. Because focuses evoked by high levels of construal (often) lead to joint gain and win-win situations (Giacomantonio et al., 2010), the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1: High levels of social distance lead to higher joint outcomes in negotiations than the outcomes of negotiations where social distance amongst negotiators is low.

(28)

3.2.2 Individual gain

Next to the joint outcome of two negotiators, every party in a negotiation also takes care of his or her own part within the settlement. Individual gain is an interesting distribution to analyze between two parties in a negotiation. For instance, it can be that the joint gain of a negotiation reflects that it has been a fertile process but the individual gains of both parties are not at all evenly distributed. Looking at those differences will give insights on new and different outcomes. This is where buyer and seller effects often come into play.

Studies about buyer seller differences show that buyers and sellers do experience negotiations differently. Research consistently shows that the characteristics of sellers are more important for the process and outcomes of negotiations than the characteristics of buyers (Schei et al., 2006). Also, the way buyers’ minds are set differs from the mindset that sellers adopt during negotiations, both roles frame the problem they face in a different way (Schei et al., 2006). Sellers are likely to be more proactive because they are the ones getting paid when the deal is done (Schei et al., 2006). Buyers however, behave in a more passive way and are less likely to initiate information sharing (Schei et al., 2006; Zerres et al., 2013).

The mindset that buyers and sellers adopt based on the role they are appointed to, affect negotiations (Neale & Bazerman, 1992; Schei et al., 2006; Zerres et al., 2013). In most negotiations it is clearly stated which party is the buyer and which party is the seller. In the case that is used in the current research, this situation does not apply because it is a negotiation between a recruiter and a job candidate. These roles can however be compared to a buyer seller scenario.

Buyers do not feel the need to acquire as much information as possible during a negotiation. In order to be able to assess the offer they receive in a realistic way they usually consult their own preferences and values (Schei et al., 2006). Sellers have to persuade buyers to accept the offer they present, they can reinforce the improvement of joint outcomes for

(29)

both parties through information sharing, herewith enlarging the possibility of an offer to get accepted by the buyer (Schei et al., 2006).

During a job interview, both parties can be divided into either buyer or seller. Because the recruiter will be the one sending out the offer when a candidate seems eligible for the position that is available, the recruiter can be considered as being the seller. Building on this, logically the job candidate will be the buyer. This person has to accept the offer that is made.

Although the expected behavior of buyers and sellers can be taken away from existing theory into a different negotiation formats such as the job negotiation used here, it does not necessarily mean the same effects will be displayed. The high construal levels in dyads of socially distanced negotiators evoke a focus on the overall situation, causing piecemeal thoughts to be left at home (Giacomantonio et al., 2010; Henderson, 2010; Henderson et al., 2006). A more cooperative mindset is at play in socially distanced dyads compared to socially close dyads. Therefore, compared to socially close dyads, in distanced dyads, it is less likely that one party will claim a significantly greater share of the total pie than the other. The more individualistic mindset that socially close dyads have due to the low construal levels active, leads to focus on dissimilarities between one another (Giacomantonio, De Dreu & Mannetti, 2010) and cause incidental thinking (Fujita et al., 2006). These dyads have a higher likelihood of closing a deal with a great difference between the shares of the pie for each party. The second hypothesis is formed:

Hypothesis 2: Negotiations between socially distant negotiators result in lower differences in achieved individual economic gain than negotiations between socially close negotiators.

(30)

3.3 Psychological outcomes of the negotiation

In order to approach negotiations from several angles to see where they might affect organizations, social imprints of negotiations are also researched. Insights into people’s mind and sentiments can offer more information than only looking at the objective outcomes of negations. The following paragraphs introduce the hypotheses that cover the psychological outcomes of the negotiation, mostly based on the Subjective Value Inventory (Curhan et al., 2006) that is used for this experiment.

3.3.1 Feelings about the instrumental outcome

It would be easy to assume that the higher instrumental outcome of a negotiation is, the more satisfied participating negotiators are. Research has shown that this is not necessarily always the case.

The judgment of the outcome of an event is often affected by the difference between the actual outcome and the outcome that was expected beforehand, or by the difference between one’s own outcome and the outcomes of others (Medvec, Madey & Gilovich, 1995). Also, evaluations can be influenced by the comparison of the actual outcome with the imagined outcome that someone creates in his or her mind (Medvec et al., 1995).

After the closure of an agreement, individuals’ evaluations of success are affected by counterfactual thinking (Galinsky, Seiden, Kim & Medvec, 2002). Counterfactual thinking is about the ‘what if’ thoughts that occur after an event took place. It is often activated when a situation nearly happened, or when the outcomes of an agreement turn out to be less positive than expected (Galinsky, Seiden et al., 2002).

How an agreement is evaluated can also be affected by the focus of the negotiator. Even though people aim at achieving the goal they set, it can still feel as if they did not achieve their actual desires or dreams (Galinsky, Mussweiler & Medvec, 2002). Setting goals

(31)

can also work against you; evaluations depend on where the actual outcome is compared with (Galinsky, Mussweiler & Medvec, 2002). Research found that setting high goals will increase negotiators’ performance, but setting high standards will decrease one’s satisfaction (Galinsky, Mussweiler & Medvec 2002). For instance, focusing on target price (the most preferred, ideal outcome in a negotiation) will lead to less satisfaction than focusing on a minimum acceptable settlement.

The current study does not differentiate on goal setting between treatments. All negotiators received the same goal during the explanation of the experiment: do your best. Also, on the instruction papers for both roles it was stated that participants had to reach an agreement that is best for them and the more points earned, the better. The only variable that was adjusted is social distance.

Because no one is motivated to focus differently or on a higher goal (such as target price) than the other party, it is not likely that participants are affected by various focuses. The overall prediction in this study is that socially distanced dyads will reach better integrative agreements as well as higher joint gain compared to socially close dyads. Because participants can still be affected by counterfactual ‘what might have been’ thoughts that occur when the outcome turns out more negatively than expected (Galinsky, Seiden et al., 2002; Medvec et al., 1995), which is predicted for socially close dyads, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 3: High levels of social distance in a negotiation lead to better feelings about instrumental outcomes of the negotiation than in negotiations where social distance is low.

(32)

3.3.2 Feelings about the self

As introduced before, research on subjective value found that it is not always the case that the better the outcome of a negotiation, the better people feel. How people view their selves can be influenced by various factors, including whom they choose to compare their selves with (Galinsky, Mussweiler & Medvec, 2002; Medvec et al., 1995).

In negotiations, social connectedness can expand one’s motivation to achieve goals. Motivation is often drawn from a sense of belonging (Walton, Cohen, Cwir, & Spencer, 2012). In this study, the socially close dyads experience a higher sense of belonging compared to the negotiators that share high social distance levels, since they already know their counterpart (very well).

Social inclusion goes hand in hand with a sense of belonging. There is a correlation between perceived social inclusion and exclusion, and self-esteem feelings (Leary, Tambor,

Terdal & Downs, 1995). Negotiators’ self-esteem is affected by expectations of the result of social inclusion (Leary et al., 1995), which affects the two treatment groups in the current

research. When the expected result of the negotiation is social inclusion, this concerns the socially close negotiators; self-esteem will be higher compared to the negotiators with high social distance levels (Leary et al., 1995). When the result of the negotiation is not necessarily expected to end up in social inclusion, which is the case in the socially distanced dyads, the level of self-esteem of negotiators will be lower compared to the socially close dyads.

Levels of self-esteem can affect post negotiation judgments; high self-esteem will lead to better outcome evaluations (Kramer, Newton & Pommerenke, 1993). High levels of self-esteem also distort information in a self-enhancing direction much more compared to low levels of self-esteem (Kramer et al., 1993). High self-esteem buffers negotiators against negative emotions such as stress, promoting positive affect (Leary et al., 1995).

(33)

Since socially close negotiators have more self-esteem due to a sense of belonging and social inclusion, they will evaluate the self in a more positive way than socially distanced dyads. Confidence, especially overconfidence can lead to overestimation of the self (Moore & Healy, 2008). The fourth hypothesis is composed below:

Hypothesis 4: Low levels of social distance lead to higher evaluations of the self after the negotiation than the evaluations of negotiators where social distance is high.

3.3.3 Feelings about the process

The evaluation of a negotiation depends on many factors other than only the objective terms of the settlement, post negotiation evaluations can be disconnected from the economic gain of the deal (Galinsky, Mussweiler & Medvec, 2002). Evaluating the negotiation process touches upon a different part of the negotiation than the objective, numerical agreement.

The different construal levels activated in socially close and socially distanced dyads influence the focus of participants on either primary or secondary features (Giacomantonio et al., 2010). In socially close dyads, negotiators are likely to display protective behavior, piecemeal focus and single-issue considerations (Henderson, Trope & Carnevale, 2006). Due to this behavior it is less likely that socially close dyads reach optimal settlements (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003), since the process of reaching an agreement will develop itself in a less gradual and optimal way. As the difference in behavior and cooperation nourish the negotiation process in both treatments differently, negotiators’ sentiments on the process will likely be affected. The following hypothesis is formulated:

(34)

3.3.4 Relations between counterparts

In socially close dyads, negotiators are likely to display protective behavior, piecemeal focus and single-issue considerations (Henderson, Trope & Carnevale, 2006). Acting in such a way, implies that there is less trust amongst the negotiators, while trust is an element critical for success in all kinds of relationships (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Socially distanced dyads will experience more trust, whereas socially close dyads are likely to have higher levels of distrust amongst negotiators.

Relationships that are based on trust can be characterized by initiative and assurance, whereas relationships based on distrust often show vigilance and skepticism (Lewicki, McAllister & Bies, 1998). These characteristics are likely to be evaluated in a respectively positive or negative way. Based on this, the last hypotheses is formulated below:

Hypothesis 6: High levels of social distance lead to better feelings about the relationship with the counterpart in the negotiation than in negotiations where social distance is low.

(35)

4. Method

The following section explains how the experiment is set up. It discusses the measures that are used in this research, introducing the dependent and independent variables. It will describe the data collection process and introduces the data analyses that are used to find answers.

4.1 Measures

The research question in this study is answered through analysis of several measures. The main effect that is researched holds an independent and dependent variable. The dependent variable is split up in different sub measures to be taken together at the end in order to draw the overall conclusion of the study. They are listed below.

Independent variable: the level of social distance.

Dependent variable: business negotiations’ outcomes, measured through objective as well as

subjective measures.

The independent variable in this study, the level of social distance, is either low or high (measured on a 7-point scale). No values that lie in between are measured as a separate group because this research only is the start of a framework that will eventually touch upon a broad range of possible social connections that can be found in the workplace. Because of limited time and resources, analyzing all possible connections of this 7-point scale and gathering participants for all these groups is not in scope.

The dependent variable, negotiation outcomes, is split up in two main parts: objective outcomes and subjective outcomes. The objective outcomes that are measured are joint gain and individual gain. Both will result in a number that can vary between -8400 and 13200 for

(36)

individuals and -3600 and 13200 for the dyad in total. The individual gain as well as the joint outcome will be documented to measure Hypothesis 1 and 2.

The subjective outcomes that are measured are coming from the Subjective Value Inventory (Curhan et al., 2006) that was already introduced in section 2.4.2. Feelings about the instrumental outcome, the self, the process and the relationship with the counterpart are all measured in a questionnaire that is filled out after the negotiation, reflecting these measures on a 7-point scale.

In order to ensure that the questions asked in Dutch examined the constructs of the SVI in the same way as intended, the original questionnaire was translated from English into Dutch. After this, an objective, third person translated it back into English. The two English versions were compared in order to see if they corresponded. Since they did, the Dutch version was ready for usage.

This questionnaire also includes geographical questions such as age, gender and occupation and is used to measure the social imprints of the negotiation for Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6. The total questionnaire is attached in the appendix (Appendix 2); it also asks participants about their experience in negotiating and if they ever participated in training about negotiations (also on a 7-point scale). This to make sure negotiators start with a counterpart that has round the same level of experience, and very experienced negotiators can be filtered out of the dataset.

By measuring the individual and joint numerical outcomes as well as the SVI outcomes (Curhan et al., 2006), both data about the objective outcomes as well as perceptions of the negotiations are recorded. This will make the analysis more holistic, and heightens the validity of the study.

(37)

4.1.1 Treatments

The research question is answered through analysis of negotiations between dyads of people. The difference of the independent variable will decide the treatment participants are in.

There are two treatments representing social distance on two extremes. There is one treatment where social distance is small and one where social distance is large: the social closeness treatment and the social distance treatment. Socially distanced people are totally unfamiliar with each other; they have (almost) never seen each other before. Participants in the social closeness treatment know each other already. To which extent the people in each treatment know each other, is tested before they enter the negotiation (see Appendix 6). This way cases that are too close to the other side of the social distance axe (e.g. they have met the person several times, briefly) can be excluded. The treatments are listed below in table 1 and visualized in figure 2.

Because the research tests the difference effects of high and low social distances in negotiations, there is no baseline treatment. This because in any negotiation, there will be a certain level of social distance; it cannot be removed out of the equation.

Table 1. Different treatments of social distance

Treatment 1 Treatment 2

Negotiations are held in dyads of two

socially close people Negotiations are held in dyads of two socially distanced people

(38)

4.2 Research design

The negotiations in this research are done in dyads: two people negotiate with one another. This is done because group negotiations are not in scope in this experiment. The focus lies solely on the effects of social distance on dyadic negotiations; only the effects of altering social distance are tested.

The experiment that is done is a controlled experiment. Subjects are aware of their participation. Every dyad encounters the same negotiation task, including the same time limit to reach an agreement as well as the same amount of explanation about the experiment. This awareness and equal treatment for all participants ensures that only the level of social distance is adjusted within the treatment by being either socially close or socially distanced; everything else is and stays the same.

4.3 Data collection

In order to obtain data, participants had to be gathered. For this, promotion material was created (see Appendix 7) including prices that participants could win when participating, based on reaching the best negotiation outcome. The prices were used as a motivator to gather people, because there was no option to offer participants a monetary reward due to lack of academic studies conducted at the right time by the university. Having these prices available helped people to trigger their motivation to participate as well as to increase the probability for participants to actually participate in the experiment displaying realistic behavior. The prices were handed out to the best negotiators, so doing your best could be rewarded at the end.

Eventually, the data collection was performed between 12and 31 May 2016. The first group that participated was mostly students, which were approached in and around the area of the University of Amsterdam. Because these data gathering actions did not provide enough

(39)

participants for the study to be valid yet, the rest of the dataset was gathered in the office of a regional government in the Netherlands, including socially close ties of the people who are employed there.

4.3.1 Sample

The final sample included 82 people (N = 82), merging into 41 dyads. 21 of these were in treatment 1: socially close, 20 of these dyads were in treatment 2: socially distanced. The age range of the participants varied between 17 and 71 years old (mean age: 33 years, SD = 15.05 years), distributed as 30% male (N = 25) and 70% female (N = 57) participants. Due to this uneven distribution, the two experimental conditions overall included 10% male dyads, 41% mixed gender dyads and 49% female dyads.

4.3.2 Negotiation task

All participants encountered the same negotiation task, which was about a new job. The negotiation task was integrative, including some distributive components. This to make sure situations were tested where the potential for win-win and joint gain from the negotiation exists (Barry & Friedman, 1998), but also individual gain and distributive outcomes can be measured. One of the parties received instructions about the recruiter role, the other party received instructions about the candidate role. Both had their own role specific pay-off schedule that was communicated not to be shared with the counterpart.

The negotiation included eight issues with every issue having 5 options to choose from. The negotiation was comparable to tasks used in other researches (cf. Neale, 1997), the pay off structure as well. In every issue there were opportunities for reaching the optimal integrative agreement, sometimes distributed in the same way for both parties, sometimes

(40)

4.3.3 Procedure

When people decided to participate in the experiment, they firstly were matched to a second participant and filled out the extent to which they were familiar with the other party, reflecting the level of social distance between them. This was also measured at a 7-point scale. They were randomly assigned to one of the roles in the negotiation: recruiter or candidate. When they received their role including all needed documents, the experiment was explained and both parties were separated and instructed to read through their personal information sheet about the negotiation and ask possible arising questions. Before the negotiation started, participants were told (as was also stated on the information sheet) that the time limit for them reaching an agreement was 30 minutes. A timer was set to control this. Also, they were told that reaching no agreement would result in zero gain for both parties.

If participants did not come to an agreement after 25 minutes, they were warned that there were only 5 minutes left to reach this. Most of the dyads were rounding up their agreement around this time. After a dyad was done negotiating, they received the final agreement paper (‘Eindovereenkomst’, see Appendix 5) and filled it in including their signature, which represented their approval.

The last step in participating was filling in the questionnaire after the negotiation was finished. The questionnaire was handed out to both parties and once again they were separated to fill in their questions without discussing with one another. Once the questionnaire was filled in, participants were done and informed that the winners of the prices as well as the outcomes of the study were going to be announced via email (their was an opportunity to leave an email address at the end of the questionnaire, see Appendix 2).

(41)

4.5 Data analysis

Analyzing the results of the negotiations was done through quantitative analysis. Different statistical techniques are used, as not all variables are of the same sort. The economic gain (either joint or individual) of the negotiation is numerical, which requires different analyses than the outcomes of the questionnaire, which are ordinal.

As a start, general steps were undertaken such as recoding counter indicative items and computing variables. After this, the numerical outcomes of the negotiation are tested with independent sample T tests. The outcomes of the questionnaire, the subjective measures, are analyzed using ANOVA.

(42)

5. Results

Through quantitative analysis, the data received from the negotiations is used to either accept or reject the hypotheses researched in this study. The steps and analyses that lead to these outcomes are presented in the section below, displaying the outcomes of the study.

5.1 Numerical outcomes

Hypotheses 1 and 2 both include predictions about the numerical outcome of the negotiation. To test these hypotheses, a dataset was created with all numerical outcomes of the dyads together. The social distance between participants was measured on a 7-point scale, so each party in every dyad could have circled 1 up to 7 in the questionnaire. In order to make two groups out of these 7 possible answers, firstly the averages were calculated. 1 was circled if the participants had never ever seen each other before, 7 was circled when a person was one of the closest ties in one’s network. For the socially distanced group, the average of answers was 1.2 on the 7-point scale. The socially close group had an average answer of 6.6 out of 7. It was decided to code all socially close ties as 0 and all socially distanced ties as 1.

Now these two groups could be compared. For Hypothesis 1, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the numerical outcome of the socially close dyads with the numerical outcome of the socially distanced dyads. The t-test was used because there are only two different socially distanced groups and these are not related to one another. Also, running ANOVA analysis, another quantitative method to compare group means, was not possible for this comparison because it includes a dependent variable that is numerical. ANOVA analysis of variance can only be done for categorical data.

(43)

Hypothesis 1 predicted that high levels of social distance within dyads would result in higher joint outcomes than in dyads that are socially close. The outcomes of the independent sample t-test are visible in the table below.

Table 2. Comparison of joint gain by social distance

Social distance n Mean SD t df p 95% Confidence Interval Close 21 5247.62 2197.18 Distanced 20 7990.00 1597.99 Total 41 -4.55 39 .000 -3961.24 -1523.52

As predicted, and presented in table X, the results of the independent sample t test indicate a significant difference in joint gain in negotiations between dyads that were socially close (M = 5247.62, SD = 2197.18, N = 21) and dyads that were socially distanced (M = 7990.00, SD = 1597.99, N = 20), t (39) = -4.55, p = 0.000, two-tailed. These results suggest that social distance does have an effect on the joint outcome of a negotiation. Specifically, the results propose that when people are socially distanced from one another in dyadic negotiations, they reach better outcomes than dyads with very low social distance (socially close dyads). Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Hypothesis 2 was analyzed the same as hypothesis 1, by using an independent sample t-test. It predicted that dyads with high levels of social distance display lower differences in individual gain than dyads that are socially close. The difference between the recruiter and candidate within the socially close negotiation were compared to the difference between the two parties

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

As a result, we know little about the underlying processes that might account for the effects of experience (and advice). A second goal of our research was thus to explore

The list suggests an expansion of the conference to three kinds of tracks, each with their own evaluation criteria: technical solutions to be evaluated on novelty and

Especially (with a focus on) , how these particular methods facilitated the experiences of the adolescent’s girls to be central. The fourth chapter, the first empirical chapter,

De verschuiving in waardering heeft als gevolg dat nu niet enkel de landbouwsector, maar ook andere beleidsdomeinen aandacht hebben voor hoogstamboomgaarden: erfgoedzorg,

The subjects in this study reported on the consumption of a diet with a macronutrient composition that met recommended intakes, with the exception of total dietary fibre

Taking into account all these insights, the best results of social marketing for the ceramic water filter can be obtained by a balanced combination of marketing of the social idea

When measuring the possible link between OUIC based corporate social innovations and the effect of these on the overall corporate social performance, results showed that the number