走向双赢:动机倾向和信息分享质量在整合性谈判过程中的作用

研究的主要目的是考察谈判组的动机倾向、信息分享数量和质量、对优先考虑事项和利益一致事项的判断准确性和联合收益之间的关系,以及信息分享质量在谈判过程中的重要性。采用一对一的买卖式谈判任务,由226名被试组成113个谈判组进行面对面的谈判。结果表明,动机倾向、信息分享数量和质量以及谈判双方对优先考虑事项的判断准确性都对联合收益有显著影响,而且信息分享质量比信息分享数量更有预测力。中介作用分析结果显示,信息分享质量在动机倾向和联合收益之间起完全中介作用,对优先考虑事项的判断准确性在信息分享质量和联合收益之间起部分中介作用。研究揭示了整合性谈判的整个过程,验证了信息分享质量在谈判过程中的重要作用。     

社会动机一致性与问责对群体决策的影响

采用隐藏文档范式决策任务,探究群体成员社会动机一致性对决策的影响及问责的促进作用。实验1通过社会动机启动,考察全员合作、多数合作、多数利己、全员利己四种群体的信息分享及决策正确率。结果发现,合作动机成员比例越高,群体信息分享和决策质量越好,信息分享在成员社会动机与决策质量间起完全中介作用;少数利己成员的存在对合作成员的信息分享产生负面影响。实验2检验过程问责与结果问责对多数利己、全员利己群体决策的促进作用。结果发现,两种问责方式均促进了群体的信息分享与决策质量。本研究深化了社会动机影响群体决策的机制及促进途径。     

群体关系与问责对信息共享意愿及谈判行为的影响研究

本研究就国人的群体关系与问责对谈判者行为及信息共享意愿进行考察,试图探讨文化对谈判者的影响。通过对128名在校大学生的模拟谈判实验,发现谈判者在群内谈判比在群际谈判时有更高的信息共享意愿和更少的强硬行为,群体关系和问责对信息共享意愿及主观利益冲突有交互效应。具体而言,高度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更多的信息共享意愿;低度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更少的主观利益冲突。     

和谐动机与整合性谈判结果*

人们追求人际和谐的动机具有双重性,一方面是为了促进和谐,另一方面是为了避免破裂,两种动机驱使人们在面对冲突时采取不一样的应对策略。那么,谈判作为一种与冲突密不可分的情境,谈判者的和谐的动机将会对他们的谈判结果产生什么影响呢？本研究整合和谐动机和谈判两方面的文献,探讨了在整合性谈判中两种不同的和谐动机与谈判者的行为以及谈判结果之间的关系。研究结果表明,1)在个体层面上,谈判者的促进和谐动机与其个体收益以及对谈判双方关系的评价正相关,而避免破裂动机与其个体收益以及对谈判双方关系的评价负相关；2)在谈判对子层面上,谈判双方总体的促进和谐与谈判双方的联合收益正相关。本研究不仅进一步论证了和谐动机的概念效度,而且从理论上论证了和谐动机与谈判的关系,对于谈判者具有实践意义。     

影响整合式谈判的情境因素和过程因素

从“情境因素”和“过程因素”两个方面对整合式谈判影响因素的研究动态和研究成果进行了归纳和分析。其中“情境因素”是指在正式谈判一开始时就已经存在的因素,主要包括：（1）谈判者的文化价值观,如个人主义与集体主义、权力距离和沟通的高、低语境;（2）社会动机,研究谈判组的动机构成如何影响谈判过程和结果;（3）情绪因素,研究谈判中的积极情绪、消极情绪各自对达成整合式谈判的影响。对“过程因素”的研究考察了谈判沟通的过程,包括谈判过程中各种策略的使用频次、次序和谈判各个阶段的策略使用情况     

回报谨慎对谈判过程和谈判结果的影响

回报谨慎是人们害怕在人际关系中被他人利用的一种信念。研究考察了回报谨慎对谈判者的动机倾向、谈判行为及谈判结果的影响。184人组成92个两人小组参加了一项模拟商业谈判,谈判前研究者成功地进行了回报谨慎的操纵,谈判结束后,参加谈判的人完成谈判协议和谈判后问卷。研究者假设,低回报谨慎的谈判者比高回报谨慎的谈判者在谈判中更可能持有合作倾向、更多地与谈判对手分享信息,研究者还预测回报谨慎与谈判双方的联合收益以及谈判后对谈判对手的看法都有关系。研究结果支持了上述假设。研究对从事商业谈判的人具有实际意义。     

服务型领导对员工工作结果的影响： 亲社会动机的中介效应和互动公平的调节效应

通过对201名员工及其领导的配对问卷调查,探讨服务型领导对员工工作结果的作用机制。研究发现：（1）服务型领导与下属的工作满意度、帮助行为正相关;（2）亲社会动机在服务型领导与工作满意度及帮助行为关系中起部分中介作用;（3）互动公平调节了服务型领导与亲社会动机之间的关系,即互动公平越高,服务型领导与亲社会动机之间的关系就越强;（4）互动公平调节了亲社会动机对服务型领导-帮助行为和工作满意度的中介作用。     

自闭症谱系障碍个体的社会动机缺陷

自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)是一种源于儿童期的神经发育障碍, 社会交往障碍是其核心特征, 与社会动机缺陷密切相关。社会动机是引导个体社会行为的强大动力, 主要表现为社会定向、社会奖赏和社会维持。现有研究表明, ASD个体的社会动机发展存在缺陷, 他们对社会刺激的注意偏向减少, 不能主动寻求和体会社会互动带来的快乐, 且缺乏维持社会关系的行为策略等。然而, 相关研究结果受到个体特征、环境和实验设计等因素的影响。研究者未来应综合考虑这些影响因素, 加强对ASD个体社会动机理论的整合研究, 以便全面系统地了解ASD个体的社会动机缺陷。     

公共物品两难中相互依赖关系对合作行为的影响

本文关注初始关系建立过程中互动双方相互依赖关系对个体合作行为的影响,认为情境中表征个体间相互依赖关系的线索会对激活被试在情境中的社会动机并影响被试的信任信念,进而影响互动双方的合作行为。操作互动双方问基于互动制约的相互依赖和基于利益共同的相互依赖,模拟高相互依赖和低相互依赖关系情境。结果表明：①不同的相互依赖关系能够激活不同的社会动机和信任信念;②不同的相互依赖关系中,被试的合作行为有显著差异;③在特定的相互依赖关系中,被试的合作行为与其本身的信任倾向无显著相关;④特定相互依赖关系下被试的社会动机带有策略性,信任信念对被试合作行为的预测能力较强。     

善心点亮创造力:内部动机和亲社会动机对创造力的影响

研究者普遍认为,个体的内部动机促进创造力,但这种观点受到了越来越多的挑战与质疑。最新的动机性信息加工理论认为,亲社会动机能使个体不仅关注新颖性,而且重视实用性,从而提高创造力。本研究采用2×2组间设计,操纵内部动机和亲社会动机,将被试随机分配到其中一种条件下完成一项创造任务。方差分析结果发现,内部动机和亲社会动机对创造力的影响存在交互作用,只有当亲社会动机高时,内部动机才显著提高创造力;内部动机和亲社会动机均高时,个体创造力最高。本研究证明了亲社会动机在创造过程中的重要性,为创造力研究提供了新的视角。     

Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation

Negotiators tend to believe that own and other's outcomes are diametrically opposed. When such fixed-pie perceptions (FPPs) are not revised during negotiation, integrative agreements are unlikely. It was predicted that accuracy motivation helps negotiators to release their FPPs. In 2 experiments, accuracy motivation was manipulated by (not) holding negotiators accountable for the manner in which they negotiated. Experiment 1 showed that accountability reduced FPPs during face-to-face negotiation and produced more integrative agreements. Experiment 2 corroborated these results: Accountable negotiators revised their FPPs even when information exchange was experimentally held constant. Experiment 2 also showed that accountability is effective during the encoding of outcome information. Negotiators appear flexible in their reliance on FPPs. which is consistent with a motivated information-processing model of negotiation.     

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.     

Effects of procedure and outcome accountability on interview validity

This study tested effects of holding interviewers accountable for either the procedure they follow to make interview judgments (procedure accountability) or the accuracy of their judgments (outcome accountability) on interview validity. Undergraduates (N = 338) simulated employment interviewers in an experiment that crossed 2 levels of procedure accountability with 2 levels of outcome accountability. They watched videotapes of 60 managers answering an interview question and rated the managers on leadership potential. The dependent variable was the correlation between their interview judgments and supervisory ratings of the managers' actual leadership performance on the job. Results showed that procedure accountability increased interview validity and outcome accountability lowered it. Participants' apparent attentiveness fully mediated effects of procedure accountability on interview validity.     

Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation

This study examines whether and how accountability to constituents affects the cognitions, performance, and outcomes of team and solo negotiators. Previous findings for solos were replicated here: solo negotiators respond competitively when they are accountable to constituents. For teams, however, accountability pressures were distributed across the members resulting in each team member experiencing little responsibility for outcomes. As a consequence, teams did not respond to accountability pressures by behaving contentiously as solos did. Analysis of negotiators' perceptions of advantage reveals that solos who negotiate under conditions of high accountability consider themselves to be at a disadvantage in the negotiation even before the negotiation begins. These perceptions may underlie the accountability/competitive relation that characterizes solo negotiation. Implications for negotiation research as well as the study of groups in organizations are discussed.     

Toward More Effective Stakeholder Dialogue: Applying Theories of Negotiation to Policy and Program Evaluation1

Borrowing from the negotiation literature, we tested 2 factors that might improve stakeholder dialogue in program and policy evaluation. Undergraduate stakeholders (61 pairs) engaged in dialogue about their universities' alcohol policies. Pairs were randomly assigned to levels of accountability audience and dialogue structure. The audience for the videotaped dialogue was described as holding either (a) views about the policy similar to the participant's, consistent across audience members (homogeneous), or (b) mixed views, on both sides of the issue (heterogeneous). Pairs approached the dialogue with either (a) problem‐solving goals or (b) no particular strategy. Dyads accountable to a heterogeneous audience and given problem‐solving instructions exhibited the most effective dialogue. Accountability to a heterogeneous audience facilitated satisfaction with and optimism about dialogue. Accountability to homogeneous audiences and adopting no particular strategy yielded the least positive perceptions of dialogue. Implications for stakeholder dialogue, and for the role of social psychology in evaluation are discussed.     

认知、动机、情感因素对谈判行为的影响

谈判,指两方或多方就利益不同而进行的协商,是解决选择冲突最常见的方式之一。认知、动机及情感因素,影响谈判者的信息处理与判断推理过程。谈判中它们既可能导致决策偏差,也可能促进决策质量。长期以来着眼于认知过程的谈判研究在社会心理学中占主流地位。近年,动机与情感因素对谈判行为的影响受到越来越多的关注。从社会认知的冷（cold：认知）、热（hot：动机、情感）两个角度,系统解析相关研究近年来的进展与成果,可以为揭示认知、动机、情感间的互动如何影响谈判行为打下基础     

Intragroup effects on intergroup negotiation

The article is introduced by an analysis of how the effects of a negotiator's intragroup status (leader versus non-leader) on his negotiation performance (in particular, toughness) may be modified by such factors as the source of the status assignment (e.g., election versus imposition) and the presence and timing of position formation in the group. The accountability experienced by a negotiator vis à-vis his group is proposed as the central intervening variable mediating status effects on negotiation. In a series of (previously published) experiments, all using the same procedural paradigm — a prenegotiation, intragroup phase followed by intergroup negotiation among equal-status group delegates, the issues requiring a choice between higher and lower risk levels — some of the above variables and additional ones, were investigated. Overall, there was evidence of greater toughness among group-elected leaders (relative to non-leaders) and among subordinates (relative to imposed, ?dictatorial' leaders). The latter effect obtained only when the negotiators were being continuously monitored by, and had to consult, their respective group partners during the negotiations. Results concerning risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through the negotiation discussions) are considered in the light of relevant theory.     

以计算机为中介的交流与权力对谈判结果的影响

采用2×2被试问实验设计,通过128名被试组成64个两人组参加的一项模拟商业谈判,考察了CMC与权力对分配式谈判结果的影响。结果发现：（1）EM与IM两种不同CMC条件下,成交价没有显著差异;（2）卖方权力较大时,成交价显著高于买卖双方权力平等的条件;（3）IM条件下,权力不平等时,女性组的成交价显著高于男性组;（4）IM条件下,权力平等的谈判者的主观价值感显著高于权力不平等者;权力不平等的条件下,男性的主观价值感显著高于女性。     

The effect of applicant age, job level, and accountability on perceptions of female job applicants

We used simulated videotaped employment interviews to assess the effect of accountability on impressions of female job applicants. One hundred and twenty American undergraduates majoring in business and personnel related areas were informed that they would be participating in the pilot testing of a new employee placement technique. The age of the job applicant (25, 40, or 55 years), the position for which they were being considered (assistant director or director), and the degree to which subjects were made to feel accountable for their impressions of the applicant (low or high accountability) were manipulated, resulting in a 3 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design. The predicted interaction between accountability and applicant age applicant age was found on age-related adjective checklist items. Increasing the subjects' accountability produced more stereotypical impressions of all applicants, along with a tendency to attribute the applicant's behavior to dispositional factors.