| dc.description.abstract | An experimental study of the differences and similarities between dyadic and group
negotiation was conducted, comparing the processes and outcomes of dyads and
groups on similar negotiation tasks.
The group negotiation of interest in this study is one in which 4 parties, with non-
identical preferences attempt to reach a joint decision. The increase in the number of
parties (dyads to groups of 4) was conceptualised as an increase in objective task
complexity.
The subjects comprised 178 students, most of whom were undergraduate business
students at 4 Norwegian institutions. A direct empirical comparison between dyadic
and group negotiation revealed that dyads do reach higher quality outcomes than
groups, both on economic and social psychological dimensions. Judgement accuracy
was not significantly related to economic or social psychological outcomes, in groups
or dyads, when the other intermediate variables were held constant. This finding is
contrary to the predictions from the negotiation and decision theory.
Our results show that the mechanisms important for reaching integrative agreements
differ between dyads and groups. For dyads, procedural structure contributed
significantly and positively to high economic outcomes, while problem solving
contributed significantly and negatively to economic outcomes, but positively to
social psychological outcomes. In groups, however, problem solving led to high
economic and social psychological outcomes. These findings suggest that different
mechanisms lead to integrative agreements in groups and dyads.
The implications of these findings, and the measures used for negotiation research, are
discussed further in the text. | en |
