We examine dishonest behavior in the face of potential uncertain gains and losses in three pre-studies (N = 150, N = 225, N = 188) and a main study (N = 240). Ample research has shown that people... Show moreWe examine dishonest behavior in the face of potential uncertain gains and losses in three pre-studies (N = 150, N = 225, N = 188) and a main study (N = 240). Ample research has shown that people cheat when presented with the opportunity. We use a die-under-cup paradigm, in which participants could dishonestly report a private die roll and thereby increase the odds to obtain a desired outcome. Results showed that the framing of the uncertain situation mattered: Participants who lied to decrease the likelihood to experience a loss used major lies (i.e., reporting a ‘6’), while those who lied to increase the chance to achieve an equivalent gain used more modest lies. Show less
Wal, A.J. van der; Doesum, N.J. van; Boomsma, G.T.; Weiden, A. van der; Boezeman, E.J.; Steinel, W.; Staats, H.J.A.M. 2020
Bargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who... Show moreBargaining and negotiation are the most constructive ways to handle conflict. Economic prosperity, order, harmony, and enduring social relationships are more likely to be reached by parties who decide to work together toward agreements that satisfy everyone’s interests than by parties who fight openly, dominate one another, break off contact, or take their dispute to an authority to resolve.There are two major research paradigms: distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation (“bargaining”) focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in social dilemma research. Integrative negotiation focuses on finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision-making negotiation tasks with multiple issues. Negotiation behavior can be categorized by five different styles: distributive negotiation is characterized by forcing, compromising, or yielding behavior in which each party gives and takes; integrative negotiation is characterized by problem-solving behavior in which parties search for mutually beneficial agreements. Avoiding is the fifth negotiation style, in which parties do not negotiate.Cognitions (what people think about the negotiation) and emotions (how they feel about the negotiation and the other party) affect negotiation behavior and outcomes. Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements. Emotions have intrapersonal and interpersonal effects, and can help or hinder the negotiation. Aspects of the social context, such as gender, power, cultural differences, and group constellations, affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes as well. Although gender differences in negotiation exist, they are generally small and are usually caused by stereotypical ideas about gender and negotiation. Power differences affect negotiation in such a way that the more powerful party usually has an advantage. Different cultural norms dictate how people will behave in a negotiation.Aspects of the situational context of a negotiation are, for example, time, communication media, and conflict issues. Communication media differ in whether they contain visual and acoustic channels, and whether they permit synchronous communication. The richness of the communication channel can help unacquainted negotiators to reach a good agreement, yet it can lead negotiators with a negative relationship into a conflict spiral. Conflict issues can be roughly categorized in scarce resources (money, time, land) on the one hand, and norms and values on the other. Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources, and when norms and values are at play in the negotiation, people generally have a harder time to find agreements, since the usual give and take is no longer feasible. Areas of future research include communication, ethics, physiological or hormonal correlates, or personality factors in negotiations. Show less
Relatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this... Show moreRelatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this conflict management style composition may be pivotal given the strong task focus rather than establishing norms to guide or manage conflict. Therefore, we examined whether conflict style asymmetry within short-term project groups affects the link between intragroup conflict and the performance of groups. Data were collected among short-term project groups and the results suggest that asymmetry in both forcing and the problem-solving conflict management styles moderates the negative effect of task, relationship, and process conflicts on the performance of groups. We offer a discussion of the implications of these findings. Show less
Relatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this... Show moreRelatively little is known about how the composition of individual conflict management styles affects group functioning. This is unfortunate because, specifically in short-term project groups, this conflict management style composition may be pivotal given the strong task focus rather than establishing norms to guide or manage conflict. Therefore, we examined whether conflict style asymmetry within short-term project groups affects the link between intragroup conflict and the performance of groups. Data were collected among short-term project groups and the results suggest that asymmetry in both forcing and the problem-solving conflict management styles moderates the negative effect of task, relationship, and process conflicts on the performance of groups. We offer a discussion of the implications of these findings. Show less
In this paper we experimentally explore how lying changes when its consequences are not certain. We argue that, when consequences are not certain, lying is morally less costly because the action of... Show moreIn this paper we experimentally explore how lying changes when its consequences are not certain. We argue that, when consequences are not certain, lying is morally less costly because the action of lying does not mechanically result in the obtainment of the benefit and this produces a lower feeling of responsibility in case the benefit is obtained. Moreover, we argue that the smaller the impact of lying on the probability to obtain the benefit the lower is the feeling of responsibility. We test our predictions using a modified die-under-the-cup task where misreporting, rather than delivering a higher payoff, increases the likelihood to get a prize. Overall we have four treatments where the reported outcome affects the probability to get a prize to a different extent. Contrary to our prediction, we do not observe any treatment difference suggesting that lying is independent to the extent to which it increases the probability to get a benefit. This result suggests that the willingness to lie to secure a benefit and the willingness to lie to marginally increase the probability to obtain a benefit are very similar. Show less
In light of the current relevance of analyzing the motivational determinants of prosocial behaviors, an experimental design was applied to examine the influence of rejection sensitivity, affective... Show moreIn light of the current relevance of analyzing the motivational determinants of prosocial behaviors, an experimental design was applied to examine the influence of rejection sensitivity, affective states, and trust on prosocial behavior in the included versus excluded context. The research was performed at a Spanish university with a sample of 118 students. The results confirm that excluded individuals are more prosocial than included individuals only when they see reconnection as possible (hopeful excluded individuals). The inclusion/exclusion experience moderated (1) the links between rejection sensitivity and both affective states and prosocial behavior, and (2) the mediation of trust between affective states and prosocial behavior. Finally, a predictive model of prosocial behavior moderated by the type of inclusion or exclusion was partially supported. Results indicate the relevance of promoting different variables in included individuals, hopeful excluded individuals, and hopeless excluded individuals for prosocial behavior. Show less
