Negotiating over Mobile Phones: Calling or Being Called Can Make the Difference
Tóm tắt
Mobile phones pervade our everyday life like no other technology, but the effects they have on one-to-one conversations are still relatively unknown. This paper focuses on how mobile phones influence negotiations, i.e., on discussions where two parties try to reach an agreement starting from opposing preferences. The experiments involve 60 pairs of unacquainted individuals (120 subjects). They must make a “yes” or “no” decision on whether several objects increase the chances of survival in a polar environment or not. When the participants disagree about a given object (one says “yes” and the other says “no”), they must try to convince one another and reach a common decision. Since the subjects discuss via phone, one of them (selected randomly) calls while the other is called. The results show that the caller convinces the receiver in 70 % of the cases (
$$p$$
value = 0.005 according to a two-tailed binomial test). Gender, age, personality and conflict handling style, measured during the experiment, fail in explaining such a persuasiveness difference. Calling or being called appears to be the most important factor behind the observed result.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aarts H, Custers R, Marien H. Preparing and motivating behavior outside of awareness. Science. 2008;319(5870):1639.
Abraham C, Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):379–87.
Aharony N, Pan W, Ip C, Khayal I, Pentland A. Social fMRI: investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world. Pervasive Mob Comput. 2011;7(6):643–59.
Arminen I, Weilenmann A. Mobile presence and intimacy—reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration. J Pragmat. 2009;41(10):1905–23.
Barry B, Friedman R. Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(2):345–59.
Bazerman M, Curhan J, Moore D, Valley K. Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2000;51:279–314.
Bradner E, Mark G. Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on computer supported cooperative work. 2002. p. 226–35.
Cardy E. An experimental field study of the GOTV and persuasion effects of partisan direct mail and phone calls. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2005;601(1):28–40.
Carnevale P, Pruitt D. Negotiation and mediation. Annu Rev Psychol. 1992;43:531–82.
Chambless D, Ollendick T. Empirically supported psychological interventions: controversies and evidence. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:685–716.
Cheung S, Yiu T, Yeung S. A study of styles and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation. J Constr Eng Manag. 2006;132(8):805–14.
Chiu MC, Chang SP, Chang YC, Chu HH, Chen CCH, Hsiao FH, Ko JC. Playful bottle: a mobile social persuasion system to motivate healthy water intake. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ubiquitous computing. 2009. p. 185–94.
Dourish P, Bell G. Divining a digital future: mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2011.
Durham C, Locke E, Poon J, McLeod P. Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Hum Perform. 2000;13(2):115–38.
Fogg B. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity. 2002;2002(December):5.
Fortunati L. Gli italiani al telefono. Milan: Franco Angeli; 1995.
Funder D. Personality. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:197–221.
Gasser R, Brodbeck D, Degen M, Luthiger J, Wyss R, Reichlin S. Persuasiveness of a mobile lifestyle coaching application using social facilitation. In: IJsselsteijn W, Kort A, Midden C, Eggen B, Hoven E, editors. Persuasive technology, Lecture notes in computer science. vol 3962. 2006. p. 27–38.
Harper R. Texture. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.
ITU. The world in 2010: ICT facts and figures. Technical report. International Telecommunication Union; 2010.
ITU. Measuring the information society. Technical report. International Telecommunication Union; 2013.
Joshi M, Davis E, Kathuria R, Weidner C. Experiential learning process: exploring teaching and learning of strategic management framework through the winter survival exercise. J Manag Educ. 2005;29(5):672–95.
Judd C. Cognitive effects of attitude conflict resolution. J Confl Resolut. 1978;22(3):483–98.
Kalba K. The global adoption and diffusion of mobile phones. Technical report. Harvard University; Dec 2008.
Kray L, Reb J, Galinsky A, Thompson L. Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: the effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30(4):399–411.
Lathia N, Pejovic V, Rachuri K, Mascolo C, Musolesi M, Rentfrow P. Smartphones for large-scale behaviour change interventions. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2013;12(3):66–73.
Ling R. New tech, new ties. How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008.
Madan A, Cebrian M, Moturu S, Farrahi K, Pentland A. Sensing the “health state” of our society. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2012;11(4):36–44.
Magee J, Galinsky A, Gruenfeld D. Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(2):200–12.
McGinn K, Croson R. What do communication media mean for negotiations? A question of social awareness. In: Gelfand M, Brett J, editors. The handbook of negotiation and culture. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 2004. p. 334–9.
Miner F. Group versus individual decision making: an investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1984;33(1):112–24.
Mohammadi G, Park S, Sagae K, Vinciarelli A, Morency LP. Who is persuasive? The role of perceived personality and communication modality in social multimedia. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on multimodal interaction (to be presented); 2013.
Nass C, Brave S. Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human–computer relationship. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.
Nass C, Min Lee K. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction and consistency-attraction. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2001;7(3):171–81.
Pianesi F, Zancanaro M, Lepri B, Cappelletti A. A multimodal annotated corpus of consensus decision making meetings. Lang Resour Eval. 2007;41(3–4):409–29.
Pinkley R, Northcraft G. Conflict frames of reference: Implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Acad Manag J. 1994;37(1):193–205.
Purdy J, Nye P, Balakrishnan P. The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. Int J Confl Manag. 2000;11(2):162–87.
Raento M, Oulasvirta A, Eagle N. Smartphones: an emerging tool for social scientists. Sociol Methods Res. 2009;37(3):426–54.
Rahim M. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Acad Manag J. 1983;26(2):368–76.
Rammstedt B, John O. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five inventory in English and German. J Res Pers. 2007;41(1):203–12.
Reeves B, Nass C. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
Rogelberg S, Rumery S. Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion. Small Group Res. 1996;27(1):79–90.
Sheffield J. The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group Decis Negot. 1995;4(2):159–79.
Stuhlmacher A, Walters A. Gender differences in negotiation outcome: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1999;52(3):653–77.
Suh K. Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory. Inf Manag. 1999;35(5):295–312.
Thompson L, Wang J, Gunia B. Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:491–515.
Valley K, Moag J, Bazerman M. “A matter of trust”: effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. J Econ Behav Organ. 1998;34(2):211–38.
Walters A, Stuhlmacher A, Meyer L. Gender and negotiator competitiveness: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998;76(1):1–29.
Wilson T. The power of social psychological interventions. Science. 2006;313(5791):1251–2.