Research Details

Abstract

In this study we characterized small group negotiation as a mixed motive task that involved both cooperation and competition. We examined the impact of two group decision-making processes (decision rule and agenda) and one cognitive-motivational frame (aspiration level) on the quality of negotiated outcomes in small groups. Negotiation groups that used a unanimous decision rule were more likely to integrate their interests to achieve higher group outcomes than were groups that used a majority rule. Negotiation groups that followed an explicit agenda and used a majority decision rule distributed resources more unequally, and were more likely to form coalitions against a remaining party than were groups with no agenda/majority rule, explicit agenda/unanimity rule, and no agenda/unanimity rule. There was no support for the hypotheses that group members who held high aspirations and followed a majority decision rule would distribute resources more unequally than would groups with high aspirations/unanimity rule, low aspirations/majority rule, and low aspirations/unanimity rule; that adherence to explicit agendas would lead to lower group profits; and that the absence of high aspirations would lead to lower group profit. We discuss the results in terms of a mixed motive analysis of group decision making. We examine the implications of methods designed to increase the effectiveness of small group decision making.

Type

Article

Author(s)

Leigh Thompson, Elizabeth A. Mannix, Max H Bazerman

Date Published

1988

Citations

Thompson, Leigh, Elizabeth A. Mannix, and Max H Bazerman. 1988. Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.(1): 86-95.