Negotiation constraints in the risk-taking domain: Effects of being observed by partners of higher or lower status

This study examined the effects of status held in a reference group and of prior issue commitment on the risky shift and other negotiation outcomes under conditions where accountability to the reference group during negotiation had been enhanced by having high and low status members observe each other. Following assessment of individual risk preferences on the choice-dilemmas task, subjects (eight at a time) were constituted as four leader-subordinate dyads and told to reach joint decisions on half of the choice-dilemmas items. Recombination as all-leader and all-subordinate groups followed. For half of each of these eom.binations, leaders were negotiators and subordinates were observers; role assignments were reversed for the other half. The negotiators' task was to achieve a consensus on all of the choice­ dilemmas items-both those with prior dyadic decisions and those without. It was found that subordinate negotiators, relative to leader negotiators, consulted more with their former dyadic partner and more often failed to achieve consensus (dead­ lock). Subordinate observers advocated higher risk levels than their leader negotia­ tors, whereas subordinate negotiators and leader observers did not differ in risk preferences. Prior issue commitment increased the difficulty of a negotiated agree­ ment and decreased decision satisfaction. On the whole, the presence of observers seemed to increase "loss of face" motivation in leaders and fears of sanction for deviation in subordinates.

[1]  D. G. Pruitt Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. , 1971 .

[2]  R. D. Clark,et al.  Group induced shift toward risk: A critical appraisal. , 1971 .

[3]  Amiram D. Vinokur,et al.  Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. , 1971 .

[4]  N. Kogan,et al.  Level of Risk Selected by Individuals and Groups When Deciding for Self and for Others , 1971 .

[5]  K. Mackenzie The effects of status upon group risk taking , 1970 .

[6]  D. Myers,et al.  Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes , 1970, Science.

[7]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Risk taking in the context of intergroup negotiation , 1970 .

[8]  S. Moscovici,et al.  The group as a polarizer of attitudes. , 1969 .

[9]  W. Doise Intergroup relations and polarization of individual and collective judgments. , 1969 .

[10]  D. Druckman Prenegotiation experience and dyadic conflic resolution in a bargaining situation , 1968 .

[11]  M. Hermann,et al.  Negotiation in leader and delegate groups , 1968 .

[12]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Group Risk Taking in Professional Decisions , 1967 .

[13]  H. Lamm Will an observer advise higher risk taking after hearing a discussion of the decision problem? , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  D. Druckman,et al.  Dogmatism, prenegotiation experience, and simulated group representation as determinants of dyadic behavior in a bargaining situation. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  M. Wallach,et al.  Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality , 1965 .

[16]  J. Tukey,et al.  Transformations Related to the Angular and the Square Root , 1950 .

[17]  N. Vidmar Effects of Representational Roles and Mediators on Negotiation Effectiveness. , 1971 .

[18]  R. Baron,et al.  Why do Groups Make Riskier Decisions Than Individuals?1 , 1970 .

[19]  W. Doise,et al.  Effects on anticipated delegate status on level of risk taking in small decision-making groups , 1969 .

[20]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: A test of the information-exchange hypothesis , 1967 .

[21]  George Mandler,et al.  Verbal learning . Early socialization : learning and identificatin . Risk taking as a function of the situation, the person, and the group , 1967 .