Abstract

The economy is driven by everyday negotiations between sellers and buyers. Electronic Negotiation Systems (ENSs) are embedded with features and methods that help users better manage their negotiation processes, and work with their counterparts in order to achieve superior outcomes. As ENSs inevitably mediate the information exchange, the representation of this information plays a crucial role in decision support. Still, there is a lack of empirical research on ENSs, especially on the impact of information framing on the process, as well as on the outcomes of interactions. Research in this area is further complicated when the interactions of users with dissimilar motivations are taken into account. This project aims at investigating how framing by the ENS impacts the negotiation process and outcomes for different motivational orientations. It proposes a research framework that examines the effects of ENS framing of outcomes (i.e., as gains or losses) and motivational orientation (i.e., competitive or collaborative) on the negotiation process and consequences at the dyadic and individual levels.

An experimental 2X2 factor design was used to test the underlying hypotheses, which: (1) examined the outcomes (i.e., higher joint outcome and contract balance) and the process (i.e., greater number of offers and cooperativeness) affected by different ENS frames for different motivational orientations; (2) contrasted the difference between the gain and loss frames for collaborative and competitive dyads; and (3) detailed the impact of ENS framing and motivational orientation on individual perceptions (i.e., cognitive effort, discussion climate, outcome satisfaction and relationship). The experiments were conducted in two environments (laboratory with 276 and quasi-field with 490 participants) to increase external validity of the results. In general, the findings showed that: (1) collaborative dyads have higher joint outcome in the loss than gain frame, while the opposite was found for competitive ones (i.e., higher joint outcome in the gain rather than loss frame); (2) the impacts of ENS framing was stronger for collaborative dyads; (3) loss frame caused less disparities in terms of number of offers and joint outcome between the two orientations; and (4) negotiators did not perceive any differences of framing despite the dissimilarities in objective measures (e.g., joint outcome and number of offers).