Negotiator Consistency, Counterpart Consistency, and Reciprocity in Behavior Across Partners: A Round-Robin Study.

This research takes a new perspective on the long-standing mystery of personality in negotiation, which has seen decades of null and inconsistent findings. Grounded in interactionist theories defining personality as consistency in behaviors when placed multiple times in the same situation, the investigation examines consistency in individuals' behavioral profiles across negotiation partners. Such consistency supports efforts to identify enduring dispositions that can predict objective and subjective outcomes. A comprehensive set of behaviors related to negotiation was coded in a round-robin study using groups of four negotiators who each took turns working with each other person. Analysis using Kenny's Social Relations Model revealed evidence for extensive actor effects (indicating consistency in negotiators' behavior), as well as moderate partner effects (indicating consistency in counterparts' behavior) and dyadic reciprocity (indicating similarity in the behavior of negotiators and counterparts). We conclude with optimism for investigating the effects of personality in negotiation.

On the relative importance of individual-level characteristics and dyadic interaction effects in negotiations: Variance partitioning evidence from a twins study.

Negotiations are inherently dyadic. Negotiators' individual-level characteristics may not only make them perform better or worse in general, but also may make them particularly well- or poorly-suited to negotiate with a particular counterpart. The present research estimates the extent to which performance in a distributive negotiation is affected by (a) the negotiators' individual-level characteristics and (b) dyadic interaction effects that are defined by the unique pairings between the negotiators and their counterparts. Because negotiators cannot interact multiple times without carryover effects, we estimated the relative importance of these factors with a new methodology that used twin siblings as stand-ins for each other. Participants engaged in a series of 1-on-1 negotiations with counterparts while, elsewhere, their cotwins engaged in the same series of 1-on-1 negotiations with the cotwins of those counterparts. In these data, dyadic interaction effects explained more variation in negotiation economic outcomes than did individual differences, whereas individual differences explain more than twice as much of the variation in subjective negotiation outcomes than did dyadic interaction effects. These results suggest dyadic interaction effects represent an understudied area for future research, particularly with regard to the economic outcomes of negotiations. (PsycINFO Database Record

We Know Who Likes Us, but Not Who Competes Against Us.

Research on dyadic meta-accuracy suggests that people can accurately judge how their acquaintances feel toward them. However, existing studies have focused exclusively on positive feelings, such as liking. We present the first research on dyadic meta-accuracy for competition, a common dynamic among work colleagues. Data from the sales staff at a car dealership and students working on project teams suggest that the prevailing model of dyadic meta-accuracy breaks down for judgments of competition. For liking, projecting one's own feelings promotes dyadic meta-accuracy because colleagues tend to reciprocate each other's liking. For competition, the tendency to compete against superior performers reduces reciprocity and renders self-projection ineffective. You can accurately estimate how much your colleagues like you, but are unlikely to know how much those same colleagues compete against you.

The social perception of emotional abilities: expanding what we know about observer ratings of emotional intelligence.

We examine the social perception of emotional intelligence (EI) through the use of observer ratings. Individuals frequently judge others' emotional abilities in real-world settings, yet we know little about the properties of such ratings. This article examines the social perception of EI and expands the evidence to evaluate its reliability and cross-judge agreement, as well as its convergent, divergent, and predictive validity. Three studies use real-world colleagues as observers and data from 2,521 participants. Results indicate significant consensus across observers about targets' EI, moderate but significant self-observer agreement, and modest but relatively consistent discriminant validity across the components of EI. Observer ratings significantly predicted interdependent task performance, even after controlling for numerous factors. Notably, predictive validity was greater for observer-rated than for self-rated or ability-tested EI. We discuss the minimal associations of observer ratings with ability-tested EI, study limitations, future directions, and practical implications.

Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance.

Grounded in a social functional perspective, this article examines the conditions under which group affect influences group functioning. Using meta-analysis, the authors leverage heterogeneity across 39 independent studies of 2,799 groups to understand how contextual factors-group affect source (exogenous or endogenous to the group) and group life span (one-shot or ongoing)-moderate the influence of shared feelings on social integration and task performance. As predicted, results indicate that group positive affect has consistent positive effects on social integration and task performance regardless of contextual idiosyncrasies. The effects of group negative affect, on the other hand, are context-dependent. Shared negative feelings promote social integration and task performance when stemming from an exogenous source or experienced in a 1-shot group, but undermine social integration and task performance when stemming from an endogenous source or experienced in an ongoing group. The authors discuss implications of their findings and highlight directions for future theory and research on group affect.

The way you make me feel: evidence for individual differences in affective presence.

How much do individuals consistently influence the way other people feel? Data from 48 work groups suggest there are consistent individual differences both in the emotions that people tend to experience (trait affect) and in the emotions that people tend to elicit in others (trait affective presence). A social relations model analysis revealed that after controlling for emotional contagion, the variance in emotions that people feel is explained by both trait affect (31% of positive affect and 19% of negative affect) and trait affective presence (10% of positive affect and 23% of negative affect). These analyses suggest that affective presence exerts as much influence over interaction partners' negative feelings as does these interaction partners' own trait affect. Positive affective presence correlated with greater network centrality, and negative affective presence correlated with lower agreeableness and greater extraversion.

The relationship between displaying and perceiving nonverbal cues of affect: a meta-analysis to solve an old mystery.

The authors address the decades-old mystery of the association between individual differences in the expression and perception of nonverbal cues of affect. Prior theories predicted positive, negative, and zero correlations in performance-given empirical results ranging from r = -.80 to r = +.64. A meta-analysis of 40 effects showed a positive correlation for nonverbal behaviors elicited as intentional communication displays but zero for spontaneous, naturalistic, or a combination of display types. There was greater variation in the results of studies having round robin designs and analyzed with statistics that do not account for the interdependence of data. The authors discuss implications for theorists to distinguish emotional skills in terms of what people are capable of doing versus what people actually do.

Are Some Negotiators Better Than Others? Individual Differences in Bargaining Outcomes.

The authors address the long-standing mystery of stable individual differences in negotiation performance, on which intuition and conventional wisdom have clashed with inconsistent empirical findings. The present study used the Social Relations Model to examine individual differences directly via consistency in performance across multiple negotiations and to disentangle the roles of both parties within these inherently dyadic interactions. Individual differences explained a substantial 46% of objective performance and 19% of subjective performance in a mixed-motive bargaining exercise. Previous work may have understated the influence of individual differences because conventional research designs require specific traits to be identified and measured. Exploratory analyses of a battery of traits revealed few reliable associations with consistent individual differences in objective performance-except for positive beliefs about negotiation, positive affect, and concern for one's outcome, each of which predicted better performance. Findings suggest that the field has large untapped potential to explain substantial individual differences. Limitations, areas for future research, and practical implications are discussed.