Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article information:
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:434496 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
JEIT
34,3
192
Eman ElShenawy
negotiation skills. Training level refers to the time a trainee spends in a negotiation training course
receiving the standard style and methods of training. Negotiation skills are manifested through
trainees performance after receiving training.
Design/methodology/approach Six meta-analyses were conducted over 57 lab experiments from
36 studies. The six meta-analyses were divided into two groups each with a sub-study. The objective
of study one is finding effect of training level on negotiators individual and joint performance. The
objective of study two is contrasting the effects of three training levels on negotiators performance.
Findings Study one results show that training level has an effect on individual performance that is
more evident for the long training (r 0.76) than for the short training (r 0.22). Training level has a
medium effect on joint performance (r 0.37). Results of study two show an increase in negotiators
performance the higher the training level. That performance rate ranged from point estimate 2.03
after spending a day in training to point estimate 5.2 after spending three weeks or more in training.
Research limitation/implications The results indicate significant association between the time
trainees spend in negotiation training programs and their negotiation performance. Level of training
should be controlled for when conducting experiments during negotiation courses. Future research
should focus on effects of personality traits of both trainees and trainers on negotiation training
effectiveness.
Practical implications The findings highlight the importance of investing in increasing the level
of negotiation training and spending more in making it a routine practice for top executives. After all,
skilful negotiators are important assets that should be maintained. They make important deals that
add to the firms financial performance of the firm. Higher levels of negotiation training deliver more
values to firms.
Originality/value Training methods and styles followed in courses and programs of negotiation
training are effective and are of value providing they last for enough time. The study highlights the
importance of negotiation training, an area worthy of more research. Findings are valuable for training
practitioners to pay attention to what is considered enough time of training against what is being
practiced. Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial fields if
designed in the appropriate way.
Keywords Negotiating, Skills training, Performance management
Paper type Research paper
Negotiation
training
193
JEIT
34,3
194
clear. The nature of negotiation skills may be an underlined factor in the debate. An
exploration of the nature of negotiation skills follows.
Negotiation skills
The behavioral decision theory has a specific view of negotiation skills. The theory
defines negotiation as a joint decision-making process between two or more parties
(Brett et al., 1999; Carroll et al., 1988; Weingart et al., 1999). Skillful negotiators are the
highly performing ones. Negotiators performance is measured by their outcome that is
pertinent to their behavior[2] during the negotiating process (Galinsky et al., 2002;
Neale and Bazerman, 1992; Thompson, 1990). The theory assumes bounded rationality
of negotiators; they will make impulsive decisions and fall for many biases if they are
not skillful (e.g. Neale and Bazerman, 1985).
Skilful negotiators are able to minimize irrationality, avoid decision biases and
judgmental mistakes (Bazerman, 1994; Bazerman et al., 1985) and achieve the desired
goal of any negotiated task (Brett et al., 1999; Clyman and Tripp, 2000) keeping their
performance at high levels. Sales empirical literature consistently shows association
among the ability to adapt to the situation, learn and change strategy during
negotiation, understand customers and high performance of salespeople (Park and
Holloway, 2003). A question remains regarding whether transferring negotiation skills
is contingent to the received level of training.
The debate regarding negotiation effectiveness continues to include the effect of
length of training programs on trainees performance. It is not clear whether short
programs are of less or equal post-training transfer compared to long programs. Some
empirical studies show that enhanced negotiators performance is due to long periods
of training (Northcraft et al., 1994; Polzer and Neale, 1995). Others support that short
negotiation training helps to transfer negotiation skills across situations. Results of a
mail survey to more than 1,000 physicians and health care professionals show that a
short negotiation-training program, one to eight hours, provided trainees with the
necessary skills to negotiate successfully with behavioral patients (Runkle et al., 2000).
Researchers might agree on which training types are more effective, but they
disagree on the training level that is enough to transfer negotiation skills. Results of a
survey of negotiation trainers show that all supported simulations as the most effective
training method but disagreed on the ideal length of programs (Friedman, 1992).
The relationship between length of training programs and negotiation performance
is not investigated in research. The following meta-analyses are conducted to
investigate levels of training that are adequate to improve post-training performance of
negotiators.
Methods
To investigate the study assumption in a manner that maximizes generalizability, all
possible negotiation studies until 2005 were included, after that date there were almost
no more studies of negotiation that could be included in the meta-analyses. There were
33 eligible empirical studies. They were divided into different groups based on length
of time-spent receiving negotiation training. For a list of the studies included in the
sample, please refer to Table I.
The studies followed one design. All are experiments that used simulations of
dyadic negotiations. All have been conducted in negotiation courses offered for college
Negotiation
training
195
Table I.
Coding and a list of
studies included in the
meta-analyses
Follow up training
Gist et al. (1990) (cond. 1)
Gist et al. (1990) (cond. 2)
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 1)
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 2)
Stevens et al. (1993) (Women)
Stevens et al. (1993) (Men)
PPSYC
PPSYC
PPSYC
PPSYC
JAP
JAP
Conference
paper
Conference
paper
Conference
paper
Gist et al. (1990)
PPSYC
Gist et al. (1991) (cond. 1)
PPSYC
Gist et al. (1991) (cond 2)
PPSYC
Stevens et al. (1993) (Women) JAP
Stevens et al. (1993) (Men)
JAP
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
1)
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
2)
Northcraft et al. (1994) (cond. HP
3)
Stevens and Gist (1997)
PPSYC
Gist and Stevens (1998)
OB&HDP
Weissbein (2000)
Dissertation
Publication
type
23
26
53
121
119
0.53
0.34
0.42
0.02
2 0.08
0.91
0.9
0.72
0.69
0.11
0.61
0.26
41
27
44
35
24
36
54
64
25
0.65
0.26
16
68
35
44
24
36
0.01
0.37
0.06
2 0.03
0.01
0.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.68
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
of $50,000
of $50,00
of $50,00
of $50,000
of $50,000
Profit increase
Profit increase
Reach targeted
Reach targeted
Reach targeted
Reach targeted
salary
salary
salary
salary
of $58,000
of $58,000
of $58,000
of $58,000
Market contracts
Market contracts
Goal of negotiation
Post/
Reach contingent
TRT-CNT
Post/
Reach contingent
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Impasse Method
2
2
2
2
2
2
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
hrs lectures
(continued)
4 hrs lectures
4 hrs lectures and simulation
6-8 hrs lecture, videos and role
playing
45-60 minutes analogical
1 hr lecture
1 hr lecture
1 hr integrative didactic
training and course
7 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
4 hrs lecture/simulations
1 hr lecture
Training method
196
Study ID
JEIT
34,3
JP&SP
Conference
paper
AM Ler &
Edu
MS
JAP
Conference
paper
OB&HDP
PPYSC
OB&HDP
Publication
type
Conference
paper
Conference
paper
JEP
Study ID
0.26
NA
NA
0.23
0.11
0.21
7
40
122
118
0.17
0.63
141
90
80
106
124
53
121
0.3
0.37
0.35
NA
NA
0.34
0.2
0.05
0.66
0.49
0.68
0.54
0
0
Goal of negotiation
2 hrs lectures
4 hrs lectures and simulations
Training method
Contingency contract
(continued)
10 wks negotiation/course
1 hr integrative didactic
training
Short didact/lec
Post/
Reach an agreement and avoid
TRT-CNT impasse
Post/TRT Reach an agreement and avoid
impasse
Post/TRT Reach an agreement and avoid
impasse
Post/
Reach a contingent contract and
TRT-CNT avoid impasse
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Pre/Post
TRT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/
TRT-CNT
Impasse Method
Negotiation
training
197
Table I.
Table I.
JP&SP
JP&SP
OB&HDP
OB&HDP
OB&HDP
OB&HDP
JP&SP
OB&HDP
JP&SP
GD&N
NA
NA
0.53
0.29
NA
0.37
0.28
0.25
NA
0%
0%
0.14
0.17
0.11
0.04
0.16
0.35
Goal of negotiation
Second half
Training method
Pre/TRT
Pre/TRT
Pre/TRT
Pre/TRT
Pre/TRT
1-day
1-day
Selling a HOUSE
Post/
Reach an agreement in the
1-day session of conflict
TRT-CNT bargaining zone and avoid impasse training
Post/
TRT-CNT
Post/TRT
Post/TRT
Impasse Method
Notes: Journal abbreviation ANNALS: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, IJCM: International Journal of Conflict
Management, MS: Management Science, HP: Human Performance, GD & N: Group Decision and Negotiation, P&C: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, HRM: Human Resources Management, GB&IR: Group Behavior and Intergroup Relations, JEP: Journal of Educational Psychology, JESP:
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, JMR: Journal of Marketing Research, AMJ: Academy of Management Journal, AML&E: Academy of
Management Learning and Education, JOB Journal of Organizational Behavior
Publication
type
198
Study ID
JEIT
34,3
students. More details regarding the method of meta-analysis and its universal steps
follows.
Meta-analysis procedures
Meta-analysis is the only method for integrating findings across studies that can
control chance and other artifacts and provide a foundation for conclusions, for the
sake of theory development (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990). Hunter and Schmidts method
of meta-analysis is the most commonly used one in behavioral research (Lipsey and
Wilson, 2000). It controls for statistical artifacts, able to aggregate empirical results
across studies, and to estimate the true relationships between variables (Hunter and
Schmidt, 2004). The detailed procedures for this method are described in Hunter and
Schmidt (1990, 2004) and Lipsey and Wilson (2000). A summary of these steps are
introduced in the following section.
It starts with searching for eligible studies from all possible resources to aggregate
the effect size as accurately as possible (Lipsey and Wilson, 2000). The researcher
searched all databases such as ProQuest, PsychInfo . . . etc. using the term Negotiat *,
browsed periodicals indices and contents of specialized journals, or searched these
journals using the term Negotiation or bargaining. The researcher traced early
articles of some specialized authors through using reference lists of the most recent
articles. Cooper (1989) calls the last method locating the ancestry.
To find unpublished studies, the researcher e-mailed many authors in the field of
negotiation training, the Conflict Management Division of Academy of Management,
and possible authors from different universities online paper banks: Kelloggs Faculty
working papers, SSRN Electronic Library and Wharton Faculty papers. The
researcher searched Digital Dissertation Abstracts and ordered the original
dissertations through the library-loan service.
The second step of meta-analysis is to determine criteria of inclusion. These are
three:
(1) design of the study;
(2) characteristics of participants; and
(3) constructs validity.
The sample includes experimental studies that investigated the effect of training on
negotiators effectiveness, in dyadic negotiations. All studies followed typical steps:
first participants received a level of negotiation training. Second, they engaged in
face-to-face negotiation simulation where they are required to achieve fiscal outcome.
Design of experiments was pre/post-training measurement or post-training
measurement. Only the post-training measurement was included in the analysis.
Some studies had control and treatment groups. The meta-analyses included
participants from the treatment groups, those who received training.
Participants in the selected studies varied in their educational level, but were mostly
graduate students. This was not a critical factor to moderate the results of the studies.
Evidence shows no differences between undergraduate and graduate students
performance in many negotiation simulations (Kim et al., 2003). Studies included
participants of mixed gender, which is not a source of heterogeneity. A meta-analysis
of 62 studies shows no major differences in negotiation strategies and performance
Negotiation
training
199
JEIT
34,3
200
Negotiation
training
201
JEIT
34,3
202
can be considered drawn from one sample. The fail-safe N value tells us how many
studies are necessary to bring p-value of effect size to insignificant value (Hunter and
Schmidt, 2004). We need 122 studies, which results prove that effect size of this
meta-analysis is insignificant.
According to Lipsey and Wilson (2000) any meta-analysis effect-size less than 0.25
is small; a large effect size is equal to or larger than 0.40. This small effect and the other
indicators support that there were no variability or errors. The results are interpreted
in the favorable direction. Short training programs have effect on negotiators
performance that is small but significant.
The second meta-analysis included eight effect sizes from five studies that represent
the second experiments of the studies included in the first meta-analysis. The objective
of the second meta-analysis is to measure effects of a follow up training on individual
performance of trainees, which represents post-training transfer. The participants were
381, mostly MBA students. After five to seven weeks of the first training session,
participants received a follow up short reflective training session, two hours, then
participated in the simulations.
The results show that the effect size r is 0.76 and significant ( p , 0.05). According
to Lipsey and Wilson (2000) rule, the effect size is a large. The effect size is in the range
of confidence interval at 95 per cent, (0.39 , r , 1), which is a large range to one side,
with a small variance of 0.036, a small standard error SE 0.19, and insignificant
Q-value (Q 6.494, p 0.434) indicating no present variability among studies. The
fail-safe N is 486, which results prove that effect size of this meta-analysis is
insignificant.
A second session of follow up training is important for increasing negotiators
performance and post-training transfer. The second session concentrated on repeating
lessons from first session, and gave a chance to reinforce good strategies and avoid bad
ones.
The third meta-analysis included seven effect sizes from seven studies that
measured effect of training on dyads joint outcome. The joint outcome indicates
negotiators ability to cooperate during negotiation and focus on concern for others and
relation-building (Rollof et al., 2003). This is necessary for building networks in the
business world to keep long-term relations and for reaching integrative agreements
when it is possible to do so. Therefore, it was necessary to measure effect of training on
joint outcome.
The studies included 598 undergraduates from seven experiments. All studies used
simulations for multi-issue business agreements. Performance measured in terms of
percentage of negotiators who reached the maximum possible joint outcome. Training
time was short, ranged from 20 minutes to one hour of training. The training method
used in most studies was analogical encoding.
The effect size was r 0.37 and p , 0.05. It is a medium effect size according to
Lipsey and Wilsons (2000) rule. The effect size is in a small range of confidence
interval at 95 per cent (0.20 , r , 0.54). There was a small variance of 0.008, small
standard error SE 0.09, insignificant Q-value (Q 4.785, p 0.572), and the
fail-safe N is 171.
Negotiation training has main effect on joint outcome. Training transfer is higher,
compared to results of the first meta-analysis, short training have less effect on
individual outcome.
Negotiation
training
203
JEIT
34,3
204
trainees. Negotiators should spend more time in training programs to enhance their
performance and gain more skills. More time in training courses means more practice
of business negotiation that builds valuable experience for the trainees.
The results of the six meta-analysis conducted in study one and study two show
increase in the effect size with the increase of length of time spent in training programs.
Results of study one is more meaningful because participants were the same for the
first and second meta-analyses. The elevating effect size for the same participants from
the first to the second meta-analysis reflects how follow up training helps to increase
and maintain skills acquired through negotiation training. Training builds experience
in negotiation. The relatively small effect size of the first meta-analysis reflects that
training provides the base for building negotiation skills and experience. This fact was
confirmed in the second meta-analysis. Besides, we can infer conclusions for methods
of training a mix of experiential and reflective training might be more valuable than
offering experiential training alone as the case in the first meta-analysis.
The results support practices of negotiation training and its effectiveness in
transferring negotiation skills to trainees. This finding can be generalized to the other
factors of negotiation training, because they are measured through the level of received
training. Level of training combines all the interactions happening in the process of
negotiation training. Effects of methods styles and structure of the courses are the
underlined factors of level of training. Level of training is a measure of the overall
effectiveness of these factors. Characteristics of both trainer and trainees are not major
players in the process of training, maybe because the methods of training offset their
effect. However, more in-depth research is required to know how these characteristics
affect training transfer.
Implications for practice
The value of negotiation training is somehow neglected due to the doubts
surrounding its effectiveness and value for maintaining and developing human forces
of the firm. This study supports the value of negotiation training for increasing firms
performance through increasing the negotiation skills of its executives. Enough time
should be allowed for negotiation training, ten hours or more, to guarantee high
training transfer.
Practice of negotiation training should focus on reinforcing gained knowledge
through follow up regular training with enough time. This is the way to maintain
gained negotiation skills. Other fields of training could benefit from the findings.
Training can be effective in building soft skills and experience in other managerial
fields if long enough, repeated and designed in the appropriate.
Trained negotiators win deals that add financial value to the firm. This is
especially important for survival in tough times. Executives who are good negotiators
are satisfied with their performance and spread productivity in the firm. When
executives win deals for their firms they feel confident, satisfied and self-esteemed.
They are able to improve customer relations, employees satisfaction (Ertel, 1999;
Susskind and Corburn, 2000) and build business networks for the firm. The opposite
is true when they lose deals causing their firms financial loses and a bad reputation.
Firms should build and maintain negotiation skills in its human forces through
negotiation training.
Negotiation
training
205
JEIT
34,3
206
There are some valuable directions for future research, none was validated
empirically, are worthy of testing. For instance, negotiation experts suggest that
repeating similar or same simulations toward the end of the course helps to increase
and test trainees acquired skills (Pattton, 2000). Engaging trainees in real negotiations
with real businessmen after finishing training is an ideal manner to test trainees
performance in a realistic to avoid self-fulfilling biases of trainees (Pattton, 2000). Other
effective methods are to provide some kind of immediate punishment or rewards in
order to enhance trainees motivation to learn (Kniveton, 1975). There is a need for
more studies in the rich, yet not so cared for, field of negotiation training.
Notes
1. Didactic-analogical training, also referred to as conceptual training, provides trainees with
negotiation principles directly through readings, and lectures (Rollof et al., 2003).
Experiential training is based on Kolbs (1974) model of learning from experience (Lewicki,
1997). Experiential training begins by engaging students in experience, role-play
simulations, and then generalizes knowledge from it, or begins by abstracted lessons and
moves to experience (Lewicki, 1997). Reflective training is a complementary follow up
training to analyze and generalize acquired lessons from experiential training (Rollof et al.,
2003). Reflective training lets participants learn by analyzing their results compared to
others during the debriefing process after simulations (Susskind and Corburn, 2000).
2. According to the behavioral theory, behavior of negotiators refers to the strategies they
apply during negotiation process. Therefore, strategy and behavior are used
interchangeably in this paper.
3. There is a group of 11 studies that been conducted in first week of negotiation course. It was
not clear whether these studies offered training for students at all. So, I e-mailed authors to
ask them first about the exact training time that students received, before deciding to include
these studies in the meta-analysis. It turned out to be one day of training.
References
Anastakis, D. (2003), Negotiation skills for physicians, The American Journal of Surgery,
Vol. 185, pp. 74-8.
Anderson, C. and Thompson, L.L. (2004), Affect from the top down: how powerful individuals
positive affect shapes negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 125-39.
Bazerman, M. and Neale, M.A. (1982), Improving negotiation effectiveness under final offer
arbitration: the role of selection and training, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67,
pp. 543-53.
Bazerman, M.H. (1994), Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Bazerman, M.H., Magliozzi, T. and Neale, M.A. (1985), Integrative bargaining in a competitive
market, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, pp. 294-313.
Becker, G. (1975), Human Capital, 2nd ed., National Bureau of Economic Research, New York,
NY.
Berger, G., Kern, M. and Thompson, L. (2003), The enlightened negotiator: what is the best type
of interaction?, Proceedings of the 16th Annual IACM Conference.
Brett, F., Northcraft, G. and Pinkley, R. (1999), Stairways to heaven: an interlocking
self-regulation model of negotiation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 435-51.
Brett, J.F., Pinkley, R.L. and Jackofsky, E.F. (1996), Alternatives to having BATNA in dyadic
negotiation: the influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7, pp. 121-37.
Brodt, S.E. (1994), Inside information and negotiator decision behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58, pp. 172-202.
Carroll, J.S., Bazerman, M.H. and Maury, R. (1988), Negotiator cognitions: a descriptive approach
to negotiators understanding of their opponents, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 41, pp. 352-65.
Clyman, D.R. and Tripp, T.M. (2000), Discrepant values and measures of negotiator
performance, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 9, pp. 251-74.
Coleman, P.T. and Lim, Y.Y.J. (2001), A systematic approach to evaluating the effects of
collaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 17,
pp. 363-92.
Cooper, H.M. (1989), Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Ertel, D. (1999), Turning negotiation into a corporate capability, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 77, pp. 55-70.
Fortgang, R.S. (2000), Taking stock: an analysis of negotiation pedagogy across four
professional fields, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 325-38.
Friedman, R. (1992), From theory to practice: critical choice for mutual gains training,
Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 91-8.
Galinsky, A.D. and Mussweiler, T. (2001), First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking
and negotiator focus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 657-69.
Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T. and Medvec, V.H. (2002), Disconnecting outcomes and
evaluations: the role of negotiator focus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 83, pp. 1131-40.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, G.F. and Thompson, L. (2004), Analogical encoding: facilitating
knowledge transfer and integration, paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the
Cognitive Science Society.
Gist, M., Bavetta, A.G. and Stevens, C.K. (1990), Transfer training method: Its influence on skill
generalization, skill repetition, and performance level, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 501-23.
Gist, M., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), Effects of self-efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 837-61.
Gist, M.E. and Stevens, C.K. (1998), Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training
method on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 142-69.
Greenhalgh, L. and Chapman, D.I. (1998), Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and
demonstration of their impact on the process and outcome of negotiation, Group Decision
and Negotiation, Vol. 7, pp. 465-89.
Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S.A. and Gilkey, R.W. (1985), The effects of negotiator preferences,
situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 9-33.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, Sage Publications, London.
Hunter, J. and Schmidt, F.L. (2004), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Negotiation
training
207
JEIT
34,3
208
Hunter, L. and McKerise, R. (1992), Can mutual gains training change labor-management
relationships?, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 319-30.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Dudley, B. and Magnuson, D. (1995), Training elementary school
students to manage conflict, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 673-86.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Mitchell, J. and Fredrickson, J. (1997), The impact of
conflict resolution training on middle school students, The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 137, pp. 11-21.
Kim, P.H., Diekmann, K.A. and Tenbrunsel, A.E. (2003), Flattery may get you somewhere: the
strategic implications of providing positive vs negative feedback about ability vs
ethicality in negotiation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 90,
pp. 225-43.
King, C. and Puls, M. (1996), Global theatre: a training programme for international negotiations
a case study using videoconferencing, Training & Management Development Methods,
Vol. 10, pp. 829-40.
Kniveton, B.H. (1975), Negotiation training and social psychology, Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 6, pp. 59-72.
Koszegi, S. and Kersten, G. (2003), On-line/off-line: joint negotiation teaching in Montreal and
Vienna, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, pp. 337-45.
Lee, D.-H. (1988), A Reformation of the Interorganizational Bargaining Process, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Lewicki, R.J. (1997), Teaching negotiation and dispute resolution in colleges of business: the state
of the practice, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 253-69.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2000), Practical Meta-analysis, Sage Publications, London.
Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L. and Gentner, D. (2003), Analogical learning in negotiation
teams, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2, pp. 119-27.
Mastenbroek, W. (1991), Development of negotiating skills, in Kremenyuk, V. (Ed.),
International Negotiation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 379-99.
Morris, M.W., Larrick, R.P. and Su, S.K. (1999), Misperceiving negotiation counterparts:
when situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 52-67.
Movius, H. (2008), The effectiveness of negotiation training, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 24,
pp. 509-31.
Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. (2003), Learning negotiation skills: four models of
knowledge creation and transfer, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 529-40.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1985), The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence
on bargaining behaviors and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28,
pp. 34-49.
Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (1992), Negotiator cognition and rationality: a behavioral
decision theory perspective, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 51, pp. 157-75.
Nierenberg, G.I. (1984), The Art of Negotiating, Pocket Books, New York, NY.
Northcraft, G.B., Neale, M.A. and Earley, P.C. (1994), Joint effects of assigned goals and training
on negotiator performance, Human Performance, Vol. 7, pp. 257-72.
Northcraft, G.B., Preston, J.N., Neale, M.A., Kim, P.H. and Thomas-Hunt, M.C. (1998), Non-linear
preference functions and negotiated outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 73, pp. 54-75.
Novemsky, N. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2004), What makes negotiators happy? The differential
effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 186-97.
Park, J.-E. and Holloway, B.B. (2003), Adaptive selling behavior revisited, The Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-51.
Pattton, B.M. (2000), On teaching negotiation, in Wheeler, M. (Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideas
and Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 7-62.
Pecorino, P. and Boening, M. (2001), Bargaining and information: an empirical analysis of
multistage arbitration game, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 922-48.
Peterson, R.M. and Lucas, G.H. (2001), Expanding the antecedent component of the traditional
business negotiation model: pre-negotiation literature review and planning-preparation
propositions, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9, pp. 37-49.
Polzer, J.T. and Neale, M.A. (1995), Constraints or catalysts? Reexamining goal setting within
the context of negotiation, Human Performance, Vol. 8, pp. 3-26.
Raiffa, H. (1982), The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Rollof, M., Putnam, L. and Anatasious, L. (2003), Negotiation skills, in Greene, J. and
Burleson, B. (Eds), Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 801-34.
Runkle, C., Osterholm, A., Hoban, R., McAdam, E. and Tull, R. (2000), Brief negotiation program
for promoting behavior change, Education for Health, Vol. 13, pp. 377-86.
Russ-Eft, D. and Zenger, J. (1995), Behavior modeling training in North America: a research
summary, in Mulder, M., Nijhof, W. and Brinkerhoff, R. (Eds), Corporate Training for
Effective Performance, Academic Publishers, London.
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001), The science of training: a decade of progress, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 471-99.
Stevens, C.K. and Gist, M.E. (1997), Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on
negotiation skill maintenance: what are the mechanisms?, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp. 955-78.
Stevens, C.K., Bavetta, A.G. and Gist, M.E. (1993), Gender differences in the acquisition of salary
negotiation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 723-35.
Susskind, L. (2004), Negotiation training: are you getting your moneys worth?, Negotiation,
pp. 3-5.
Susskind, L. and Corburn, J. (2000), Using simulations to teach negotiation, in Wheeler, B.C.
(Ed.), Teaching Negotiation: Ideas and Innovations, PON Books, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 285-310.
Thompson, L. (1990), Negotiation behavior and outcomes, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,
pp. 515-32.
Thompson, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), Surface-similarity inhibits learning: making the case
for learning in different domains, paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Thompson, L., Gentner, D. and Lowenstein, J. (2000), Avoiding missed opportunities in
managerial life: analogical training more powerful than individual case training,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, pp. 60-75.
Thompson, L., Valley, K.L. and Kramer, R.M. (1995), The bittersweet feeling of success:
an examination of social perception in negotiation, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 467-92.
Van Boven, L. and Thompson, L. (2003), A Look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models
in negotiation, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 6, pp. 387-404.
Negotiation
training
209
JEIT
34,3
210
Walters, A.E., Stuhlmacher, A.F. and Meyer, L.L. (1998), Gender and negotiator
competitiveness: a meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 76, pp. 1-29.
Weingart, L.R., Hyder, E.B. and Prietula, M.J. (1996), Knowledge matters: the effect of tactical
descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 1205-17.
Weingart, L.R., Prietula, M.J., Hyder, E.B. and Genovese, C.R. (1999), Knowledge and the
sequential processes of negotiation: a Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 366-77.
Weissbein, D. (2000), Improving Training Effectiveness Through Motivation: Creating a
Psychological States Intervention, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
White, S.B. and Neale, M.A. (1994), The role of negotiators aspirations and settlement
expectations on bargaining outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 57, pp. 303-17.
Further reading
Blount, S., Thomas-Hunt, M.C. and Neale, M.A. (1996), The price is rightor is it? A reference
point model of two-party price negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 68, pp. 1-12.
Bottom, W.P. and Paese, P.W. (1999), Judgment accuracy and the asymmetric cost of errors in
distributive bargaining, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 8, p. 349.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J. and Thompson, L. (2003), Learning and transfer: a general role for
analogical encoding, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 393-405.
Schweitzer, M.E. and Croson, R. (1999), Curtailing deception: the impact of direct questions on
lies and omissions, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10, pp. 225-48.
Shell, G.R. (1999), Bargaining for Advantage, Viking Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Thompson, L. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2004), Why negotiation is the most popular business school
course, Ivey Business Journal Online, Vol. 68, pp. 1-7.
White, S., Valley, K.L., Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.A. and Peck, S.R. (1994), Alternative models of
price behavior in dyadic negotiations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 57, pp. 430-47.
About the author
Eman ElShenawy is Assistant Professor at The Faculty of Commerce at the Suez Canal
University, Ismailia. She joined the Suez Canal University in 1996 not counting her years in the
USA as a PhD student. Her PhD degree was received from Washington State University. Her
research interests are in negotiations, personality traits effects on strategic decision making and
negotiations, cross-cultural teams and entrepreneurship. Eman ElShenawy can be contacted at:
eelshenawy@scuegypt.edu.eg
1. Sai On Cheung, Pui Ting Chow. 2011. Withdrawal in Construction Project Dispute Negotiation. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 137, 1071-1079. [CrossRef]
2. Uta Herbst, Markus Voeth, Christoph Meister. 2011. What do we know about buyerseller negotiations
in marketing research? A status quo analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 967-978. [CrossRef]