협상 상대의 분노표현 대상과 협상주도권이 협상 결과에 미치는 영향
Effects of the Target of Negotiation Counterpart’s Anger Expression and Power on Negotiation Outcomes
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구의 목적은 협상 상대가 분노를 표현하는 대상과 협상의 주도권이 협상 결과에 미치는 영향을 알아보는 데 있다. 대학생 140명(남성 42명, 여성 98명)이 컴퓨터를 이용한 협상 실험에 참여하였다. 참가자는 분노표현 대상(분노표현 억제, 협상자를 향한 분노표현, 공동의 적을 향한 분노표현)과 협상 주도권(있음, 없음)의 6개 조건 중 하나에 무선할당되었다. 협상 결과는 단기적인 지표인 참가자의 양보와 장기적인 지표인 향후 협상 의도로 측정되었다. 참가자가 처음으로 제안한 시급을 공변인으로 설정하여 분노표현 대상과 주도권이 양보에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위해 이원 공변량 분석을 실시한 결과, 분노표현 대상과 주도권의 상호작용 효과는 유의하지 않았으나 각각의 주효과는 유의하게 나타났다. 공동의 적을 향한 분노표현보다 협상자를 향한 분노표현이 더 많은 양보를 얻어냈으며, 참가자가 주도권이 있을 때보다 주도권이 없을 때 양보를 더 많이 하는 것으로 나타났다. 분노표현 대상과 주도권이 향후 협상 의도에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위한 이원 변량 분석 결과, 분노표현 대상의 주효과가 유의하게 나타났다. 협상자를 향한 분노표현보다 분노표현을 억제할 때 향후 협상 의도가 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 연구의 한계점과 후속 연구의 방향에 대하여 논의하였다.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of target of anger expression and power on negotiation outcomes. One hundred forty undergraduate students (42 males, 98 females) participated in computer-mediated negotiation experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions in a 3 (target of anger expression: control vs. negotiator-directed anger vs. common enemy-directed anger) 2 (power: high vs. low) factorial design. Negotiation outcomes were measured by concession as short-term consequences and future negotiation intention as long-term consequences. An analysis of convariance(ANCOVA) was performed to control for the effects of participant’s first offers in target of anger expression and power on concessions. The results showed that there were no significant interaction between opponents’ target of anger expression and participant’s power. There were significant main effects of the target of anger expression and power. Participants in the negotiator-directed anger condition gave more concessions than those in the common enemy-directed anger condition. And participants in the low power condition gave more concessions than those in the high power condition. The results of ANOVA showed that the main effect of the target of anger expression was significant. Participants who faced a counterpart displaying negotiator-directed anger were less likely to negotiate in the future than those in the control condition. Implications and limitations of these results were discussed.
참고문헌 (29)
- 심준섭, "협상의 이해" (2008), 박영사
- 채선화, "협상상황에서 화와 기분좋음의 강도가 양보행동에 미치는 효과", 석사, 심리학, pp.2006
- 한덕웅, "사회심리학" (2005), 학지사
- Bower, Gordon H, "Mood and memory", American psychologist, 36(2), pp.129~148 (1981)
- Campbell, Donald T, "Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities", Behavioral science, 3(1), pp.14~25 (1958)
- Carnevale, Peter J., "Negotiation and mediation", Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), pp.531~582 (1992)
- Fisher, Roger, "Getting to yes" (1981), Houghton Mifflin
- Fletcher, Garth JO, "Handbook of The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology", pp.230~244 (1988), Sage
- Frijda, Nico H., "The emotions" (1986), Combridge University Press
- Hillebrandt, Annika, "Comparing integral and incidental emotions: Testing insights from emotions as social information theory and attribution theory", Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), pp.732~752 (2017)
- Keltner, Dacher, "Power, approach, and inhibition", Psychological Review, 110(2), pp.265~284 (2003)
- Kopelman, Shirli, "The three faces of eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), pp.81~101 (2006)
- Lazarus, Richard S., "Emotion and adaptation" (1991), Oxford University Press
- Lazerus, Talya, "Positive bias in judging ingroup member's emotional expression", Emotion, 16(8), pp.1117~1125 (2016)
- Lewicki, Roy J., "Handbook of research on negotiation", pp.161~190 (2013), Edward Elgar
- Miller, Dale T., "Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?", Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), pp.213~225 (1975)
- Mullen, Brian, "Self-serving attributions for performance in naturalistic setting: A meta-analytic review", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), pp.3~22 (1988)
- Neale, Margaret Ann, "Cognition and rationality in negotiation" (1991), Free Press
- Neale, Margaret Ann, "Handbook of Research in organizational behavior" (1991), JAI Press
- Overbeck, Jennifer R., "I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Precesses, 112(2), pp.126~139 (2010)
- Sinaceur, Marwan, "Get mad and get more than even: When and why angeer expression is effective in negotiations", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), pp.314~322 (2006)
- Thompson, Leigh, "Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues", Psycholocial Bulletin, 108(3), pp.512~532 (1990)
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI dose it", Human Relations, 67(9), pp.1145~1164 (2014)
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information" (2016), Cambridge University Press
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), pp.1557~1569 (2007)
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42(1), pp.45~96 (2010)
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "Emotional influence at work: Take it EASI", Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), pp.311~339 (2012)
- Van Kleef, Gerben A., "Handbook of research on negotiation", pp.103~130 (2013), Edward Elgar
- Wang, Lu, "Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 119(1), pp.54~63 (2012)