Script Author: Katja Borchert, Ph.D. (katjab@millisecond.com), Millisecond
Created: January 01, 2021
Last Modified: January 30, 2024 by K. Borchert (katjab@millisecond.com), Millisecond
Script Copyright © Millisecond Software, LLC
This script implements a Negotiation Task procedure using the computer as a co-negotiator. The implemented procedure is based on De Dreu & Van Kleeff (2004, Experiment 3) and follows their general Negotiation Task procedure: Module1: Intro Module2: Manipulation Module3: Negotiation Task Module4: Manipulation Checks Module5: Debriefing
One of the main independent variables investigated is the perceived role of power. For example, this script looks at Supervisors vs. Subordinates. Note that each module can be customized.
De Dreu, C.K.W. & Van Kleef, G.A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 40, Issue 3, 303-319. ISSN 0022-1031, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.004.
12 minutes
Participants play a simulated negotiation game with a partner (aka 'the computer') within the context of work in an office designing advertisement campaigns for various organizations.
By default, players are randomly assigned the 'supervisor' or 'subordinate' role for the negotiation of three issues: next client, proposed deadline, advertisement campaign.
Each issue has 9 levels of awarded points and participants are asked to get as many points as they can in the negotiation. However, if agreement cannot be reached within an undefined amount of time, participants do not win any points at all.
Before the negotiation task, participants and co-player exchange negotiation-relevant questions. The questions posed to the participants are systematically selected to influence participant's impressions of the co-player. The questions posed to the participant differ on 2 dimensions: a) competitive vs. cooperative b) leading vs. diagnostic After responding to the computer's questions, the negotiation experiences an 'internal server error' and jumps straight to the negotiation tasks without presenting the co-players responses to the participant's question.
The negotiations are started by the participant (default setting) and end either with complete agreement on all three issues or after 6 unsuccessful rounds of negotiations.
The task ends with a couple of manipulation check questions and a debriefing.
Design:
2 power roles (supervisor vs. subordinate) x
2 question types (leading vs. diagnostic) x
2 negotiationStyle hypothesis (cooperation vs. competition) = 8 between-participant groups
=> Participants are assigned to the power role according to setting parameters.roleAssignment
=> random assignment to question type and negotiationStyle hypothesis
Experimental Procedure:
(1) Module1: Intro -> pairing with Co-player -> Role Assignment
(2) Module2: Manipulation => Question Generation (up to 6) and question Sharing btw. participant and co-player
(co-players questions selected according to assigned question type and negotiationStyle hypothesis)
=> Participant is asked to respond to co-player's question but a 'fake' error message after submitting
the responses interrupts the 'sharing of responses' and participant goes on to negotiation task.
(3) Module3: Negotiation Task: max 6 rounds (see parameters.maxRounds)
- Participant or Computer (editable parameters) starts the negotiation by proposing 3 (levels) for issueA, issueB, and issueC
=> if the proposed levels are the same as the last counter offer(s) from the computer,
then the issue(s) get resolved (aka 'participant agrees with co-player')
Alternatively: participant gets the option to simply ACCEPT the proposed offer (in that case, negotiations end)
=> if the proposed levels are lower from the last counter offers from the computer, the
computer selects new counter offers (see list.computerOffers).
=> if the proposed levels are the same or higher than the updated counter offers, then the issue(s) get resolved
(aka 'computer agrees with participant')
=> if not a new round is started
• the counter offers proposed by the computer are the same as the ones by De Dreu & Van Kleeff (2004)
and can be edited under list.computerOffers.
• a previously resolved issue can still be opened up again if participant selects a different value
during a subsequent round
Negotiation Stop:
- ALL issues have been resolved OR
- 6 unsuccessful negotiation rounds
(4) Module4: Manipulation Checks
- ratings of positive, pleasant, sociable, considerate impression of co-player
- ratings of power and influence of co-player over participant
- textbox to collect any other feedback
(5) Module5: Debriefing
- Issue Table from De Dreu & Van Kleeff (2004, table 1, p.307)
=> change issues under negotiationtaskIssuechart.htm/negotiationtaskIssuechart2.htm
=> change point values under list.issueAPoints/list.issueBPoints/list.issueCPoints/
provided by Millisecond - can be edited under section Editable Instructions.
The instructions are not original to De Dreu & Van Kleeff (2004). They are Millisecond's interpretation
of the described procedure.
File Name: negotiationtask_summary*.iqdat
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| inquisit.version | Inquisit version number |
| computer.platform | Device platform: win | mac |ios | android |
| startDate | Date the session was run |
| startTime | Time the session was run |
| subjectId | Participant ID |
| groupId | Group number |
| sessionId | Session number |
| elapsedTime | Session duration in ms |
| completed | 0 = Test was not completed 1 = Test was completed |
| power | "high" (participant is supervisor) vs. "low" (participant is subordinate) |
| questionType | "diagnostic" vs. "leading" |
| negotiationStyleHypothesis | "competitive" vs. "cooperative" |
| demandIndex | Average sum of participants 'demand points' (averaged across negotiation rounds) |
| impressionIndex | Average rating of positive/pleasant/sociable/considerate |
| positiveRating | Positive rating of co-player |
| pleasantRating | Pleasant rating of co-player |
| sociableRating | Sociable rating of co-player |
| considerateRating | Considerate rating of co-player |
| powerRating | Power rating of co-player |
| influenceRating | Influence rating of co-player |
File Name: negotiationtaskRaw*.iqdat
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| build | Inquisit version number |
| computer.platform | Device platform: win | mac |ios | android |
| date | Date the session was run |
| time | Time the session was run |
| subject, group, | With the current subject/groupnumber |
| session | Session number |
| blockCode | Name of the current block |
| blockNum | Number of the current block |
| trialCode | Name of the current trial |
| trialNum | Number of the current trial |
| power | "high" (participant is supervisor) vs. "low" (participant is subordinate) |
| questionType | "diagnostic" vs. "leading" |
| negotiationStyleHypothesis | "competitive" vs. "cooperative" |
| response | The participant's response |
| latency | The response latency (in ms) |
| roundCount | Tracks the number of negotiation rounds |
| roundContinue | 0 = missing participant demands; 1 = participant selected all demends |
| demandPointsPerRound | Calculates the sum of the participant demands from the current round across all three issues |
| pIssueA | Participant's selected level for issue A |
| pIssueB | Participant's selected level for issue B |
| pIssueC | Participant's selected level for issue C |
| cIssueA | Current computer's level for issue A |
| cIssueB | Current computer's level for issue B |
| cIssueC | Current computer's level for issue C |
| cOffers | The three fixed computer choices for the current round if participant takes the previous counter offer for a particular issue, the individual computers level is NOT updated for this issue according to cOffers Example Round 1: cOffers = 9-8-8 participant suggests '1' for issue B. Computer counters with '8' Round 2: cOffers = 9-7-8 a) participant suggests '8' (the previous counter offer) => issue B is resolved (cIssueB stays at 8) b) participant suggests '3' => issue B is not resolved; cIssueB is updated to 7 |
| issueAResolved | 0 = issue A is currently resolved; 1 = issue A is currently not resolved |
| issueBResolved | 0 = issue B is currently resolved; 1 = issue B is currently not resolved |
| issueCResolved | 0 = issue C is currently resolved; 1 = issue C is currently not resolved |
| stop | 0 = the negotiation should not stop; 1 = the negotiation should stop |
The procedure can be adjusted by setting the following parameters.
| Name | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|
| maxRounds | The maximum number of negotiations rounds if additional rounds are run, update list.computerOffers below | 6 |
| roleAssignment | 1 = random assignment of roles (see De Dreu & Van Kleeff, 2004) 2 = participant is 'subordinate' 3 = participant is 'supervisor' | 1 |
| firstOffer | Sets who will make the first Offer choose from: "participant" vs. "computer" (participant: see De Dreu & Van Kleeff, 2004) | "participant" |