Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

There is an increasing use of computer media for negotiations. However, the use of computer-mediated channels increases the hostile expressions of emotion, termed flaming. Although researchers agree that flaming has important effects on negotiation, predictions concerning these effects are inconsistent, suggesting a need for further investigation. We address this need by extending current flaming and negotiation research in two ways. First, we identify two different types of flaming: that which is motivated by perceptions concerning the negotiating opponent (e.g., he/she is unfair) and that which is motivated by perceptions concerning the negotiating context (e.g., the communication channel is too slow). Second, we differentiate between the effects of flaming on the concession behaviors of the flame sender and the flame recipient, and the effects of these behaviors on negotiated agreement. Via a laboratory study, we demonstrate that flames directed at the negotiation opponent slightly decrease the likelihood of reaching an agreement, and when an agreement is reached, it result in outcomes significantly favoring the flame recipient rather than the flame sender. In contrast, flames directed at the negotiation context significantly increase the likelihood of agreement, although outcomes still favor the flame recipient over the flame sender. These results suggest that flame senders are generally worse off than flame recipients, which provides an important basis for the strategic use of flaming in negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbink K and Hennig-Schmidt H (2006) Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment. Experimental Economics 9 (3), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken M and Waller B (2000) Flaming among first-time group support system users. Information and Management 37, 95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F and Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (3), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo M and Aiken M (2004) Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems 36 (3), 205–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvard M (2004) The ultimatum game, fairness, and cooperation among big game hunters. In Foundations of Human Sociality: Ethnography and Experiments in 15 Small-scale Societies (HENRICH J, BOYD R, BOWLES S, GINTIS H, FEHR E and CAMERER C, Eds), pp 413–435, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson CA and Bushman BJ (2002) Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson C and Thompson LL (2004) Affect from the top down: how powerful individuals' positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ba S and Pavlou P (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premium and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly 26 (3), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales RF (1951) Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1983) Psychological mechanism of aggression. In Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews (GEEN RG and DONNERSTEIN EI, Eds), pp 1–40, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron RA (1990) Environmentally induced positive affect: its impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation, and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 20 (5), 368–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry B (1999) The tactical use of emotion in negotiation. In Research in Negotiation in Organizations (BIES RJ and LEWICKI RJ, Eds), Vol. 7, pp 93–121, JAI Press, Stamford, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry B and Oliver R (1996) Affect in dyadic negotiation: a model and propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67 (2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister RF, Heatherton TF and Tice DM (1994) Losing Control: How and Why People Fail at Self-Regulation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz L (1988) Frustrations, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression. Aggressive Behavior 10, 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz L (1993) Aggression. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen KL (1991) Five years of Group Research: what we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management 17, 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies RJ (1987) The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior 9, 289–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore K and Vulkan N (1999) Applying game theory to automated negotiation. Netnomics 1, 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosman R, Hennig-Schmidt H and van Winden F (2006) Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment. Experimental Economics 9 (1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuer J and Freud S (1955) Studies on hysteria. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (JAMES T and STRACHEY A, Eds), Hogarth Press/Institute of Psycho-Analysis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown P and Levinson SC (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushman BJ (2002) Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 724–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF and Phillips CM (2001) Do people aggress to improve their Mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale PJ, O'Connor KM and McCusker C (1993) Time pressure in negotiation and mediation. In Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making (SVENSON O and MAULE AJ, Eds), pp 117–127, Plenum Press, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (MARCOULIDES GA, Ed.), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB (1993) Influence: Science and Practice. Scott, Foresman and Company, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark S (2004) Resolving online disputes. Available online at www.abc.net.au/rn/science/buzz/stories/s1088966.htm (retrieved October 2005).

  • Colomb GG and Simutus JA (1996) Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In. Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives (HERRING S, Ed.), pp 203–222, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

  • Daniel T, Seale D and Rapoport A (1998) Strategic play and adaptive learning in the sealed bid bargaining mechanism. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42, 133–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91, 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener E (1980) Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In The Psychology of Group Influence (PAULUS PB, Ed.), pp 209–242, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue WA, Diez ME and Stahle RB (1983) New directions in negotiation research. In Communication Yearbook (BOSTROM R, Ed.), Vol. 7, pp 249–279, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue WA and Ramesh C (1992) Negotiator–opponent relationships. In Communication and Negotiation (PUTNAM LL and ROLOFF ME, Eds), pp 209–232, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dorado M, Medina F, Munduate L, Cisneros I and Euwema M (2002) Computer-mediated negotiation of an escalated conflict. Small Group Research 33, 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman D and Olekalns M (2008) Emotions in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation 17, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn JR and Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88, 736–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • eBay (2007) http://news.ebay.com/fastfacts_ebay_marketplace.cfm.

  • Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD and Rhoades L (2001) Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P (1993) Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist 48 (4), 638–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk RF and Miller NB (1992) A Primer for Soft Modeling. University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E and Gachter S (2000) Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson RB (1982) Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence. Social Psychology Quarterly 45, 245–254.

  • Fisher R and Ury W (1991) Getting to Yes. Penguin Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (3), 565–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgas JP (2001) On being moody but influential: the role of affect in social influence strategies. In Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes (FORGAS JP and WILLIAMS KD, Eds), pp 147–166, Psychology Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune A and Brodt S (2000) Face to face or virtually, for the second time around: the influence of task, past experience, and media on trust and deception in negotiation. Manuscript under review, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.

  • Freitas A and Salovey P (2000) Regulating emotion in the long and short term. Psychological Inquiry 11, 178–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman R, Anderson C, Brett J, Olekalns M, Goates N and Lisco CC (2004) The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically-mediated disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulk J, Steinfield CS, Schmitz J and Power JG (1987) A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research 14, 529–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky AD, Ku G and Wang CS (2005) Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8 (2), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geen RG (2001) Human Aggression. Open University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geen RG and Quanty MB (1977) The catharsis of aggression: an evaluation of a hypothesis. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (BERKOWITZ L, Ed.), Vol. 10, pp 1–37, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Investment Technology (2003) Harborside+ Offers a Large-Block Trading Facility but Building Awareness is the Paramount Challenge. Global Investment Technology, Investment Media Inc..

  • Goldner SA and Donath J (2004) Social Roles in Electronic Communities. Paper presented at the Internet Research 5.0, Brighton, England.

  • Gouldner A (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25 (2), 176–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth W and van Damme E (1998) Information, strategic behavior and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: an experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth W, Schmittberger R and Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 (4), 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT and Rapson RL (1994) Emotional Contagion. Cambridge University Press, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heise D and O'Brien J (1993) Emotion expression in groups. In Handbook of Emotions (LEWIS M and HAVILAND JM, Eds), pp 489–497, Guilford, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz SR, Turoff M and Johnson K (1989) Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems 5, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead AB, McGrath JE and O'Connor KM (1993) Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research 24 (3), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland JS (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal 20, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen L (1963) Soviet-American bargaining behavior in the postwar disarmament negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 7, 522–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N, Cooper R and Chin W (forthcoming) Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiation among strangers. Decision Support Systems.

  • Jones EE and Pittman TS (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Psychological Perspectives on the Self (ULS J, Ed.), Vol. 1, pp 231–262, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones GR and George JM (1998) The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 23, 531–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E and Rifkin J (2001) On-line Conflict Management. Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayany JM (1998) Contexts of uninhibited online behavior: flaming in social newsgroups on Usenet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49 (12), 1135–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein J, Moon Y and Picard RW (2002) This computer responds to user frustration: theory, design and results. Interacting with Computers 14, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S, Zubrow D, Moses AM and Geller V (1985) Affect in computer-mediated communication: an experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human Computer Interaction 1, 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komorita SS and Kravitz DA (1979) The effects of alternatives in bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15, 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman S, Rosette AS and Thompson L (2006) The three faces of eve: strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99, 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM (1994) The sinister attribution error: paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and Emotion 18, 199–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology 50, 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowk W, Lee J, Huynh M and Pi S (2002) Role of GSS on collaborative problem-solving learning: a study on knowledge externalization. European Journal of Information Systems 11, 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon S and Weingart LR (2004) Unilateral concessions from the other party: concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2), 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latz M (2003) Offer/Concession strategy must reflect ultimate goal. Business Journal, February, p. 1.

  • Lax D and Sebenius J (1991) The power of alternatives or the limits to negotiation. In Negotiation Theory and Practice (BRESLIN JW and RUBIN JZ, Eds), pp 97–114, The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea M, O'Shea T, Fung P and Spears R (1992) Flaming in computer-mediated communication: observations, explanations, implications. In Contexts of Computer-mediated Communication (LEA M, Ed.), pp 89–112, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea M and Spears R (1991) Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 34 (2), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leaky R and Lewin R (1978) People of the Lake. Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York.

  • Lee H. (2005) Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly 46, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ and Wiethoff C (2000) Trust, trust development and trust repair. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (DEUTSCH M and COLEMAN PT, Eds), pp 86–107, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim L and Benbasat I (1993) A theoretical perspective of negotiation support systems. Journal of Management Information System 9 (3), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magneau JM and Pruitt DG (1979) The social psychology of bargaining: a theoretical synthesis. In Industrial Relations: A Social Psychological Approach (STEPHENSON GM and BROTHERSON CJ, Eds), John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra D (2004) Trust and reciprocity decisions: the differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making 94, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E and Neale M (1993) Power imbalance and the pattern of exchange in dyadic negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E, Neale MA and Northcraft GB (1995) Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63, 276–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin J (1997) Miss Manners' Basic Training: Communication. Crown, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson K (2007) Towards a design science of ethical decision support. Journal of Business Ethics 76, 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKersie RB and Fonstad NO (1997) Teaching negotiation theory and skills over the internet. Negotiation Journal 13, 363–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel W (1999) Introduction to Personality, 6th edn. Harcourt Brace, Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel W and Shoda Y (1999) Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: the Cognitive Affective Personality System (CAPS). In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 2e (PERVIN LA and JOHN O, Eds), pp 197–218, Guilford, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore D, Kurtzberg T, Thompson L and Morris M (1999) Long and short routes to success in electronically-mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77 (1), 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moral-Toranzo F, Canto-Ortiz J and Gómez-Jacinto L (2007) Anonymity effects in computer-mediated communication in the case of minority influence. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (3), 1660–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mori (1999) Employees get ‘It’ out of their systems. www.mori.com/polls/1999/rage.shtml.

  • Morley IE and Stephenson GM (1977) The Social Psychology of Bargaining. George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris CG (1970) Changes in group interaction during problem-solving. Journal of Social Psychology 81, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris M, Nadler J, Kurtzberg T and Thompson L (2002) Schmooze or lose: social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics 6 (1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow JL, Hansen MH and Pearson AW (2004) The cognitive and affective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues 16 (1), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murnighan JK and Straub PG (1995) An experimental investigation of ultimatums: common knowledge, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 27, 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally J and Bernstein JC (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan PB and Flanagin AJ (2003) Reconceptualizing “flaming” and other problematic messages. New Media & Society 5, 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks M and Floyd K (1996) Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication 46 (1), 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer E and Koeszegi ST (2006) Hot versus cool behavioural styles in electronic negotiations: the impact of communication mode. Group Decision and Negotiation 15 (2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillutla MM and Murnighan JK (1996) Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68 (3), 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A and Heppel N (1998) Anonymity in group support systems research: a new conceptualization, measure and contingency. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (3), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes T and Spears R (1998) Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 123, 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K and De Groot D (2001) Social influence in computer-mediated groups: the effects of anonymity on social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 1243–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt D and Carnevale P (1993) Negotiation in Social Conflict. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt DG and Carnevale PJ (1982) The development of integrative agreements in social conflict. In Living with Other People (DERLEGA VJ and GRZELAK J, Eds), pp 151–181, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam LL and Roloff ME (1992) Communication perspectives on negotiation. In Communication and Negotiation (PUTNAM LL and ROLOFF ME, Eds), pp 1–17, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rangaswamy A and Shell RG (1997) Using computers to realize joint gains in negotiations: toward an electronic bargaining table. Management Science 43 (8), 1147–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapport A, Erev I and Zwick R (1995) An experimental study of buyer–seller negotiation with one-sided incomplete information. Management Science 41, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinig B and Mejias R (2004) The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS-supported discussions. Small Group Research 35, 698–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinig BA, Briggs RO and Nunamaker JF (1998) Flaming in the electronic classroom. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (3), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers RW (1980) Expressions of aggresion: Agression-inhibiting effects of anonymity to authority and threatened retaliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6, 315–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothbart M and Hallmark W (1988) Ingroup–outgroup differences in the perceived efficacy of coercion and conciliation in resolving social conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (2), 248–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sally D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society 7 (1), 58–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V and Chin WW (1994) The effects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Sciences 25 (2), 215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer KR (1986) Vocal affect expression: a review and a model for future research. Psychological Bulletin 99, 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer KR (1999) Appraisal theory. In Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (DALGLEISH T and POWER M, Eds), pp 637–663, Wiley, Chichester London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selfe CL and Meyer PR (1991) Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication 8 (2), 163–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel J, Dubrovsky V, Kiesler S and McGuire TW (1986) Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37, 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S and Fouraker L (1960) Bargaining and Group Decision Making; Experiments in Bilateral Monopoly. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinaceur M and Neale M (2005) Not all threats are created equal: how implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 14 (1), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinaceur M and Tiedens LZ (2005) Get mad and get more than even: when and why anger expression is effective in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42, 314–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DL, Pruitt DG and Carnevale PJ (1982) Matching and mismatching: the effect of own limit, other's toughness and time pressure on concession rate in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 876–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangler B (2003) Distributive bargaining. In Beyond Intractability (BURGESS G and BURGESS H, Eds), Conflict Research Consortium, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_bargaining/.

  • Spears R and Lea M (1992) Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 2, 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull L and Kiesler S (1986) Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science 32 (11), 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull L and Kiesler S (1991) Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinel W, Van Kleef GA and Harinck F (2008) Are you Talking to Me?! Separating the people from the problem when expression emotions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 362–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner I (2004) Industry profile: Steve Abernethy, Square Trade President and CEO. Available online at http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abu/y204/m05/abu0119/s04 (visited April 2007).

  • Stuhlmacher AF and Citera M (2005) Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology 20 (1), 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher AF, Citera M and Willis T (2007) Gender differences in virtual negotiation: theory and research. Sex Roles 57 (5–6), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher AF and Walters AE (1999) Gender differences in negotiation outcome: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 52, 653–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompsen PA and Fougler DA (1996) Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior 12, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L and Hrebec D (1996) Lose-lose agreements in interdependent decision making. Psychological Bulletin 120 (3), 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L and Nadler J (2002) Negotiating via information technology: theory and application. Journal of Social Issues 58 (1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson LL, Nadler J and Kim PH (1999) Some like it hot: the case for the emotional negotiator. In Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge (THOMPSON LL, LEVINE JM and DAVID MM, Eds), pp 139–161, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tice DM, Bratslavsky E and Baumeister RF (2001) Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: if you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiger L and Fox R (1971) The Imperial Animal. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torestad B (1990) What is anger provoking: a psychophysical study of perceived causes of anger. Aggressive Behavior 16, 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnage AK (2007) Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (1), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutzauer F (1992) The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In Communication and Negotiation (PUTNAM LL and ROLOFF ME, Eds), pp 67–82, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler MC (2004) 115 and Counting: The State of ODR 2004. In Proceedings of the third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Melbourne, Australia (available online at http://www.odr.info/unforum2004/ConleyTyler.htm).

  • Valley KL, Moag J and Bazerman MH (1998) A matter of trust': effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CW and Manstead AR (2004a) The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (1), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CW and Manstead AR (2004b) The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (4), 510–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef GA, van Dijk E, Steinel W, Harinck F and van Beest I (2008) Anger in social conflict: cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision and Negotiation 17, 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veazie J (2007) Email etiquette. Health Care Biller 16 (6), 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatley MA, Webster JM, Smith RH and Rhodes A (1999) The effect of a favor on public and private compliance: how internalized is the norm of reciprocity? Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21 (3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wold H (1985) Systems analysis by partial least squares. In Measuring the Unmeasurable (NIJKAMP P, LEITNER H and WRIGLEY N, Eds), Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl G (1974) Effects of the opponent's initial offer, concession magnitude, and concession frequency on bargaining behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 (3), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuuki K, Shogo K and Kanji A (2007) Effects of emotional cues transmitted in e-mail communication on the emotions experienced by senders and receivers. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (4), 1894–1905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman IW (1977) Negotiation as a joint decision-making process. Journal of Conflict Resolution 21, 619–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Blake Ives as well as the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Richard Holowczak and Bruce Weber for their contributions to the development of the negotiation task that was used in our study. We are grateful to Rebecca Biel and Brian Woods, along with Leah Duque, Vlad Krotov, Elham Mousavidin, Hesam Panhi, and Doug Steel for their efforts in coding our data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, TX, U.S.A.

    Norman A Johnson, Randolph B Cooper & Wynne W Chin

Authors
  1. Norman A Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randolph B Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wynne W Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norman A Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, N., Cooper, R. & Chin, W. The effect of flaming on computer-mediated negotiations. Eur J Inf Syst 17, 417–434 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.22

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.22

Keywords

Search

Navigation