ebook img

EMPATHIC ACCURACY DURING A NEGOTIATION by DEVIN E. HOWINGTON A DISSERTATION ... PDF

90 Pages·2017·3.28 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview EMPATHIC ACCURACY DURING A NEGOTIATION by DEVIN E. HOWINGTON A DISSERTATION ...

WHAT DOES ACCURACY GET YOU? EMPATHIC ACCURACY DURING A NEGOTIATION by DEVIN E. HOWINGTON A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2016 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Devin E. Howington Title: What Does Accuracy Get You? Empathic Accuracy During a Negotiation This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Psychology by: Sara D. Hodges Chairperson Sanjay Srivastava Core Member Pranjal Mehta Core Member Erik Girvan Institutional Representative and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2016 ii © 2016 Devin E. Howington This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-NoDerivs (United States) License. iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Devin E. Howington Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology December 2016 Title: What Does Accuracy Get You? Empathic Accuracy During a Negotiation Accurately guessing the thoughts and feelings of another person, known as empathic accuracy, is thought to be a useful skill across many domains. However, the evidence supporting the value of empathic accuracy has been mixed, perhaps because the domains previously examined did not require accuracy for functionality. Negotiation may be one domain in which being accurate really matters for positive outcomes for the perceiver. Additionally, men and women may have different motivations to be accurate, including the presence of a competitive or cooperative situation. The primary research questions of this study are: 1) Is empathic accuracy related to outcomes in the negotiation?; 2) Is accuracy dependent on how the negotiation is framed?; and 3) Does how the negotiation is framed affect men’s and women’s empathic accuracy differently? Individual differences in personal power and Machiavellianism are also examined in relation to accuracy in this context. In this study, 336 participants interacted in same-sex dyads to negotiate over small items in either a competitive or cooperative context, resulting in a 2 (gender) x 2 (context) design. Accuracy was measured both as empathic accuracy for partner’s thoughts during the negotiation as well as accuracy for guessing their partner’s idiosyncratic item preferences (provided prior to the negotiation). Actor-Partner iv Interdependence models were used to estimate the contributions of each person in the dyad to the outcome of interest. Neither empathic accuracy nor accuracy for guessing item values led to any increases in personal gain in the negotiation. However, empathic accuracy was predictive of satisfaction with the outcome of the negotiation, such that more accurate actors and having more accurate partners both led to significantly increased satisfaction with the outcome. Contrary to the hypotheses, accuracy was not affected by gender or the framing of the negotiation or any interactions between the two variables. Individual differences in power and Machiavellianism did not lead to increases in perceiver empathic accuracy, but rather led to decreases in partner’s accuracy: actors that had partners who were high in power or high in Machiavellianism were less empathically accurate. The implications for negotiation research and future empathic accuracy research are discussed. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Devin E. Howington GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Hendrix College, Conway DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Social Psychology, 2016, University of Oregon Master of Science, Conflict and Dispute Resolution, 2016, University of Oregon Master of Science, Social Psychology, 2011, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, 2007, Hendrix College AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Social Psychology Mediation and Negotiation PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, September 2011 - December 2016 Volunteer Mediator, Lane County Circuit Court, August 2015 – June 2016 Family Mediation Intern, Lane County Family Mediation, September 2015 – December 2015 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Dixon Award, Graduate School, University of Oregon, 2015 Graduate Education Committee Research Travel Award, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, 2012-2015. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I cannot express enough how thankful I am to have such a wonderful advisor in Sara Hodges. Her knowledge, her guidance, and most importantly, her unwavering support made this accomplishment possible. I am truly lucky that I can count her among my friends. I would like to thank Sanjay Srivastava, Pranjal Mehta, and Erik Girvan as well, each of whom helped shape this project and make everything better. A huge thank you also to my Hodges lab mates and my many friends who helped me along the way, but most of all to Nicole Lawless DesJardins and Carly Smith for their help with this project and for their friendship. I would also like to give special thanks to Lori Olsen for making sure all my requirements were met in the most delightful way. Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my wonderful husband, Kyle, for being my biggest cheerleader and for helping me believe in myself. vii For anyone who has ever told someone “You can do it!” viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Empathic Accuracy ................................................................................................ 2 Negotiation and Accuracy ...................................................................................... 4 Negotiation Context ............................................................................................... 7 Secondary Aims ..................................................................................................... 13 II. METHOD ................................................................................................................ 16 Overview ................................................................................................................ 16 Participants ............................................................................................................. 16 Materials ................................................................................................................ 18 Items ..............................................................................................................…18 Item Rating Scale ............................................................................................. 18 Negotiation Outcome Questionnaire ................................................................ 18 Individual Difference Measures ....................................................................... 19 Procedure ............................................................................................................... 20 III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 23 Coding Schemes ..................................................................................................... 23 Empathic Accuracy .......................................................................................... 23 Item Relevancy ................................................................................................ 23 Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Check .................................................... 27 Analytic Strategy ................................................................................................... 29 ix Chapter Page Empathic Accuracy and Negotiation Success .............................................................. 29 Empathic Accuracy and Item Accuracy ................................................................ 34 Effects of Gender and Condition on Accuracy ...................................................... 36 Empathic Accuracy .......................................................................................... 36 Item Accuracy .................................................................................................. 37 Individual Differences ........................................................................................... 38 Power ............................................................................................................... 38 Machiavellianism ............................................................................................. 39 IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 41 Methodological Considerations ............................................................................. 48 V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 53 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 54 A. NEGOTIATION QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 54 B. COMPETE AND COOPERATE MANIPULATION ...................................... 55 C. TABLES ............................................................................................................ 56 D. FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 70 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 74 x

Description:
improved by motivating them with rewards for personal gain. Klein and Hodges (2001) found that men's accuracy improves to match that of women's when monetary incentives are given for greater accuracy, and Thomas and Maio (2008) showed that men's accuracy improves based on the suggestion
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.