Week 3 - Personality factors

Question 1

What is the effect of power on proactive behavior according to Magee et al. (2007)?

Answer 1

Increasing pro-active behavior

Question 2

How do individuals in positions of power behave regarding the social outcomes of their actions, as described in the research by Magee et al. (2007)?

Answer 2

Individuals with power tend to be more action-oriented and are less concerned about the social consequences of their actions compared to those without power.

Question 3

What is the definition of power according to Magee et al., 2007?

Answer 3

“The capacity to control one’s own and others’ resources and outcomes.”

Question 4

How does power influence one’s dependence on the resources of those with lower power, as per Magee et al., 2007?

Answer 4

Magee et al., 2007 found that individuals with high power depend less on the resources of those with low power.

Question 5

According to Magee et al., 2007, what are the motivational functions of the Behavioral Approach System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) in relation to power and behavior?

Answer 5

the Behavioral Approach System (BAS) motivates individuals to scan for rewards in the environment, engage in forward locomotion, and other approach-related social behaviors, while the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) is described as an alarm system that can be activated by threats or potential punishments.

Question 6

How do individuals with greater power perceive rewards and threats in their environment, based on Magee et al., 2007?

Answer 6

individuals with greater power tend to notice more rewards and less threat in their environment, and they are more proactive in seeking rewards compared to individuals with less power.

Question 7

Are high-power individuals more or less likely than low-power individuals to take action consistent with their goals, according to Magee et al., 2007?

Answer 7

Magee et al., 2007 found that high-power individuals are more likely than low-power individuals to take action consistent with their goals.

Question 8

Participants primed with … power were more inclined to negotiate over value
than were participants primed with … power (Magee et al., 2007)

Answer 8

Participants primed with high power were more inclined to negotiate over value than were participants primed with low power.

Question 9

(Magee et al., 2007) Positive correlation between the … described by participants in their essays and their …

Answer 9

Positive correlation between the amount of power described by participants in
their essays and their propensity to negotiate

Question 10

Which 2 determinants had affect on proactive behavior described in the research of Magee et al., (2007)?

Answer 10

• Amount of power
• Propensity to negotiate

Question 11

What effect did power have on the participants’ decisions in a competitive interaction? (magee et al., 2007)

Answer 11

Power increased the proportion of participants who chose to move first in the competitive interaction. High-power participants were significantly more likely than control participants to make this choice

Question 12

How does possessing a BATNA, a source of power in a negotiation, impact the inclination to make the initial move in a negotiation? (Magee et al., 2007)

Answer 12

Increases the tendency to make the first move in a negotiation

Question 13

In negotiations, how much more likely were high-power individuals to make the first offer compared to low-power individuals?

Answer 13

High-power individuals were more than twice as likely as low-power individuals to engage their opponents by making the first offer in negotiations.

Question 14

According to Magee et al., (2007); Wo tends to pay less attention to the anger and frustration of their negotiation counterparts? Name 3 types

Answer 14

• High power individuals;
• Holders of strong
• BATNA’s
  Managers

Question 15

Why is indifference towards the emotions of a negotiating partner crucial according to Magee et al., (2007) ?

Answer 15

Because expressions of these emotions typically lead to concessions. Ignoring these emotions allows those in power to be persistent in their demands and claim a larger share of the pie.

Question 16

…-power individuals might not be inclined to think
sufficiently about their …-power counterparts’ needs (magee et al., 2007)

Answer 16

High-power individuals might not be inclined to think
sufficiently about their low-power counterparts’ needs.

Question 17

Instrumental thinking combined with a lack of perspective-taking could lead to (name 3)? (Magee et al., 2007)

Answer 17

• Self-centrered negotiation behavior
• fails to gain win-win situations
• builds negative reputation

Question 18

What is the term used to describe the phenomenon where individuals attribute situational behaviors to personality traits in negotiation counterparts? (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 18

The term used is “correspondence bias” or the “fundamental attribution error.”

Question 19

What are the key findings of the Morris et al. (1999) study regarding the attribution of personality traits in negotiations?

Answer 19

The study found that individuals tend to attribute the behavior of their negotiation counterparts to personality traits, even when the behavior is situational in nature.

Question 20

Fundamental attribution error (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 20

the tendency to make correspondent
inferences from behaviors to traits.

Question 21

How can negotiators reduce the likelihood of misperceiving their counterparts during negotiations, based on the findings from Morris et al., (1999)?

Answer 21

Reduce misperception by:
-considering the situational factors and context that may influence their counterpart’s behavior
- being more aware of their own biases and stereotypes.

Question 22

Attributions drawn about a target person on the basis of a vignette description or on abstract information about moves in a game are responses to …? (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 22

Impoverished social stimuli

Question 23

What could increase the accuracy of social perception in contexts (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 23

When perceivers are motivated to perceive another person accurately

Question 24

How were counterparts who had highly appealing alternative job offers and needed a higher salary to accept the job perceived regarding their Agreeableness dimension of personality?

Answer 24

They were perceived to be lower on the Agreeableness dimension of personality.

Question 25

Why were counterparts with a less certain alternative offer, who couldn’t openly and consistently refer to their alternative, perceived as higher on the Emotional Instability dimension of personality in the study? (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 25

Their behavior influenced by their uncertain situation, led observers to attribute traits associated with emotional instability to them.

Question 26

What does Morris et al., 1999 say about the primacy of situations and primacy of personality in relation to misperceptions?

Answer 26

That misperceptions originate from the combinationn of primacy of situations in actual causes of bargaining behavior and the primacy of personlity in attributions

Question 27

Which 2 factors play a role in sustaining misperceptions (Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 27

• Lack of discounting of personality descriptions
• Self-confirming effects of personality impressions

Question 28

Name 2 reasons why tailor made-specific context measures do better than context general measures in predicting behavior
(Morris et al., 1999)

Answer 28

• More specific
• Brings gains in fidelity (predictive validity)

Question 29

What does Morris et al., (1999) mean with “First impressions of negotiation counterparts are formed in terms of context-general constructs”

Answer 29

People tend to form their initial impressions based on broad and general characteristics rather than specific details.

Question 31

What factors can make it challenging to assess people in social situations according to Morris et al., 1999

Answer 31

• Only met the target person from 1 siuation
• Perceiver cannot detect target persons’situation

Question 32

Erroneous personality perceptions affect (Morris et al., 1999):

Answer 32

• Workroles
• Procedure

Question 33

What advantage does making the first offer in a negotiation typically provide, and why does this advantage occur? (Loschelder et al., 2014)

Answer 33

Making the first offer in a negotiation often yields a bargaining advantage because opening offers act as anchors, and recipients tend to insufficiently adjust from these anchors. They tend to assimilate counteroffers toward the anchor, which benefits the initiator of the first offer.

Question 34

Loschelder et al., (2014) says that anchors lead to selective accessibility. What does this entail?

Answer 34

negotiators primarily focus on information that is consistent with the anchor—thereby supporting rather than refuting the anchor value

Question 35

Loschelder et al., (2014) talks about first-offer anchor analogously. Explain

Answer 35

Gives impression of increased expertise of the first-offer sender and renders the precise offer more reasonable and plausible

Question 36

What principles do recipients assume a negotiator’s offer should adhere to according to the Gricean maxims? (Loschelder et al., 2014)

Answer 36

1) Informative as required (maxim of quantity)
2) Supported by adequate evidence (maxim of quality)
3) All its digits pertinent to the negotiation (maxim of relation).

Question 37

Magnified anchoring effect (loschelder et al., 2014)

Answer 37

Increasing precision strengthened the anchoring impact of first offers.

Question 38

What does precision magnify in negotiation scenarios for both sellers and buyers? (Loschelder et al., 2014)

Answer 38

The anchoring potency of first offers

Question 39

What advantage does precision provide in negotiations for the party that makes the first offer? (Loschelder et al., 2014)

Answer 39

Precision boosts the first-mover advantage in negotiations.