Elsevier

Decision Support Systems

Volume 46, Issue 3, February 2009, Pages 660-672
Decision Support Systems

Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiation among strangers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.008Get rights and content

Abstract

The present study explores the antecedents of the antinormative hostile communication of emotion, termed flaming, in the context of computer-mediated negotiation. We find that flaming is associated with anger directed toward the negotiating context; this can occur when a negotiator becomes frustrated due to problems with communication channel characteristics or due to uncertainty surrounding the negotiation task. We also find that flaming is associated with anger directed toward a negotiator's partner, which can occur when a negotiator perceives that the partner is being unfair. We find further that anger totally mediates the relationships between flaming and its antecedents. These findings provide the basis to argue that anger reduction can effectively decrease flaming, independent of the existence of flaming antecedents, such as unfairness. We therefore provide suggestions that can help with the reduction of anger in such circumstances.

Introduction

Negotiation is a process by which a joint decision is made by two or more parties, who perceive that their interests conflict [69]. Driven by the increase in online transactions enabled by the Internet [44], a recent trend is for negotiations to occur over computer media, such as email and instant messaging [32], [44], [88]. For example, in 2001 there were over 2 million transactions per week on eBay. Many of these transactions take place between buyers and sellers with conflicting interests, and as result there is a need for negotiations [88]. Computer mediated dispute resolution services, such as Square Trade, handle a large number of these negotiations in over 120 countries [80]. By allowing buyers and sellers to engage in “direct negotiation” via computers, this type of service can lower the cost of negotiation, increase its speed, make it more informal, and reduce the need for third parties [44].

Unfortunately, using computer media for negotiation is not without its challenges. For a variety of reasons, this media can make it more difficult for negotiators to reach agreement [84], [89], which is the primary goal of negotiation [36], [50]. We are interested here in flaming (e.g., the use of profanity to inflict harm) during computer-mxediated negotiations. This is important because (1) flaming can significantly reduce the likelihood of negotiated agreements [37], [71]; (2) the incidence of flaming is significantly higher when using computer mediated channels [41], [71]; and (3) computer-mediated channels are increasingly being used for negotiations [44].3

Given the potential benefits of computer mediated negotiation and the potential for such negotiations to be severely disrupted by flaming, it is of interest to gain a better understanding of what causes flaming so that we can find ways to reduce its influence on computer mediated negotiations [68]. We therefore explore flaming antecedents within the context of computer-mediated negotiation. Our focal construct is the emotional state of anger, which we propose mediates the influence of many flaming antecedents, such as perceptions of unfairness. This mediation role is reasonable since anger can result in aggression [17], and flaming is a form of aggression [26], [83].

Our objective is not to identify new antecedents, but rather to explain theoretically and demonstrate empirically that anger significantly mediates the influence on flaming of important antecedents identified by prior research. The advantage of this approach is to offer researchers and practitioners another avenue that can be pursued in order to decrease flaming. The first avenue would be that offered by others: to reduce the levels of the flaming antecedents identified by earlier researchers. The alternative avenue offered here would be to reduce the level of anger, when the reduction of the antecedents' levels may be too costly or difficult.

The next section covers our conceptual definitions. This is followed by a description of our research model, which is divided into partner-directed and context-directed components. Our hypotheses are stated in terms of these components. We then discuss the method employed to test our hypotheses, which is followed by our data analyses. In the final sections, we address implications for businesses and practitioners as well as suggestions for future research.

Section snippets

Theory and research model

In this section we first define negotiation, flaming, computer mediation, and anger, that serve as the foundation of our research model (Fig. 1). We then develop our hypotheses that are based on these concepts and informed by prior theories.

Method

These hypotheses were tested in a laboratory study that involved 148 undergraduate students (40% female) in a large university. Each student was randomly assigned to a negotiating dyad7 (resulting in seventy-four dyads) and the role of either seller or buyer; the identity of each dyad member was unknown to the other. Students participated in nine rounds of negotiating with the same partner using computer-mediated communication. We

Results

As described above, four questionnaires, each covering an exclusive subset of constructs, were created in order to reduce common method bias. Two different student raters, blind to the hypotheses, were assigned to each questionnaire, and working independently, responded to the questionnaire items relative to each of the 50 dyad transcripts. Inter-rater reliability was good, with 0.92 for questionnaire one, 0.89 for questionnaire two, 0.91 for questionnaire three, and 0.89 for questionnaire

Discussion

A basic assumption of this paper is that flaming can have negative consequences for negotiation. However, it may be the case that, rather than jeopardizing potentially successful negotiation processes, flaming occurs when individuals realize that no agreement is possible. If this were the case, then we would expect that dyads in which flames occurred would not have reached agreement. Of the 25 dyads in which flaming occurred, 11 reached agreement. In contrast, 17 of the 25 non-flaming dyads

Conclusion

Negotiations are increasingly being conducted over computer media, with some web-based sites devoted to online dispute resolution. Employing computer media in this way has the potential to increase negotiation efficiency by both lowering its cost and increasing its speed [44]. However, this media has also been found to increase the incidence of flaming, especially when used for tasks (such as negotiation) in which conflict and tensions exist. And, flaming significantly reduces the likelihood of

Acknowledgements

We thank Blake Ives and 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 experiment. Finally, 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.

Norman A. Johnson is an Assistant Professor in the Decision and Information Sciences Department in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. He earned his masters and doctorate degrees from Baruch College, City University of New York. His current research interests include computer-mediated negotiation, communication and decision-making under uncertainty, affective communication, and trust.

References (93)

  • D.A. Moore et al.

    Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1999)
  • M.M. Pillutla et al.

    Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1996)
  • J. Siegel et al.

    Group processes in computer-mediated communication

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1986)
  • P.A. Thompsen et al.

    Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in electronic mail

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1996)
  • K.L. Valley et al.

    ‘A matter of trust’: effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes

    Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

    (1998)
  • J. Axelrod et al.

    Stress hormones: their interaction and regulation

    Science

    (1984)
  • R.P. Bagozzi et al.

    On the evaluation of structural equation models

    Academy of Marketing Science

    (1988)
  • R. Bales

    Interaction Process Analysis

    (1951)
  • A. Bandura

    Psychological mechanism of aggression

  • R.M. Barron et al.

    The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • R. Baumeister et al.

    Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem

    Psychological Review

    (1996)
  • M. Bazerman

    Judgment in Managerial Decision Making

    (1998)
  • M. Bazerman et al.

    Negotiation

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2000)
  • A.T. Beck

    Prisoners of hate: the cognitive basis of anger

  • L. Berkowitz

    Frustrations, appraisals, and adversely stimulated aggression

    Aggressive Behavior

    (1988)
  • L. Berkowitz

    Frustration–aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1989)
  • L. Berkowitz

    Aggression

    (1993)
  • B.J. Bushman

    Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2002)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1998)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Chewing on it can chew you up: effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2005)
  • J.R. Carlson et al.

    Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions

    Academy of Management Journal

    (April 1999)
  • W.W. Chin

    The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling

  • W. Chin et al.

    Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs

    Database

    (1995)
  • R.B. Cialdini

    Influence: Science and Practice

    (1993)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences

    (1988)
  • G.G. Colomb et al.

    Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom

  • J.L. Deffenbacher et al.

    State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (1996)
  • A.R. Dennis et al.

    Testing media richness theory in the new media: the effect of cues, feedback, and task equivocality

    Information Systems Research

    (1998)
  • R. DiGiuseppe et al.
  • W.A. Donohue et al.

    Negotiator–opponent relationships

  • M. Dorado et al.

    Computer-mediated negotiation of an escalated conflict

    Small Group Research

    (2002)
  • P. Elkman

    Facial expression and emotion

    American Psychologist

    (1993)
  • A. Ellis

    Humanistic Psychology: The Rational-Emotive Approach

    (1973)
  • R.B. Felson

    Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1982)
  • R. Fisher et al.

    Getting to Yes

    (1991)
  • Cited by (59)

    • Peer privacy protection motivation and action on social networking sites: Privacy self-efficacy and information security as moderators

      2022, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
      Citation Excerpt :

      When SNS users share private information about others when in a committed online friendship, it is likely that this will raise concern related to severity of any online flaming behavior because of violations of privacy (Jowett, 2015). As users become more committed to friendships on a social platform, more dramatic behavior will be triggered if they feel that their privacy has been invaded by their friends’ sharing behavior, which may even trigger online bullying behavior from their close friends (Johnson et al., 2009), thus making them aware of the severity of and susceptibility to online flaming in the form of verbal attacks and insults. Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

    • Examining the role of emotion in online consumer reviews of various attributes in the surprise box shopping model

      2020, Decision Support Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous studies on consumer emotion have discussed the role of emotions in consumer satisfaction (e.g., [44]). Some studies (e.g., [86]) examined consumer emotion in general, whereas others focused on specific types of emotions such as anger [33], empathy [35], shame [4], surprise [31], and delight [16]. Most of the studies described above discuss consumer emotion in the general setting of shopping and consumption.

    • Online social aggression: Harassment and discrimination

      2023, Emotions in the Digital World: Exploring Affective Experience and Expression in Online Interactions
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Norman A. Johnson is an Assistant Professor in the Decision and Information Sciences Department in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. He earned his masters and doctorate degrees from Baruch College, City University of New York. His current research interests include computer-mediated negotiation, communication and decision-making under uncertainty, affective communication, and trust.

    Randolph B. Cooper is a Professor in the Decision and Information Sciences department in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. He received his bachelors in economics, masters in business administration, and doctorate in management information systems from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has been employed as a programmer and systems analyst at Motel 6, Incorporated, and Computer Sciences Corporation. He has published in a variety of academic journals, including DataBase, Information and Management, Journal of Management Information Systems, Management Science, MIS Quarterly, and Omega. His current research interests include the diffusion of information technology innovations, management of systems design creativity, and the impact of information systems on decision quality.

    Wynne W. Chin is a Professor in the Decision and Information Sciences department in the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston. He received his doctorate from the University of Michigan in Computers and Information Systems, M.S. in chemical engineering (biomedical option) from Northwestern University, MBA from the University of Michigan, and a bachelors in biophysics from U.C. Berkeley. He has published in journals such as MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Decision Sciences. Dr. Chin's substantive interests include modeling the individual IT adoption process, end-user satisfaction, and developing group process measures such as cohesion, satisfaction, and consensus to understand the impact of electronic meeting systems. More recently, he has begun work on cross-cultural analysis. His research is largely empirical and quantitative relying on lab and Monte Carlo experiments as well as surveys. Methodologically Dr. Chin focuses on construct development through the use of structural equation modeling (both covariance-based and partial least squares) as well as developing new causal modeling techniques for topics such as assessing interaction effects.

    1

    Tel.: +1 713 743 4732.

    2

    Tel.: +1 713 743 4728.

    View full text