Post on 18-Dec-2021
The Effect of the Colour Green on Negotiations
Bachelor Thesis, Faculty of Humanities, Tilburg University Department of Communication- and Information Sciences
Corporate Communication and Digital Media June 2011 Author: M. de Feiter (M.deFeiter@uvt.nl) Supervisors: J. Schilperoord & P.J. van der Wijst In cooperation with: F.A. Huigen & M.M.P van Herk
II
Abstract Colour is an inevitable part of our daily environment. However, the influence colour
may have on our perceptions and cognitive process is often underestimated. Multiple
studies in the past have shown that colours may provoke certain associations, which
on their turn may influence the direction of our thoughts and feelings. This
experiment takes a closer look on whether the powerful associations of colours also
translate to the domain of negotiations. In the experiment the participants had to
negotiate with an illusionary negotiation partner about an amount of 17 euro’s. When
they received an offer, they could accept or reject this. The underlying principle used
for this study is the Stroop-effect. According to this effect a beneficial offer presented
in the colour green should be accepted faster than a beneficial offer in the neutral
colour black, because green is known to bring to mind an association of positivity. For
the same reason, an insulting offer presented in the colour green should be rejected
slower than an insulting offer in the colour black. The results showed a marginally
significant effect for the longer response latency for the rejection of a green insulting
offer than a black insulting offer, but there was no significant difference between the
response latency of accepting a green beneficial offer or a black beneficial offer. It can
be stated that congruence between concept and association did not fasten the response
latency, but that incongruence did increase the response latency. This implies that
colour, even when its presence is very subtle, may have an influence on our cognitive
processes and behaviour in negotiations.
III
Preface Here it is, my bachelor thesis of Communication- and Information sciences at Tilburg
University. This thesis is the last project of the bachelor program, and as for me, it is
even my last project at Tilburg University.
‘Conducting research’, it was the element I doubted the most before making
the decision of coming to Tilburg University. After three years of academic education
and conducting a ‘real’ experiment for this thesis, I now have to admit that I have
even come to like this part of my education. Conducting the experiment for this thesis
might have led to some frustrations, difficulties, and even some tears every now and
then, but I now understand the excitement of truly believing to find a yet
undiscovered effect. Furthermore, the thesis project has also enriched my knowledge
and skills in academic writing, experimental design, and analysis techniques.
I am very proud to present to you the final version of this thesis, a result that I
could not have reached without the help and support of several persons. Therefore, I
would first like to thank my close friends and co-researchers, Veerle Huigen and
Mirna van Herk, for keeping each other motivated and conducting an experiment
with the use of each other’s strengths and energy. Of course I would also like to thank
our supervisors, Joost Schilperoord and Per van der Wijst, who provided us with great
support and feedback during the entire process of conducting the experiment and
writing our thesis. Jacqueline Dake has also been of great support. She showed us how
to use the software program E-prime to design an experiment. Furthermore, I would
like to thank all participants who were part of the research, and my close friends and
family who helped us pre-test the experiment and supported me throughout this final
semester. Last, but definitely not least, I would also like to thank my boyfriend in
Glasgow, who provided me with tips & tricks, feedback, and thesis-wisdom, even in
times when he was extremely busy with his own study (I think I also need to express
my thanks to Skype for that!).
Without the great support of all these people I could not have written this bachelor
thesis, and I am proud of this thesis being my final project for Tilburg University.
Maaike de Feiter
IV
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 The power of colour p. 5
1.2 Colour and actions p. 7
1.3 Negotiations p. 7
1.4 The colour green p. 9
1.5 The Stroop Principle p. 10
2. Method
2.1 Participants p. 12
2.2 Design p. 14
2.3 Material p. 14
2.4 Instrumentation p. 17
2.5 Procedure p. 18
2.6 Analysis p. 19
3. Results
3.1 Hypothesis 1 p. 20
3.2 Hypothesis 2 p. 21
3.3 Hypothesis 3 p. 22
3.4 Additional results p. 22
4. Conclusion & Discussion p. 25
References p. 28
Attachments p
5
1. Introduction When observing reality, it is impossible to leave out the colours of the objects we
perceive. Colour is an inevitable characteristic of any object, it surrounds us wherever
we go, and we therefore often take it for granted. However, colours might have a
bigger influence on our perceptual and mental processes than we are consciously
aware off. Colours go hand in hand with emotional and psychological associations,
and are therefore powerful tools in influencing our feelings and actions (Hevner, 1935;
Ward, 1995).
1.1 The power of colour
An associative network mediates between colours, and the effect they have on our
cognition. Associations do not just appear; they derive from two distinct sources. An
association can be learned through classical conditioning, or it can be genetically
included in our genes due to evolutionary processes (Pavlov, 1927; Mollon, 1989).
When we perceive a colour we unconsciously associate this with a certain concept or
feeling. Blue, for instance, is associated with comfort and security, while yellow
activates the concept cheerfulness. Orange, on the other hand, is seen as a distressing
and upsetting colour (Ballast, 2002; Mahnke, 1996).
The association brought on by a colour may on its turn influence our mood.
Cool colours (including blue and green) activate concepts such as calmness, relaxation,
quietness, restfulness, and peacefulness. Because of these associations, cool colours are
less likely to cause arousal or excitation in our state of mind. On the other hand, warm
colours (including red and orange) bring to mind the concepts active and stimulating,
and are more likely to cause feelings of arousal (Ballast, 2002; Sharpe 1974).
Colours do not only have the ability to influence our mood, their power
extends to our actions. In our public environment, we make clever use of the power of
colour. An early study of Babbitt (1878) showed that when violent participants were
placed in a room painted in a cool colour, their violent behaviour diminished, while
participants placed in a red room became increasingly violent. Therefore, it is no
surprise that hospitals decorate their walls with cool colours. Another branch
recognising the power of colour, are fast-food companies. There is a reason why most
of these companies have interiors and logo’s including the colour red (MacDonald’s,
6
Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken). The colour red is known to stimulate the
appetite, and is therefore useful for food companies (Singh, 2006). Furthermore,
MacDonald’s in particular had to recognise the power of colour since they received
complaints of customers about experiencing headaches when having dinner at
MacDonald’s. A research revealed that these headaches were caused by the high
saturation of the colour red, and so MacDonald’s adjusted the tone (Von Bergen,
1995).
Since associations are also acquired through classical conditioning, it is no
surprise that these associations vary across different cultures (Pavlov, 1927). Even
though people from different cultural backgrounds perceive colours in the same way,
the associations and concepts related to a colour are not universal (Davidoff, 1991).
Different cultures use different colours for different events, and therefore the
established associations are not the same everywhere. In western cultures for example,
black is the colour of death, whereas Chinese associate death with the colour white
(Kaya & Epps, 2004). Furthermore, the various associations also influence colour
preferences. African Americans prefer red, purple and black, while white subjects
indicated their preference for blue and green tones (Silver, 1988). This also translates
to the liking of objects: Japanese consumers prefer to receive white roses while Hong
Kong consumers like red roses better (Gunnerod, 1991).
Even though the associations of colours may vary per culture, the research by
Madden, Hewett, and Roth (2000) has shown that the colours red and green are
opposites on a universal level. The associations they provoke are very strong and often
dichotomous. We associate red with aggressive, bloody, and raging, while green is
seen as retiring and relaxing (Davey, 1998; Mahnke, 1996). This dichotomy also
shows in physical tests measuring differences in arousal level for red and green slides
through absolute skin conductance. This study revealed that red was more arousing
than green (Wilson, 1966). According to Gerard (1958), red and green also influence
our accuracy in an opposite way, with exposure to the colour red decreasing the
accuracy of judgments of size, length and weight while the colour green increases the
level of accuracy.
7
1.2 Colour and actions Colour associations may thus induce a certain mood or activate a certain concept, and
this may on its turn lead to changes in behaviour. Colours can thus also influence our
actions. One domain in which colour may influence our actions is in distributive
negotiations. An experiment of Hachmang (2011) has shown that negotiators wearing
a red shirt were able to sell coffee to the other participant for a higher price than
participants in a white shirt. There is however some uncertainty about the underlying
principle of this effect. It might be that the negotiator feels more self confident when
wearing a red shirt, or that the buyer feels more intimidated when a negotiator wears
a red shirt. A straightforward assumption is that these two explanations together
account for the effect. The explanations are both based on the aggressive association
the colour red provokes, leading either to a feeling of intimidation, or self-confidence.
Red is however known to bring about opposite associations to the colour green on a
universal level (Madden et al., 2000). If this is true, then it might be interesting to
research whether the colour green can also influence negotiations by the associations
it brings about. Therefore, the experiment reported in this thesis will investigate
whether the colour green has an effect on negotiations. The main research question of
the thesis is: what is the effect of the colour green on negotiations?
1.3 Negotiations
A negotiation is a situation in which at least two persons have conflicting needs and
desires (Gulliver, 1979; Rubin & Brown, 1975). These situations require a specific
form of communication since negotiating is all about reaching an agreement by
strategic exchange of information (Putnam & Roloff, 1992; Robinson & Volkov,
1998). Furthermore, the process of negotiating entails the consideration of alternative
ways to reach an agreement and striving to fulfil one’s own desires (Weigand, de
Moor, Schoop, & Dignum, 2003).
There are two main types of negotiations: distributive negotiations and
integrative negotiations. A distributive negotiation means that one focuses on
expanding one’s own potential gains, while integrative negotiations leads to mutual
gains. These different types of negotiations lead to different behaviour during the
bargaining process. People in integrative negotiations openly communicate about
8
their desires and treat their negotiation partner as an equal, while participants in
distributive negotiations are more competitive and keep control over the information
they reveal (Walton & McKersie 1965).
Besides the character of the negotiation, interpersonal differences also account
for variation in behaviour during the bargaining process. One example of an
interpersonal difference that matters in negotiations is educational background.
Hawkins & Cocanougher (1972) found that business students were more tolerant
towards insulting offers and unethical negotiation strategies than other students.
Furthermore, years of education also influences negotiation beliefs and behaviour
(Browning & Zabriskie, 1983).
Another example of a factor affecting negotiation behaviour is gender. Katz,
Amichai-Hamburger, Manisterski and Kraus (2008) found that males focus more on
the potential gains while females also pay attention to the relationship with the
negotiation partner. Therefore, women performed better in integrative situations,
where cooperative work is important, while men outperformed women in competitive
distributive negotiations.
Even though different types of negotiations and interpersonal differences evoke
certain types of behaviour, it is impossible to predict outcomes of negotiations. Every
negotiation takes place in a different situation, with different people, and different
personal factors, leading to an infinite amount of possible situations (Pruitt &
Carnevale, 1993; Lewicki, Litterer, Saunders & Minton, 1993). According to the
‘intuitive economist’ paradigm of Tetlock (1991), there however is one principle
underlying all negotiations: people will always strive to satisfy their own needs. This
leads to the following hypotheses, which will be tested in this research:
H1a: people accept a beneficial offer made by the negotiation partner
H1b: people reject an insulting offer made by the negotiation partner
The study of Hachmang (2011) found that when accepting or rejecting an
offer, colour could have an influence on the decision. The study showed that
participants wearing a red t-shirt while negotiating were able to sell coffee to the other
participant for a higher price than negotiators wearing a white t-shirt. The colour red
thus has a significant influence on negotiations. This study summons the question
whether other colours may also affect negotiation behaviour. Since the colour green is
9
a powerful colour in evoking concepts opposite to the associations of red (Davey,
1998; Mahnke, 1996), this study will explore the effect of the colour green on
negotiations.
1.4 The colour green
Green is a powerful colour associated with feelings of retirement and relaxation, and
the concepts security, comfort, calm, growth, renewal, freshness, tranquillity, hope,
peace, and serenity (Davey, 1998; Mahnke, 1996; Morton, 1997; Murray & Deabler,
1957). Furthermore, green is associated with ‘agreeable’, as entire opposite to red,
which goes hand in hand with the concept ‘disagreeable’ (Goldstein, 1942). Green is
thus in general associated with positive concepts and feelings. This statement is
reinforced by a study of Kaya and Epps (2004) which investigated the different
emotional responses elicited by the colours green, yellow, red, bleu, purple, white,
black, grey, and several mixed hues. Off all these colours, green elicited the highest
number of positive emotions with a percentage of 95.9. Participants indicated that the
green made them feel relaxed, happy, and comfortable.
The fact that green has such a calming influence is being used widely in public
environment. Green is the colour that universally signals a ‘go’ in traffic lights, the
colour that is used in the design of safety signs, and the colour used to index locations
of first aid equipment (Morton, 1997). Hospitals paint their walls green to provide a
calming atmosphere for their patients (Babbitt, 1878) and a study of Stahre,
Harleman, and Bilger (2004) showed that green test rooms were rated as open and
tranquil. Furthermore, the concept green itself nowadays refers to environment
friendly behaviour, deriving from the fact that green is the most common colour in
nature (Morton, 1997).
Besides cognitive associations, green is also powerful on a physiological level.
Short wavelength colours like green are perceived as much more calming than long
wavelength colours such as red (Stone & English, 1998). Of the short wavelength
colours, green is the most restful colour for the eye since the green light is focused
precisely on the retina through the lens of the eye. Therefore, it makes sense that
camouflage vehicles are designed with different hues of green (Morton, 1997).
10
It has not yet been investigated whether the colour green has an effect on
negotiations. It seems plausible that there will be an effect since the colour opposite to
green, red, did cause an effect. Participants were willing to buy coffee for a higher
price from a person wearing a red t-shirt than from someone wearing a white t-shirt
(Hachmang, 2011). It is possible that this effect was caused by the aggressive
associations brought to mind by the colour red, causing the buyer to feel more
intimidated by the negotiator, or the negotiator to feel more self-confident. This then
leads the buyer to comply with a higher price (Davey, 1998). If it is this associative
principle underlying the effect of colour on negotiations, then the colour green should
be congruent with a beneficial offer in a negotiation, since green is associated with
positivity and agreeableness (Goldstein, 1942, Kaya & Epps, 2004).
1.5 The Stroop principle A lot of research concerning associative networks and research into the congruency of
concepts is conducted with a Stroop test (MacLeod, 1991). The traditional Stroop test,
named after the researcher Stroop who invented the test, included the words for
different colours in a font colour either congruent or incongruent with their meaning.
In practice, this means that the colour red was printed in red, or in a deviant colour.
Participants were then asked to name the colours, while their response latency was
measured. The word red printed in red had a faster response latency than the word
red printed in a deviant colour. This means that the word red printed in another
colour causes incongruence and interference in cognition. The findings of the Stroop
test proved that colours are strongly associated with different concepts and that
incongruence between colour and concept causes confusion. This confusion shows in
delayed response latency when incongruence occurs (Stroop, 1935).
The principle underlying the Stroop test is based on interference and
inhibition. When concept A is strongly related to concept B in our associative
memory, then a connection of concept A with concept C is initially inhibited. When
concept A is unexpectedly matched with concept C, this then leads to interference,
making it more difficult to respond quickly and thus increasing the response latency
(Kline, 1921). Culler (1912, as cited in Stroop, 1935) conducted an experiment
bringing this to practice. In this study, participants completed a task by pressing keys
11
that all represented different numbers. In a second task, the keys were switched, which
caused interference and increased the pressing response latency of the participants.
The Stroop principle is still present in current research into associations and
memory. The findings have now extended from the visual sense towards the other
senses as well. A study of Holland, Hendriks, and Aarts (2005) found that when
participants were primed with citrus scent, the scent often used in cleaners, their
response latency towards cleaning related concepts was faster than participants who
were not primed with the scent. This means that congruency between the concept (the
word on a screen), and a sensory stimulus (the citrus scent) enables a fast response.
This study will also make use of the Stroop principle, with the offer made in a
negotiation functioning as the concept, and the colour green fulfilling the role of
sensory stimulus. As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, the colour green
brings about associations of positivity and agreeableness (Goldstein, 1942, Kaya &
Epps, 2004). When we translate this association of green to a negotiation, green
should thus be congruent with a beneficial offer. This means that a beneficial offer in
green should lead to a decrease in response latency, while an insulting offer in green
should lead to interference; and therefore an increase in response latency. This leads
to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in black Hypothesis 3: An insulting offer in green is rejected slower than an insulting offer in black The response latency of an offer in the colour green is compared to the response
latency to an offer in black because black is an achromatic colour, which is used most
frequently in print text. The black font colour functions as the control condition.
12
2. Method This study investigates the influence of the colour green on the response latency to a
beneficial or insulting offer by a computer mediated negotiation experiment. In the
experiment the participants receive a black/green, beneficial/insulting offer. The
dependent variable is the response latency in milliseconds before participants accept
or reject a beneficial or insulting offer in green or black.
2.1 Participants
A total of 130 participants participated in the experiment. These participants were
selected in two ways; through the ‘participant-pool’ of Tilburg University (a system
obliging first year students, and premaster students of Communication and
Information Sciences to participate in several experiments), and through the personal
network of the researchers. The sample existed of 53 male and 77 female participants
with a mean age of 21.5 and a range of 18-32. The sample existed of 93 bachelor
students, 20 premaster students, and 16 master students (there was one missing value).
Out of the total of 130 participants, 102 derived from the Faculty of Humanities of
Tilburg University, and 15 from the Faculty of Economics. The other students were
from the Social Faculty (N=4), the Theological Faculty (N=1), the Law Faculty (N=3)
or not from Tilburg University (N=3) (there were 2 missing values).
There was no age or study restriction for the participants because if the colour
green really provokes the association of positivity, this should not be different for
participants with a different educational background or age. The pre-test did however
include a variable concerning previous experiences with related negotiation
experiments since this might influence the response latency. Furthermore, the post-test
included a colour blindness test because colour blind participants should by definition
not show an effect for the response latency between a green or a black offer.
All participants were divided randomly over 8 conditions. The different
conditions consisted of two separate trials in which the participant had to reject or
accept an offer (see table 1).
13
Table 1
Overview of all conditions
Condition: Trial 1 Trial 2
1 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Green beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
Black insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
2 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Green insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
Black beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
3 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Red insulting offer*
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
Black beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
4 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Red beneficial offer*
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
Black insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
5 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Black beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
Green insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
6 (N=16)
men: 7
women: 9
Black beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
Red insulting offer*
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
7 (N=17)
men: 5
women: 12
Black insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
Green beneficial offer
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
8 (N=17)
men:
women: 12
Black insulting offer
(= 4 euro out of 17 euro)
Red beneficial offer *
(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)
* Due to a related research project the colour red is also included in the experimental design. The data
generated by the red-trials will be used in the testing of Hypothesis 1, but not for the verification of
Hypothesis 2 and 3.
The order of the first four trial combinations is counterbalanced in condition 5–8 so
that the data can be controlled for an order-effect. If there is no order effect, this
means all data can be used in a single analysis.
14
2.2 Design
The experimental design for this study is a ‘1-between, 1-within subject design’: with
each participant included in 2 trials (within) of 1 condition (between). This design was
used in order to duplicate the data collection so that the results are more valid. The
experimental design does however require a control check for an order-effect before
the data is analysed. This effect might occur due to procedure familiarity leading to a
faster and more automatic response (practice effect). If an order effect does occur, only
data from trial 1 can be used; if no order effect exists all data can be used. Without an
order effect this will lead to 130 participants in the control condition (black) and 65
participants in the experimental condition (green).
To reduce the likelihood of an order effect, two trials were added to the
experiment. Before starting with the real experiment and measurement of response
latency, participants got the possibility to get to know the interface design in four
subsequent try-out sessions, so that the practice effect would not be a difference
between trial 1 and 2, but between the try-out sessions and the real measurement
trials. Furthermore, a distraction task of 4 minutes was given to the participants
between trial 1 and trial so that the likelihood of a carryover effect between trial 1 and
2 is reduced.
2.3 Material
The negotiation part of the experiment was conducted in a Computer Mediated
situation, but the instructions, consent form, pre-test, distraction task, and post-test
were provided on paper.
The interface of the negotiation trial was designed with the software
programme E-prime. This software enables accurate response latency measures and
allows the insertion of visual elements; such as the presentation of an offer in a green
font with a green frame around it.
The negotiation is always about a monetary amount of 17 euros. This amount
was chosen since an equal division is impossible (decimals are not allowed). The
screens all contain information indicating how the participant can go to the next
screen. When a screen contains only information, the space bar needs to be pressed;
when the participant has to fill in certain information the enter key needs to be
15
pushed. When an offer is made the participant has to accept or reject it with ‘a’ or ‘l’
key in order to go to the next slide. The interface includes several screens in a linear
order:
1. Introduction to the experiment
2. Enter your name (if the name was shorter than two characters, the participant
received a notification that his name was too short, and he was redirected to
the ‘enter your name’ slide)
3. Waiting screen while being linked to a negotiation partner
4. The name of the negotiation partner is displayed and the participant is
informed that the computer will decide who may make the first offer.
5. The computer has decided the imaginary negotiation partner may make the
initial offer.
6. The negotiation partner is thinking about the division and the participant has
to wait.
7. Notification that the decision of the negotiation partner will be displayed on
the next screen.
8. The offer appears. This offer is preceded by a fixation cross appears so that the
participant is focussed on the right area of the screen. Then, the cross
disappears for a second and is replaced by the offer. This offer is beneficial/
insulting and is presented in a black/green font colour and frame. The
participant has the possibility to accept or reject this offer by the ‘a’ key on the
keyboard (= accept), or the ‘l’ key on the keyboard (=reject). These keys were
chosen because they are on the same height on the keyboard. A small label on
the key saying ‘Accept’ or ‘Reject’ highlighted the purpose of these keys.
Furthermore, in a try-out session participants had the possibility to get familiar
with the keys. Participants were instructed to place their fingers on these two
keys while the fixation cross was still on the screen.
9. Dependent on the acceptation or rejection of the offer, the participant is
presented with a screen stating that they accepted or rejected the offer.
Furthermore, this screen informed the participant that it was their turn to
make an offer.
10. The participant can make an offer (this element is not relevant for this
16
research, but this data was collected for a related study investigating whether
colour is also a mediating factor between the offer received and the offer made
in a subsequent situation).
11. The participant has to wait since the imaginary negotiation partner is thinking
about accepting/rejecting the offer.
12. The imaginary negotiation partner accepts the offer.
13. The participant receives the notification that the negotiations with this partner
have come to an end. The participant has the possibility to leave behind a
message for the other person.
14. The message is sent and the participant has to wait a few seconds
15. The participant has received a message from the imaginary negotiation
partner, thanking him for the negotiations
16. Negotiation trial 1 has come to an end, and the participant has to call the
experimenter.
The software procedure is exactly the same for all conditions, the only thing varying is
the name of the imaginary negotiation partner, whether the offer made is beneficial (=
you receive 10 euro) or insulting (= you receive 4 euro), the colour in which the offer
is presented (green or black), and the message the participant receives from the
imaginary partner in the end.
During the try-out session, the participant receives a selection of the total
negotiation trial. The most important purpose of the try-out session is to make the
participant familiar with the usage of the accept- and reject buttons on the keyboard,
and the interface in general.
Since negotiating with a person of the same or a different gender might
influence the degree to which offers are rejected or accepted (Stuhlmacher & Walters,
1999) gender-neutral names were used for the negotiation partners. The names
chosen for this were ‘Robin’ for the green condition and ‘Dominique’ for the black
condition (for the red condition ‘Mischa’ was used). These names could be kept
constant since a participant never participates in two subsequent trials of the same
colour.
The purpose of the interface was to give the participant the illusion that they
were negotiating with a real person located in a different room. This illusion was
17
enforced by small movie clips projecting a ‘waiting’ sign and the insertion of their own
name, which would be visible for the other participant. Furthermore, at the end of the
negotiation trial the system provided the participant with the possibility of leaving a
message for the negotiation partner, and receiving a simulated message of the partner.
Since negotiation trial 1 and trial 2 make use of the same interface,
participants received a distraction task in between. This reduces the likelihood of a
practice- or a carryover effect. The distraction task consisted of a few simple puzzles
(word finders and Sudoku) with the instruction that they had to finish puzzle one
before starting with puzzle 2. They had to do this task for 4 minutes.
2.4 Instrumentation
The e-prime software described in the previous paragraph measured the response
latency to the offer, and kept track of the inserted data (name of the participant, the
offer made by the participant, the message left behind), and whether the offer was
accepted or rejected. As addition to these measurements, a pre- and post-test were
conducted.
The pre-test included a consent form in which the participant had to indicate
their consent for the usage of their data, and fill some demographic features. The pre-
test continued with 2 demographic variables concerning the education of the
participant. Then there were 6 specific questions about the topic ‘negotiating’ of
which the first had 6 choice options, and the other five questions could be answered
with a 7-point Likert scale (1= never, 7=always). The complete pre-test can be found
in attachment 2. Besides the consent form and the pre-test, the participant also
received an instruction form about the experiment (attachment 1).
After the participant finished the first negotiation trial, he was given a set of
puzzles as distraction task. This set included an instruction on the first page, and word
finders and Sudoku puzzles on the following pages. The participant had to complete
as many puzzles as possible in four minutes.
A post-test was given to the participant after completion of negotiation trial
two (attachment 3). This test contained a colour blindness test, which is of great
importance for this experiment since the effect of colour on response latency is
measured. None of the participants turned out to be colour blind. The post-test also
checked whether the participant was familiar with negotiating experiments and if he
18
realized what the purpose of this experiment was. Furthermore, there were several
questions with the previous negotiations as subject. These consisted of four questions
about personal reflection on the negotiation trials (how much did you like the
negotiation and how content are you with the results?) and the fairness of the two
negotiation partners. All four questions could be answered with a 7-point Likert scale.
The last two questions of the post-test dealt with the expected gender of the first and
the second negotiation partner.
2.5 Procedure
Participants were instructed to take place in a cabin with a desk and a computer.
They first received an instruction about the experimental procedure (attachment 1)
and the consent form and pre-test (attachment 2). Once they finished reading and
filled in the pre-test, the experimenter started the try-out sessions. The participant was
allowed to have the instruction form on the desk during the try-out sessions. In these
sessions the participant could get acquainted with the interface and the accept/reject
buttons (the ‘a’ and ‘l’ on the keyboard). After the try-out sessions the participant had
the opportunity to ask questions concerning the experiment to the researcher. Then,
the researcher told the participant they would check whether in the other room they
were also ready for the experiment. This was done to enforce the illusion that the
participant would be linked to a ‘real’ person in another room to negotiate with.
Once this was done, the researcher started the real experiment for the
participant. After this first negotiation trial, the participant called the researcher who
then shut down the computer screen and gave the participant the instruction to make
as much puzzles as possible for four minutes. The participant was not allowed to go to
the next puzzle before finishing the first one. While the participant made the puzzles,
the researcher kept an eye on the stopwatch. After four minutes the puzzles were
taken away from the participant, and negotiation trial two was started. This time the
researcher again pretended to check the status in the other room before launching the
experiment. After negotiation trial 2 the participant notified the researcher who then
brought the post-test. Once the post-test was completed, the participant was being
thanked for participating in the experiment.
19
The procedure was similar for participants in the control condition and
experimental condition. The only variance was implemented in the design of the
experiment (a different name for the negotiation partner, a different message left
behind in the end, a different value offered, and a different colour presented in the
font/frame of the offer). Furthermore, the beneficial/ insulting condition and the
control/experimental condition were counterbalanced to control for an order effect.
2.6 Analysis
Before starting with the results, it is of importance to control for an order effect. Since
there was no order effect, the data of both trial one and trial two can be included in
the analysis. Furthermore, it is important to realize that due to the specific hypotheses
of this research, the 1- between 1 within design changes into a between subjects
design. This is the case since a participant never receives two beneficial offers or two
insulting offers in negotiation trial 1 and 2, but always one beneficial offer and one
insulting offer.
20
3. Results 3.1 Hypothesis 1
a) People accept a beneficial offer
This hypothesis includes all participants who received a beneficial offer, and verifies
whether they accepted this offer. A Pearson Chi-Square test revealed that the number
of participants accepting a beneficial offer exceeded the expected value, while the
number of rejections was much lower than the expected value (see table 2).
b) People reject an insulting offer
This hypothesis includes the participants who have received an insulting offer and
analyses the degree to which this leads to acceptation or rejection. According to the
Pearson Chi-Square test, the observed value for acceptation of an insulting offer was
much lower than the expected value. On the other hand, the observed rejection rate
was much higher than the expected value (see table 2).
Table 2
Observed and expected values for the number of participants accepting or rejecting a beneficial or an insulting offer.
Besides the incongruence between the expected and observed values, the Pearson
Chi-Square test revealed a significant difference in the reaction (accept or reject) to an
insulting or beneficial offer with (Χ2 (1)=194.643, p<.001).
Several Chi Square tests showed no significant difference in the distribution of
gender, gender of the negotiation partner, study phase, or faculty in the acceptance or
rejection of a beneficial or insulting offer.
Reaction to the offer Accepted Rejected
Observed Expected Observed Expected
Beneficial offer 115 59 15 71
Insulting offer 3 59 127 71
21
3.2 Hypothesis 2:
A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in black
For this analysis a selection was made of all participants that received a beneficial offer
in green or black, and accepted this. This leads to a total number of 86 participants,
with 31 in the beneficial green condition, and 55 in the beneficial black condition.
The dependent variable is the response latency of the acceptation of the offer in
milliseconds, and the independent variable is the colour of the offer (green or black).
This is a between subjects design since participants never received a beneficial offer in
both trial 1 and 2.
An independent t-test was used to compare the response latencies of
acceptation for a beneficial offer in green and a beneficial offer in black. There was no
significant difference between a green beneficial offer (M= 2865.03, SD= 2993.82)
and a black beneficial offer (M= 2467.93, SD= 1263.06); t<1 (see table 3).
A two factor ANOVA revealed no significant influence of gender (F<1), study
phase (F<1), or the gender of the negotiation partner (F<1) on the response latency.
The faculty background of the participants (F(4,84)=6.252, p<.001), frequency of
negotiating (F(5,84)=2.915, p<.05), and participation in similar experiments
(F(1,85)=9.267, p<.005) did have a significant effect on the response latency.
Participants from the faculty of humanities had the fastest response latencies
(M=2418.96) closely followed by the faculty of economics (M=2732.60). The social
faculty (M=8430.00) and faculty of theology (M=3357.00) took more time before
reacting to the beneficial offer. Participants negotiating on a daily basis were able to
respond faster to the offer (M=1562.25) than participants who negotiated fewer than
once a month (M=2032.520), and participants who had been in touch with similar
experiments were also faster in responding to the offer (M=2024.85) than participants
who had never been part of a negotiation-experiment before (M=3364.03).
Table 3
The means and standard deviations for the response latencies of a beneficial/ insulting black/green offer.
Response latency in
milliseconds
Black Green
Mean SD Mean SD
Beneficial offer 2467.93 1263.06 2865.03 2993.82
Insulting offer 1429.41 1010.15 1830.50 1335.44
22
3.3 Hypothesis 3:
An insulting offer in green is rejected faster than an insulting offer in black
The subset of data used for this analysis is a selection of all cases in which the
participant received an insulting offer in green or black, and rejected this. The total
amount of participants included in this data set is 96, with 32 participants in the
insulting green condition, and 64 participants in the insulting black condition. The
dependent variable is the response latency of the rejection of the offer in milliseconds
and the independent variable is the colour in which the offer is shown (green or black).
This is a between subjects design because participants never received an insulting offer
in trial 1 and 2, but always one insulting and one beneficial offer.
An independent t-test was conducted to compare the response latencies of the
rejection of an insulting offer made in green or black. There was a trend found (green
condition, M=1830.50, SD=1335.44) (black condition, M=1429.41, SD=1010.15);
t(94)=1.64, p=0.104 (see table 3).
A two factor ANOVA showed that rejection response latencies of an insulting
offer was influenced significantly by faculty (F(5,94)=6.837, p<.001), gender of the
negotiation partner (F(1,94)=4.323, p<.05) and frequency of negotiating
(F(5,95)=8.133, p<.001). Participants from the social faculty (M=1317.50), faculty of
humanities (M=1515.52), and faculty of economics (M=1518.04) were relatively faster
in responding to an offer than the law faculty (M=1721.25) and the faculty of theology
(2329.00). Furthermore, when the participant thought he was negotiating with a
woman they responded faster (M=1528.98) than when they thought they negotiated
with a man (M=2094.39), and participants negotiating on a daily basis took more time
before responding (M=4834.75) than participants negotiating fewer than once a
month (M=1391.16). The variables gender (F<1), study phase (F(2,95)=1.055,
p=.352) and participation in similar experiments (F(1,95)=1.794, p=.184) did not
have an effect.
3.4 Additional Results
Acceptation versus rejection response latency
The mean response latency in milliseconds for the rejection of an insulting offer is
1830.50 for a green offer, and 1429.41 for black, while for acceptation of a beneficial
23
offer the means are 2865.03 for green and 2467.93 for black. Therefore, further
analysis was done to test whether there is a significant difference between the means of
accepting and rejecting an offer. The analysis was conducted with a paired T-Test
since all participants received one beneficial offer (acceptation), and one insulting offer
(rejection). Before this analysis was conducted, all participants who reacted to a
beneficial offer with a rejection, or to an insulting offer with an acceptation were
removed from the data set since it is likely that they reacted accidentally or did not
understand the presentation format. This led to a selection of 112 participants out of
130. The Paired T-Test revealed that people are significantly faster at rejecting an
offer (M=1636, SD=1318.342) than at accepting an offer (M=2587.21,
SD=1977.341); t(111)=4.86, p<.001.
Red versus green
Red and green are said to be opposing colours, with green bringing to mind positive
associations and red more negative and aggressive associations (Davey, 1998;
Mahnke, 1996). Since the experimental design of this study also included red offers
(used for further analysis by another researcher) it is interesting to compare green not
only to the black control condition, but also to red. It is then expected that green leads
to faster acceptation of a beneficial offer than red, since green is associated with
positivity, and red with negativity (evoking confusion in the mind when combined
with a beneficial offer). Furthermore, it is also expected that the opposite effect will
occur for an insulting offer.
Statement 1. A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in red.
Statement 2. An insulting offer in red is rejected faster than an insulting offer in green.
The sample of statement 1 contains all participants who received a beneficial
offer in red or green (this is a between subjects design) and accepted this (red N=29,
green N= 31). Response latency is the dependent variable, and colour (green or red)
the independent variable. The data was analysed with an independent t-test and
revealed no significant difference between the response latency in the green condition
(M=2865.03, SD=2993.816) and the red condition (M=2466.38, SD=1651.63); t<1
(see table 4). Furthermore, a two-factor ANOVA showed that the variables gender
24
(F(1,59)=1.868, p=.177), faculty (F(4,58)=1.731, p=.158), study phase (F<1),
frequency of negotiating (F<1), and gender of the negotiation partner (F<1) had no
significant influence on the response latency. The variable participation in similar
experiments (F(1,59)=4.253, p<.05) however did have a significant influence.
To test statement 2, all participants who received an insulting offer in red or
green and rejected this offer were included (red N=31, green N=32). Since a
participant receives a red or a green offer, and not both, the data of this between
subjects design was analysed with an independent t-test. The independent variable
was the colour (green or red), and the dependent variable the response latency in
milliseconds. The analysis revealed no significant difference between the response
latency in the green condition (M=1830.50, SD=1335.436) and the red condition
(M=1816.65, SD=1871.46); t<1 (see table 4). A two factor ANOVA showed that this
response latency was influenced significantly by faculty (F(5,61)=3.561, p<.01) and the
frequency of negotiating in real life (F(5,61)=3.110, p<.05). Participants from the
social faculty (M=1385.00), faculty of economics (M=1656.50) and faculty of
humanities (M=1724.97) were faster in responding to an insulting offer than the
faculty of theology (M=2329.00) or the faculty of law (2077.00). Furthermore,
participants negotiating on a daily basis (M=4747.25) took more time to respond to
the offer than participants negotiating fewer than once a month (1507.50). The
response latency was not influenced by the variables gender (F<1), study phase (F<1),
participation in similar experiments (F(1,62)=1.000, p=.321) or the gender of the
negotiation partner (F<1).
Table 4
The means and standard deviations for the response latencies of a beneficial/insulting green/red offer.
Response latency in
milliseconds
Green Red
Mean SD Mean SD
Beneficial offer 2865.03 2993.82 2466.38 1651.63
Insulting offer 1830.50 1335.44 1816.65 1871.46
25
4. Conclusion & Discussion This experiment tested the effect of the colour green on negotiations through a
computer mediated negotiation game. The results confirmed hypothesis 1, indicating
that people indeed always strive to satisfy themselves (Tetlock, 1991), and therefore
accept a beneficial offer and reject an insulting offer. Hypothesis 2 was not supported
by the results. There was no significant difference found between the response
latencies for to a green beneficial or black beneficial offer. This means that the positive
associations of the colour green, as shown by the study of Kaya and Epps (2004), did
not fasten the acceptation response latency in comparison to the black control
condition.
For hypothesis 3 the results did however reveal a trend. A significantly longer
response latency was found for the rejection of green insulting offers in comparison to
black insulting offers. This can be explained by the functioning of the associative
network, meaning that when the associations of a concept are not in line with the
content of the concept, this leads to a state of confusion, which on its turn increases
the response latency. In conclusion, this experiment found marginally significant proof
for incongruence between concept and associations causing slower response latencies
(hypothesis 3), but not for congruence fastening the response latencies (hypothesis 2).
The additional analysis on the data revealed another significant effect for the
response latency between acceptation and rejection. The rejection of an insulting offer
takes less time than the acceptation of a beneficial offer. This result may be explained
by the same principle as used for the explanation of hypothesis 1: the ‘intuitive
economist paradigm’ of Tetlock (1991) stating that people want to satisfy their own
needs in a negotiation. The participant might then expect the negotiation partner to
also have this goal, and therefore receiving a beneficial offer seems counterintuitive.
This may cause confusion when a beneficial offer is received, leading to an increase in
response latency for the acceptation of a beneficial offer in comparison to the rejection
of an insulting offer. Another explanation for the difference in response latency
concerns the monetary amounts used for this study. 4 out of 17 was offered in case of
an insulting offer, and 10 out of 17 was offered in the beneficial condition. The
midpoint of 17 is 8.5, a number that differentiates more from the value used for the
insulting offer than for the beneficial offer. When accepting or rejecting an offer, it is
therefore more prevalent that being offered 4 out of 17 is an insulting offer (8.5 – 4 =
26
4.5 euro’s away from the midpoint) than 10 out of 17 being a beneficial offer (10 – 8.5
= 1.5 euro’s away from the midpoint). People might therefore be faster in recognizing
the insulting offer as an insulting offer than the beneficial offer as a beneficial offer.
This on its turn can clarify for the significant difference in response latencies.
Since the experimental data also contained a condition with the colour red for
a related research, the data of the green and red condition were also compared on
both the response latencies to a beneficial offer, and to an insulting offer. There was
no significant difference found between the response latencies of green and red to
either a beneficial, or an insulting offer. It is remarkable that no significant effect was
found, since we did find a marginally significant effect for an insulting green offer in
comparison to an insulting black offer (hypothesis 3). If it are the associations of green
underlying this difference in response latencies, then it is expected that a red beneficial
offer would also lead to increase of response latency due to incongruence between the
beneficial nature of the offer and the negative associations of the colour red (Kaya &
Epps, 2004). The fact that no significant difference was found between the response
latency of beneficial red and green offers, makes it questionable whether it are the
different associations of the colours causing confusion and leading to an increase in
response latency.
Since there were several limitations to this experiment, the associative
influence of colour on an insulting or beneficial offer cannot be ruled out. The first
limitation is that the presence of colour in the design of the software was minimal. The
colour was only shown in the frame around the offer and the font colour of the
numbers. Future research should therefore investigate what happens when the
presence of the colour is more prevalent. Previous research of Hachmang (2011) has
shown that wearing a red t-shirt in a negotiation, which leads to a prevalent presence
of the colour, does influence the outcome of the negotiations. For this experimental
design, it is possible to insert a red or green screen before the presentation of the offer;
this may lead to more significant differences between the conditions. Another
limitation of this experiment is that only the colour black was used as a control
condition. Future research could include a neutral offer as extra control condition to
verify for the influence of colour on a neutral negotiation situation. Furthermore, this
negotiation took place in a computer-mediated environment, which is not very
representative for negotiations in real life. Even though in our current digital society
27
online negotiations become more frequent (for instance through websites such as
Ebay), offline negotiations still occur more frequently.
Even though the results of this experiment were not highly significant, they do
suggest that subtle influences of the colour green and its associations may influence
our behaviour in a negotiation.
28
References Babbitt, E.D. (1878). The principles of light and color. New York: University
Books. Ballast, D.K. (2002). Interior design reference manual. Belmont: CA Professional
Pub. Browning, J., Zabriskie, N.B. (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial
marketing management (12), pp. 219-224. Culler, A.J. (1912). Interference and adaptability. Arch. Psychol., (3)24, pp. 1-80. Davey, P. (1998). True colors: the glorious polychromy of the past suggests a
strong historical need for color, despite current reductive fashions. The Architectural Review, 204, pp. 34-36.
Davidoff, J. (1991). Cognition through color. Cambridge: MITPress. Gerard, R.M. (1958). Differential effects of colored lights on psychophysiological
functions. Los Angeles: University of California. Goldstein, K. (1942). Some experimental observations concerning the influence
of colors on the function of the organism. Occupational therapy and rehabilitation, 21, pp. 147-151.
Gulliver, P. (1979). Disputes and negotiations. New York: Academic Press. Gunnerod, P.K. (1991). Marketing cut flowers in Japan and Hong Kong.
International trade forum, 27, pp. 28-29. Hachmang, D. (2011). Ik ga naar een onderhandeling, en neem mee: een onderzoek
naar het effect van de kleur van kleding op een onderhandeling. Unpublished master’s thesis. Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Hawkins, D.I., Cocanougher, A.B. (1972). Student evaluations of the ethics of
marketing practices: the role of marketing education. Journal of marketing (36)4, pp. 61-64.
Hevner, K. (1935). Experimental studies of the affective value of colors and lines.
Journal of applied psychology, (19)2, pp. 385-398. Holland, R.W., Hendriks, M., Aarts, H. (2005). Smells like clean spirit:
nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior. Psychological Science (16)9, pp. 689-693.
Katz, R., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Manisterski, E., Kraus, S. (2008). Different
orientations of males and females in computer-mediated negotiations. Computers in human behaviour (24)2, pp. 516-534.
29
Kaya, N., Epps, H.H. (2004). Color-emotion associations: past experience and personal preference. In AIC 2004 Color and paints, proceedings of the interim meeting of the international color association, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 3-5 November 2004, ed. By Jose Luis Caivano, pp. 31-34.
Kline, L.W. (1921). An experimental study of associative inhibition. Journal of
experimental psychology (4)4, pp. 270-299. Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W. (1993). Negotiation:
readings, exercises and cases. Boston: The McGraw-Hill Companies. MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop-effect: an
integrative review. Psychological Bulletin (2)109, pp. 163-203. Madden, T.J., Hewett, K., Roth, M.S. (2000). Managing images in different
cultures: a cross-national study of color meanings and preferences. Journal of International Marketing (8)4, pp. 90-107.
Mahnke, F. (1996). Color, environment, human response. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Mollon, J.D. (1989). Tho she kneel’d in that place where they grow. Journal of Experimental Biology, 146, pp. 21-38.
Morton, J. (1997). A guide to color symbolism. Honolulu: Colorcom. Murray, D.C., Deabler, H.L. (1957). Colors and Mood-Tones. Journal of applied
psychology (41)10, pp. 279-283. Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: an investigation of the physiological
activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press. Putnam, L., and M. Roloff. (1992). “Communication Perspectives on Negotiation,” in
L. Putnam and M. Roloff (eds.), Communication and Negotiation. Sage, pp. 1–17. Pruitt, D.G., Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Robinson, W., Volkov, V. (1998). Supporting the negotiation life cycle.
Communications of the ACM (41)5, pp. 95-102. Rubin, J.Z., Brown, B.R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and
negotiation. New York: Academic Press. Sharpe, D.T. (1974). The psychology of color and design. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Silver, N. (1988). Sex and racial differences in color and number preferences.
Perceptual and motor skills, 66, pp. 295-299.
30
Singh, S. (2006). Impact of color on marketing. Management decision, 6, pp. 783- 789.
Stahre, B., Harleman, M., Billger, M. (2004). Colour emotions in large rand
smaller scale. In AIC 2004 Color and paints, proceedings of the interim meeting of the international color association, Porto, Alegre, Brazil, 3-5 November, 2004, ed. by Jose Luis Caivano, pp. 27-30.
Stone, N.J., English, A.J. (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on mood
satisfaction and performance. Journal of environmental psychology, 18, pp.175-185. Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of
experimental psychology, 18, pp. 643-662. Tetlock, P.E. (1991). An alternative metaphor in the study of judgment and
choice: people as politicans. Theory and psychology, 1, pp. 451-475. Von Bergen, J.M. (1995). What’s your favorite color. Calgary: Calgary Herald. Walton, R., and R. McKersie (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ward, G. (1995). Colors and employee stress reduction. Supervision, 56, pp. 3-5. Weigand, H., Moor, de, A., Schoop, M., Dignum, F. (2003). B2B negotiation
support: the need for a communication perspective. Group decision and negotiation, 12, pp. 3-29.
Wilson, G.D. (1966). Arousal properties of red versus green. Perceptual and
motor skills, 23, pp. 947-949.
31
Attachment 1: Instruction INSTRUCTIE Je gaat straks onderhandelen met een onderhandelingspartner die zich in een andere ruimte bevindt. Via de computer worden jullie online aan elkaar gekoppeld en beginnen jullie met de onderhandeling. De bedoeling is om door te onderhandelen een geldbedrag te verdelen tussen jou en je onderhandelingspartner. De computer bepaalt hierbij willekeurig wie het openingsbod mag doen. De ander krijgt hierna de kans om op dit openingsbod te reageren. Wanneer je een bod krijgt kun je:
-‐ het bod accepteren door te drukken op de knop 'ACC' op je toetsenbord. Dat is de knop van de letter A.
-‐ het bod afwijzen door te drukken op de knop 'VERW' op je toetsenbord. Dat is de knop van de letter L.
Denk goed na over je reactie, maar reageer zo snel mogelijk! Wanneer je onderhandelingspartner het openingsbod doet, is het bedrag dat je op je scherm zult zien een geldbedrag dat hij of zij aan jou aanbiedt. Wanneer jij een bod mag doen, toets je het bedrag dat je zelf wilt houden in op het toetsenbord, en sluit je af met enter. Om je een idee te geven van hoe het onderhandelingsspel werkt, gaan we er eerst een aantal keer mee oefenen. Tijdens de oefensessie ben je nog niet gekoppeld aan een onderhandelingspartner. Tijdens de oefensessie mag je dit instructieformulier naast je houden. Laat aan de experimentleider weten wanneer je klaar bent om met de oefensessies te beginnen.
32
Attachment 2: Pre-test Beantwoord de volgende vragen. Opleiding: …………………………………………………………………………………… Studiefase: Bachelor/Premaster/Master Kruis aan in hoeverre de onderstaande stellingen op u van toepassing zijn: Hoe vaak heeft u te maken met onderhandelingen?
o Iedere dag
o Enkele keren per week
o Één keer per week
o Enkele keren per maand
o Één keer per maand
o Minder dan één keer per maand
De onderhandelingen waarin ik zelf betrokken ben betreffen een geldkwestie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd
Wanneer ik onderhandel houd ik rekening met de emoties van de tegenpartij
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd
Bij een onderhandeling vind ik eerlijkheid belangrijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd
Bij een onderhandeling probeer ik zoveel mogelijk winst voor mezelf te behalen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd
Als mijn onderhandelingspartner me onrechtvaardig behandelt, blijf ik zelf toch eerlijk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd
Lees nu de instructie voor het vervolg van het onderzoek.
33
Attachment 3: Post-test
Vragenlijst ‘Onderhandelen en Beslissen’ Ter afsluiting van het experiment dient u de volgende vragenlijst in te vullen
1. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 1 in de bijlage?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 2 in de bijlage?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 3 in de bijlage?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 4 in de bijlage?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Heeft u al eerder aan soortgelijke experimenten deel genomen?
Ja / Nee
6. Waar denkt u dat het onderzoek over ging?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Kruis aan in hoeverre de onderstaande stellingen op u van toepassing zijn:
7. Ik vond het onderhandelen:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο
Helemaal niet leuk Heel erg leuk
8. Over de uitkomst van de onderhandelingen ben ik:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο
Zeer ontevreden Zeer tevreden
9. Ik vond mijn onderhandelingspartner in de eerste
onderhandelingssituatie:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο
Zeer oneerlijk Zeer eerlijk
34
10. Ik vond mijn onderhandelingspartner in de tweede
onderhandelingssituatie:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο
Zeer oneerlijk Zeer eerlijk
11. Mijn onderhandelingspartner in de eerste onderhandelingssituatie was
Man / Vrouw
12. Mijn onderhandelingspartner in de tweede onderhandelingssituatie was
Man / Vrouw Bedankt voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek.
Post-‐test attachment:
Afbeelding 1 Afbeelding 2