Face to Face vs Internet Negotiation

8/7/2019 Face to Face vs Internet Negotiation

1/9

Resolving Conflicts over Ethical Issues: Face-to-Face versus Internet NegotiationsAuthor(s): Robert van Es, Warren French, Felix StellmaszekSource: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1/2, Building Ethical Institutions forBusiness: Sixteenth Annual Conference of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN)(Aug., 2004), pp. 165-172Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123290 .

Accessed: 09/01/2011 21:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25123290?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25123290?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/9

Resolving Conflicts over EthicalIssues: Face-to-face Versus Internet

NegotiationsRobert van Es

Warren FrenchFelix Stellmaszek

ABSTPJVCT. Is the Internet an appropriate medium touse when attempting to resolve conflicts over ethical issues in business? The research reported on in this paperfocuses on internet versus face-to-face negotiations as acomponent of applied discourse ethics. Although internetnegotiation has serious restrictions, it also has specificqualities. It enhances reflection and plays down emotion.Important qualities when handling complex and delicateethical issues.

KEY WORDS: moral dialogue, negotiation ethics, faceto-face negotiations, Internet negotiations, universalism,

benevolence

Negotiating ethics and reordering values

How much time do businesspeople have forthoughtful resolutions to ethical problems? Meetingface-to-face with a supplier, colleague or client toresolve an ethical issue takes a block of time - thespan of which is usually not known ahead of the

discussion. With this in mind Drake et al. (2000)present a thought provoking argument that information technology can go a long way to facilitatemoral dialogues in business. Grounding their argument on the theory of moral discourse presented byHabermas, they list potential benefits of ethicalnegotiation conducted over the Internet. Certainly,in an era of globalized trade, when making time to

meet those with whom one has an ethical problem isa begrudged use of a scarce resource, there is anallure to Drake's argument.

A derivative question relates to the valuesunderpinning an ethical argument. Habermas (1979)has claimed the most successful moral dialogues willresult in a new position based on shared valuesarising from the discourse. The assumption made isthat negotiators will discover (reorder) their valuesduring the course of the moral dialogue.French et al. (2002) investigated negotiation ethicsas a component of applied discourse ethics. Theyfound that the expression of shared values is notsufficient to resolve ethical conflicts. Resolutions ofconflicts over ethical issues are produced by amutualrefraining process during constructivist negotiationwith little attention explicitly paid to shared values.Schwartz (1996) presents evidence that people doreorder priorities among their values, dependent onthe situations, which they face. He has found reordering between situations to be most likely in theform of shifting from one value to a compatible value.Compatibility refers to values within the same categorical dimension and, to a lesser extent, to anothercategorical dimension, which is close to the originaldimension under his graphical scheme. WhatSchwartz did not investigate iswhether people reorder their values within any one situation in the processof moral dialogue or constructivist negotiation.

Robert van Es is Lecturer in Organizational Philosophy at theUniversity ofAmsterdam, and Consultant in OrganizationalCulture and Ethics. His research area is negotiating ethicsacross cultures.

Warren French is the I.W. Cousins Professor of Business Ethicsat the Terry School? University of Georgia. He also serves asa visitingfaculty member at theUniversity ofLyon III wherehe teaches business ethics. His research area is conflict resolution through discourse ethics.Felix Stellmaszek earned anMBA at theUniversity of Georgiaand is a Cand.rer.pol. at the University of Erlangen

Nurnberg. He has worked as a consultant both for Porscheand for Accenture.

^* Journal of Business Ethics 53: 165-172,2004.P* ? 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.


3/9

166Robert van Es et al.Grounded in the work of Drake, French, Habermas and Schwartz the following research propositions are posited. While Drake et al. (2000) pose an

interesting theory about the efficiency and effectiveness of moral dialogue over the Internet; doesfurther data support their theory? Our first proposition is "Negotiations concerning a business issuewith ethical ramifications, conducted over the Internet, will produce a greater percentage of successfulresolutions than those conducted face-to-face".

Past research by Van Es (1996) has found thatvalues are not brought up to great extent in face-toface business negotiations over an ethical issue. Willthe physical separation and asynchronous timing ofInternet negotiations lead to more disclosure ofvalues? Our second proposition is "There will be

more mentions of values in Internet negotiationsconcerning a business issue with ethical ramificationsthan in face to face negotiations".Past research by French et al. (2001) has questioned whether shared values appear without guidance in face-to-face business negotiations overethical issues. Will the physical separation andasynchronous timing of Internet negotiations lead tothe recognition of more shared values upon which aresolution can be based? Our third proposition is"Resolutions to conflict over a business issue withethical ramifications will be based more on compatible values rather than on shared values".

Research methodA business case with strong ethical ramifications wascreated to investigate the three research propositions(see Appendix 1). This case was analyzed by a largeset of subjects who made a binary choice ? to either

keep a chemical plant open or shut it down. Then 40subjects, split into 20 pairs based on their decisionsabout the case, negotiated the case over the Internet.

Another 40 subjects, also assigned to 20 pairs,negotiated the case face-to-face. Each of the subjects, all U.S. citizens, possessed a university degreeand had been in the work place before returning to auniversity setting for advanced business training.

Our samples are modest in numbers and show astrong homogeneity; therefore the results of ourresearch are primarily to be regarded as good heuristic insights.

The argumentation used in these two sets ofnegotiations was analyzed using Schwartz's classification for values as well as Brown's (1996) classification for ethical arguments. Brown's basic modelcontains four elements relating to ethical discourse:

1. Proposals: prescriptive statements that suggestaction,

2. Observations: descriptive statements that portray situations,

3. Value Judgments: normative statements thatguide actions, and

4. Assumptions: reflective statements that expressviews and attitudes.

Brown's justification for his coding scheme comesfrom his adaptation of the argumentation modelposited by Toulmin (1957). He adapts Toulmin'smodel to ethical arguments by substituting discourseethics terminology into Toulmin's logical argu

mentation process. This adaptation process is described in detail in Brown's (1990) earlier text.Schwartz (1996), in turn, claims that a set of

universal values exists in cultures around the world.He further claims that there are 10 such values,grouped under four dimensions, which he labels selftranscendence, self-enhancement, conservation andopenness to change (see Table I for a listing of thesevalues). The basis for his claim is a set of datagathered from over 40 countries located on sixcontinents. The priorities assigned to these values,however, differ between countries, within countriesand even within people. It is the degree to whichthey shift within people that is of interest in thisresearch. To this end two judges jointly coded papercopy transcripts ofthe 20 Internet negotiations thathad been conducted on a restricted access discussionboard. The same judges then coded the 20 audiotaped, face-to-face negotiations. Disagreements overcoding were reconciled by referring back to thedetailed work of both Brown and Schwartz.

Analysis of Internet NegotiationsThe main values voiced in this particular case, usingSchwartz's taxonomy, were: universalism (usuallyexpressed by those who initially wanted to shut thefactory down), and benevolence (usually expressed


4/9

Face-to-face Versus Internet Negotiations 167

TABLE IValues underlying the ethical argumentation

Keep plant open Shut plant downSelf-transcendencea

Universalism 738Benevolence 326Openness to changeSelf Direction 920

Stimulation 11Conservation

Security 263Tradition 64Conformity 62

Self-enhancementPower 153Achievement 00Hedonism 61

a64 of the 80 subjects mentioned more than one value.Hedonism can be classified under the openness to change

dimension as well.

by those who initially wanted to keep the plantopen) (see Table I). The difference in applying thesevalues often reduced to the span of those harmed:

(a) wide definition of non-maleficence for thoseexpressing a value of universalism (deontological argumentation about physical harm tohuman life),

(b) narrow definition of non-maleficence forthose expressing limited benevolence (teleological argumentation about responsibility of

managers for employees/families).There was a higher likelihood for a resolution whenboth parties were open to new proposals. Additionally, the likelihood for a resolution increased

when alternatives were given at the beginning of thenegotiation. When this occurred, one or both partiescontinued the rest of the negotiation without fear oflosing respect in the eyes of the other for abandoningthe original decision.

Generally, the negotiators who initially wanted toshut the plant down were less flexible than thosewho wanted to keep it open. Their prime value wasnot to physically harm others. Those who wanted tokeep the plant open tended to consider only the

well-being of employees, for whom they had a

TABLE IIValues expressed in negotiations regarding an ethical issue

Successful Failednegotiations negotiations

Internet negotiationsShared values 4 3Compatible valuesa 81Disparate values 22

Face-to-face negotiationsShared values 8 2Compatible values 27Disparate values 10

aCompatible values are restricted in this research to valuesclassified under the same dimension. The four dimensionsare listed in Table I.

perceived responsibility. They were more open toalternative resolutions if the employees' economicwell-being was assured.Fourteen ofthe 20 Internet negotiations resultedin a mutually agreeable resolution (see Table II).Two of these negotiations were conducted synchronously, both resulting in a resolution. Synchronous Internet negotiations contained more(average 19) but shorter comments than did asynchronous negotiations. The number of differentstatements input by both parties into the asynchronous Internet negotiations ranged from 6 to 12 witha median average being 11. Again, all statements

were coded using Marvin Brown's four-part categorization scheme (see Table III). Each negotiator'sentire comment, irrespective of length, was considered as one statement. Any one statement was codedto allow for more than one ofthe four designations.The Internet negotiators reviewed previousstatements quite often and, consequently, reviewedeach other's assumptions aswell as the relatively few'observations that were made. This might be typicalfor Internet based negotiations, since rereadingprevious statements precludes the need to rehashobjective facts. In truth, negotiators using the Internet may not have to be aswell prepared as thosenegotiating face-to-face, since they have time lagsbetween their comments to reflect on both paststatements and possible future tactics. Evidence forthis conjecture derives from the fact that earlystatements were reread seven times on average,


5/9

168Robert van Es et al.TABLE III

Profiles of ethical speech patterns by success of the negotiation

Proposal Observation Value judgment Assumption Total (%)average (%) average (%) average (%) average (%)

Successful internet negotiations 35.9 17.4 24.222.5100.0Successful face-to-face negotiations 37.4 16.4 21.624.6 100.0Failed internet negotiations 27.7 15.6 28.927.8100.0Failed face-to-face negotiations 16.1 18.0 37.428.5100.0

while latter statements were reread four times onaverage.

Very few of the comments seemed to expressintense emotion. In contrast, a few of the face-toface negotiations were highly charged with emotion.

Many of the Internet negotiation statements appeared to follow a logical progression. Some negotiators even listed the arguments of the adversary andaddressed these points in sequential order. Thatwould be quite difficult in face-to-face negations ifthere were numerous and/or complex points.

However, in one case where a participant tried tocontrol the Internet negotiation using sequential,deductive logic and textbook negotiation techniques, there was intransigence due to the otherparty's perception of being controlled and not beingan equal party to the resolution.In each of the 20 Internet negotiations underlyingvalues were made clear. It appeared that negotiatorswanted to reveal their reasoning in order to justifytheir decisions. Rarely was there a search, though,for a resolution based on a shared value even thoughshared values existed (see Table II). Also, fewer valuereordering than expected appeared in these negotiations. Perhaps, this is because Schwartz's identification of value tradeoffs was between situationsrather than within one situation. The negotiationsconcerned only one issue (situation).The two values, which the adversaries most frequently expressed ? universalism and benevolence -are part of Schwartz's value dimension labeledself-transcendence. In terms of Schwartz's theorythis should lay the grounds for a not too difficulttrade-off. Yet, most negotiators kept closely to theirinitially expressed values and did not move that shortdistance to a shared value. Part of the failure was dueto stubbornness to move away from tangible datapoints in the case ? data points that became the

grounds for initial positions, e.g., three peoplewould died versus 300 handicapped, non-mobilepeople would lose their jobs.In most of the resolutions egoistic, personal,hedonistic well-being was not mentioned, and if

mentioned, itwas mentioned in initial positions, butnot in the latter stages of the discourse. Religiousvalues aswell did not enter into the discussions. But,self-respect, classified under the dimension labeledSelf Direction, did appear to be an underlyinginfluence for many of the negotiators. One reason

may be a fear that abandoning original values wouldbe seen as a weakness and cause lack of respect fromothers, when searching for a new proposal? Ironically, self-respect could have been turned from anobstacle to a core shared value if it had been approached constructively? This would be the case inface-to-face negotiations as well as in Internetnegotiations.

Analysis of face-to-face negotiationsOnly 11 of the 20 face-to-face negotiations were

successfully resolved. The number of statementsconstituting the negotiations ranged from 13 to 86with the median average being 29.

There were many more requests for clarificationin the face-to-face negotiations than in the onesconducted via the Internet. Most of these requestscame as interruptions to the other party's presentation. Interruptions make it difficult to understandthe presenter's complete argument. The interruptertended to focus on a particular point made by theother party (analogous to focusing on a tree) ratherthan on the other party's total presentation of acontextual argument (analogous to focusing on aforest). If the interrupter had waited for the other


6/9


party to finish the presentation, the questioned pointmight have been clarified. These interruptions andthe perceived failure on the part ofthe interrupter tounderstand the complete argument of the presentermay have been the cause of the presenter reiteratingkey parts of the presenter's argument

?many morerestatements than found in the Internet negotiations.Reiteration of statements ismost likely the pre

senter's attempt to bring about one of Habermas'four preconditions for successful discourse - that ofmutual comprehension (MC). The presenter's hopemay be that as soon as the other party comprehendsthe logic ofthe presenter's argument, the other partywill, at the least, respect the presenter and, at best, bewon over by the argument.In this particular ethical dilemma two of Habermas' four preconditions

?truth and truthfulness

?should be taken as a given. Both parties wereprovided with the same background information(satisfying the precondition for truth) and, thus,there were few if any opportunities for deception(satisfying the precondition for truthfulness.) Thefocal points of this negotiation should reduce to theother two of Habermas' four preconditions - MCand Appropriateness (A).

Paraphrasing on the part of the second partyshows that a degree of MC has been attained.Paraphrasing was more evident in the Internetnegotiations than in the face-to-face negotiations.That may have occurred because each party had timeto reflect on the other party's complete argument,i.e., last statement as well as all preceding statements,before responding with a paraphrase. This is a benefit of asynchronous Internet negotiations. Theargumentative process in the failed negotiations wasslightly different. In all ofthe failed Internet negotiations the parties at least attempted to satisfyHabermas' precondition of A. They tested alternative positions. In some of the failed face-to-facenegotiations neither party attempted to exploreother alternatives or A. They just agreed to disagree.

In the face-to-face negotiations there were quite afew reflective comments at the end, i.e., after aresolution had been reached or the parties hadagreed to disagree. One could attribute this to thenegotiators' desire for respect - respect for the logicbehind their decision. The more structured thenegotiation the less emotional itwas, and the morelikely that it resulted in a resolution. Structure was

evidenced in the face-to-face negotiations in one oftwo ways. First, one of the parties suggested a formatfor the subsequent argumentation at the beginningof the negotiation. Second, one of the parties tookbrief notes of what was transpiring during thenegotiation. This helped attain MC and defuseemotion. But, does the nature of a face to face-toface negotiation, as contrasted with an Internetnegotiation, make it more difficult to rationallydeliberate over ethical arguments?

Discussion

Synchronous face-to-face negotiations, while theyallow for time to prepare a strategy before thenegotiation, allow for little time to revise thatstrategy during the negotiation. In contrast, asynchronous Internet negotiations allow time to deliberate changes of strategy aswell as tactics during thenegotiation. The added time can be used not onlyfor reflection but also for checking one's own logicand terminology. The negotiator can then structurecomments so as to preclude anticipated questionsand potential objections.Additional time for reflection is just one of thepotential benefits of negotiating ethical issues overthe Internet. Other benefits are listed in Table IV.These benefits might help explain why the first research proposition, "Negotiations concerning abusiness issue with ethical ramifications, conductedover the Internet, will produce a greater percentageof successful resolutions than those conducted faceto-face", was supported by this study. But, Internetnegotiation is not without its detriments. Two of thedetriments pointed out by Drake et al. merit seriousattention. One is that most people would rather talkthan pursue the more arduous task of typing com

ments on a discussion board. The typing task maymotivate negotiators to move too rapidly towardclosure. The second problem is the one mostemphasized by those who favor face-to-face negotiations. It is that non-verbal cues, indicating theother party's receptivity to a statement, are strippedfrom the message.

It was assumed that the discussion board wouldact as an electronic firewall behind which Internetnegotiators would feel comfortable expressing values. It was also assumed that face-to-face negotiators


7/9

170Robert van Es et al.TABLE IV

The impact of information technology on moral dialogue: modification of the Drake, Yuthas and Dillard model

Characteristics of moral dialogue Ways Internet negotiation supports moral dialoguePower neutrality Equalizes message status

Required technological skills areminimalCreates a distance between speaker and messageMinimizes power of rhetorical skillsGenerality Helps overcome physical barriers

Minimizes chronological constraintsDiscussions are more focusedQuicker assimilation of typed information

Autonomous evaluation Provides access to past statementsMore time for reflection

Facilitates structured discussion of values and assumptionsReduction of emotional statementsReduction of redundancies

Role taking Improves understandingKey issues can be highlighted

Improves organization of the components of an argumentTransparency Deception ismore visible

Increased accountability due to visible record of statements

would feel somewhat self-conscious and, perhaps,too candid if they expressed the values underlyingtheir positions. In addition, the pressure tomake the

best use of time in face-to-face negotiations, i.e., notcreate "dead air" moments of silence, could causenegotiators to make reflexive comments, some ofwhich might include a questioning of values. But,the second research proposition, 'There will be more

mentions of values in Internet negotiations concerning a business issue with ethical ramificationsthan in face-to-face negotiations", was not supported in this study.

Paradoxically, successful negotiations, irrespectiveof the discourse medium, elicited fewer valuestatements than did the unsuccessful negotiations(see Table III).What was noted with respect to the second research proposition were the types of comments

made about values in the face-to-face negotiations.Requests for clarification and restatement of originalvalues occurred much more frequently in thesenegotiations than in the Internet negotiations. Singlementions of one's values and paraphrasing of theother party's values occurred more frequently in the

Internet negotiations. The conclusion is that one ofHabermas' preconditions for successful discourseethics, mutual comprehension, was evidenced morein the Internet negotiations than in the face-to-facenegotiations.The results presented in Table II relate to thethird research proposition, "Resolutions to conflictover a business issue with ethical ramifications willbe based more on compatible values rather than onshared values", can be somewhat misleading. Theproposition has superficial support in the Internetnegotiations but not in the face-to-face negotiations.In none ofthe 25 successful negotiations, however,did the subjects specifically mention that the resolution satisfied the values of one party, let alone bothparties. Perhaps there is a subconscious filter, whichwill not support a resolution unless personal valuesare satisfied.

There were reordering of values within the negotiations, five in the face-to-face set and two in theInternet set. These reordering were primarily from an

original value of benevolence to a new, shared valueof universalism, which matched the original value ofthe other party. All seven reordering were associated


8/9


with successful resolutions. One observation worthreiterating was the difficulty that the subjects had

moving from benevolence to universalism, two valuesnested within the same dimension labeled self-transcendence. Most of the failed face-to-face negotiations were marked by this intransigence (again, seeTable I). A possible explanation why those whodemonstrated reasoning based on benevolence mayhave been unwilling to take a more universalisticposition can be traced back to the work of Stanley

Milgram (1963). He found that it is easier to harmthose whom you have never met than those whomyou are likely to come in contact with. This was theundertone inmany of the failed negotiations.

ConclusionsNegotiations on ethical issues were more successfulwhen alternative positions rather than value judgments or assumptions dominated the discussion. An

important factor in reaching agreeable solutions isrespect - not only in regard to the issue and to thegroups represented, but also in regard to the actualnegotiators. Especially when values are reorderednegotiators are keen on self-respect; they wanted tobe perceived as self-aware negotiators who decidedwhat is best under the circumstances.

Face-to-face negotiations on moral issues aremodest in the use of paraphrases and have little timefor reflection or changing strategy. They need a lotof time for preparation, sometimes include strongemotional behavior, an often use interruptionto require clarification of statements. Internet

negotiators on moral issues need less preparationtime, show little emotional behavior and interruption is not an option. They use paraphrases intensively, offer plenty of time for reflection, and offerseveral opportunities to change strategy.Most participants find face-to-face negotiationsattractive because they liked talking to each othermore than typing, and they like the opportunity tocommunicate non-verbally. The lack of non-verbalcues is a serious restriction of Internet negotiation; italso it's critical quality. Precisely because there isonly verbal communication, subjects need to payspecial attention to careful reading and writing,interpreting and paraphrasing. In delicate moralmatters Internet negotiation tended to lead to more

agreeable solutions in less statement exchanges. Bothin Internet and face-to-face negotiations values wereonly modestly expressed. When they were expressedshared values dominated the face-to-face negotiations and compatible values dominated the Internetnegotiations. A serious reordering of values wasreached in 7 out of 40 negotiations. All seven resulted in a successful solution, because subjects succeeded in a process of reframing from benevolenceto universalism.

To increase the success of face-to-face negotiations subjects are advised to either begin their dialogue by agreeing on the format of theirnegotiations, or take notes during them. To increasethe success of Internet negotiations subjects areadvised to move away from the strict tangibledata of the case and create their own room to

manoeuvre.

Appendix 1. Managerial decisionYou are plant manager of a chemical firm north ofMidland, Michigan. The fumes from your plant are toxic

and usually blow in a northeast direction into Ontario,Canada. The fallout from the fumes iskilling the forests inthe wind's path.

Your plant's employees are all partially handicapped.Yours is the only firm in the state that goes out of its wayto hire the handicapped. Without these jobs at least 300 of

them could not find work elsewhere. The odds are 70-30that 140 ofthe 300 would see their families break up. Thecost of putting scrubbers in the smokestacks is prohibitive.The firm will shut down the plant as inefficient if thepollution had to be cleaned up.

You are 61 years old and 1 year away from retirement.You have no savings since your spouse has severe allergiesand takes care of your 30-year-old handicapped child. Ifthe plant closes down you will be terminated with a$100,000 lump sum retirement fee. If you can last untilretirement, the firm will give you $35,000 per year for therest of your life. The odds are 90-10 that your age andskills would not enable you to find another job in the area.

Your spouse's allergies demand that you live in the area.The Canadians have commissioned a scientific study

that arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Your plant alone is the major cause of forest devastation in a 100 square mile area of Ontario.

2. The loss of timer is $100,000 per year. (The loss ofjobs to your handicapped workers who probably


9/9

172Robert van Es et al.

could not find other employment would cost them$1 rnillion in wages per year.)

3. The odds are 80?20 that the 300 Canadians livingin that wooded area of Ontario will have their livesshortened by 5 years if the pollution continues forsix more months. About three of those Canadians

will develop cancer because of the pollution (if itcontinues) and die painfully. All of the 300 Canadians in that area live in religious commune.

The Canadians demand that you clean up or shutdown. The U.S. government refuses to interfere. Thefirm's CEO says the decision is yours. Given that you

must choose only one of the following two options,which would you choose?1. Keep the plant open_.2. Shut the plant down_.

ReferencesBrown, Marvin T: 1990, Working Ethics (Jossey-Bass

Publishers, San Francisco).Brown, Marvin T: 1996, The Ethical Process (Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle Fiver, NJ).Drake, Bruce, Kristi Yuthas and Jesse F. Dillard: 2000 'It's

Only Words - Impacts of Information Technologyon Moral Dialogue', Journal of Business Ethics 23,41-59.

French, Warren, Harald Zeiss and Andreas GeorgScherer: 2001, 'Intercultural Discourse Ethics: Testing

Trompenaars' and Hampden-Turner's Conclusionsabout Americans and the French', Journal of Business

Ethics 34, 145-159.

French, Warren, Christian Hasslein and Robert van Es:2002, 'Constructivist Negotiation Ethic', Journal ofBusiness Ethics 39, 83-90.

Habermas, Jurgen: 1979, Communication and the Evolutionof Society (Beacon Press, Boston).

Milgram, Stanley: 1963, 'Behavioral Study of Obedience', Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology 67(4),371-378.

Schwartz, Shalom: 1996, 'Values Priorities and Behavior:Applying a Theory of Integrated Value System', in C.Seligman, J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna (eds.), ThePsychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8.

(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 1-24.Toulmin, Stephen: 1957, The Uses of Argument (Cam

bridge University Press, New York).Van Es, Robert: 1996, Negotiating Ethics. On EthicsinNegotiation andNegotiating inEthics (Eburon, Delft).

Robert van EsUniversity ofAmsterdam,

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences,Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237,1012 DL Amsterdam,

The NetherlandsE-mail: [email protected]

Warren FrenchUniversity of Georgia,The Netherlands

Felix StellmaszekUniversity of Erlangen-Nurnberg,The Netherlands

Face to Face vs Internet Negotiation

Documents

Transcript of Face to Face vs Internet Negotiation