Many of life's major decisions and issues about which individuals negotiate concern outcomes that will be experienced far off in the future (e.g., health decisions, vacation plans, business deals, retirement options, military strategy). In this project it is argued that just as the amount of time or temporal distance from when negotiation outcomes will be experienced can be an important element of negotiation, so too can the amount of physical (geographical) distance in a negotiation. The proposed research relies on a framework that treats temporal and physical space as manifestations of the same concept (distance). Prior research by the principal investigator has demonstrated that increased temporal distance is beneficial for individuals during certain types of negotiations (e.g., integrative situations - where parties involved have different priorities across the issues under dispute). The current research investigates whether large amounts of distance in negotiation increase individuals' focus on higher level information (motives, values, dispositions) in the midst of lower level, contextual information, which should both benefit as well burden certain interpersonal and group dynamics. The research will also examine whether and to what extent negotiations that involve smaller amounts of distance will produce desirable outcomes under alternative circumstances. Ultimately, by conceptualizing temporal and physical distance in negotiation under the same theoretical umbrella, these research tests novel predictions and addresses important gaps in the negotiation domain.
This award will permit a junior investigator to further develop a program of research already under way, and to support a graduate research assistant.
(c) Summary: The aim of the proposal was to understand when physical distance improves versus harms negotiation outcomes and negotiators’ satisfaction. The research was grounded in a construal level theory of physical distance, which argues that greater physical distance from things (e.g., people, world events) leads individuals to think about those things in more abstract, less detailed terms. Research from my own lab and others supports this claim. The proposed research was explored in two contexts: 1) personal negotiations, in which individuals negotiate on behalf of themselves and 2) representative negotiations, in which individuals are represented by others (e.g., elected officials) who negotiate on the behalf of those individuals (i.e., their constituents). Regarding personal negotiations, findings from my research that used experimental methods revealed that individuals who engaged in electronic negotiation with someone who was believed to be physically faraway (vs. nearby) were more likely to make concessions on unimportant issues in exchange for concessions on important issues, consequently achieving more mutually beneficial negotiation agreements. These findings are described in a paper by Henderson (2011). Regarding representative negotiations, findings from my research that used experimental methods revealed that individuals were more likely to evaluate their representatives using their political ideology when their representatives were physically faraway (vs. nearby), showing a large divide between how liberals and conservatives evaluated their representatives who were faraway from them. These findings are described in a paper by Henderson & Rohrbach (2012). Moreover, research from a different set of experimental studies revealed that the physical location of representatives affected whether individuals supported their representatives (e.g., their likelihood to vote for them) when their representatives made decisions on behalf of them. These findings are described in a paper by Burgoon, Henderson, & Wakslak (2012). In the process of studying the impact of physical distance on negotiation outcomes and satisfaction, I was involved in several review papers that are related to the theoretical foundation of my research. These include a paper by Burgoon, Henderson, & Markman (2012), Henderson & Wakslak (2010), and Henderson, Wakslak, Fujita, & Rohrbach, J. (2011). Ongoing research in my lab continues to examine the role of physical distance in personal and representative negotiations. Accomplishments: Findings from my research have received media exposure. Moreover, I have been invited to present my findings at several other institutions as well as at academic conferences. (d) publications resulting from the NSF award; * Burgoon, Henderson, & Markman (2012). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science. * Henderson, M.D. (2011). Mere physical distance and integrative agreements: When more space improves negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 7-15. *Henderson, M. D. & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2011). Physical distance in intragroup and intergroup negotiations: Implications for negotiator judgment and behavior. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & J. Overbeck, (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Ethics and Groups (Vol. 14). Emerald Press. * Henderson & Rohrbach (2012). Concrete thinking reduces the impact of left-right ideology on support for public officials. Unpublished manuscript. * Henderson, M.D., & Wakslak, C.J. (2010). Over the hills and faraway: The link between physical distance and abstraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 390-394. *Henderson, M.D., Wakslak, C.J., Fujita, K., & Rohrbach, J. (2011). Construal level theory and spatial distance: Implications for mental representation, judgment, and behavior. Social Psychology, 42, 165-173. *Burgoon, Henderson, & Wakslak (2012). How do we want others to decide? Geographical distance influences evaluations of decision-makers. Unpublished Manuscript. (e) evidence of research products and their availability, including, but not limited to: data, publications, samples, physical collections, software, and models, as described in any Data Management Plan; Hard copies of completed questionnaires and digital data (when applicable) are stored in two places. The first location is the PI’s Department server. This server can only be accessed by the PI and his graduate students. The second location is an online data storage service called Dropbox, which provides secure online storage space accessible by a private online account.Publications are available on my website (www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/psychology/faculty/mdh2449) as well as upon request via email (marlone.henderson@gmail.com)
