Groups Motives Constitute Integrated Negotiations

Negotiatiors'social motives (prosocial vs. egoistic) influence the integrative negotiation. The purpose of this study is to know about how group composition affect the outcomes, the chosen of the decision rules and the procedural fairness judgements in negotiation. Three-person groups negotiated with a symmetrical task structure. Group composition includes 2 homogeneous conditions (all prosocial negotiators and all egoistic negotiators) and 2 heterogeneous conditions (2 procial negotiators and 1 egoistic negotiator,1 prosocial negotiators and 2 egoistic negotiator). Results showed that:1. Within the group, egoistic members exploited prosocial members and got higher individual outcomes, but not significant.2. Joint outcomes are higher in groups where all members are prosocial than groups that have one or more egoistic members, but not significant. However, compared to the group with all egoistic members, those with all prosocial members goups got significant higher joint outcomes.3. When the prosocial members were in a majority, they are willing to choose the unanimity rule. While the egoistic members were in a majority, they are not properly to choose the majority rule.4. The goups which chose the unanimity rule got higher joint outcomes than the groups which chose the majority rule.5. Members of groups with only prosocial members perceived more procedural fairness than did members of groups that had one or more egoistic members.6. The relationship between social motives and procedural fainess could be explained by individual outcomes.7. The relationship between group compositon and negotiation outcomes could not be explained by ratings of procedural fairness.