Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdependence Issues in Analyzing Negotiation Data

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study illustrates the conceptual and statistical issues stemming from the use of nested, interdependent data in negotiation research. To this end, the nature and forms of interdependence are discussed, several models of interdependence are outlined, and methods for analyzing interdependent data are presented. Furthermore, an example using the actor–partner interdependence model is given. This discussion and example may provide an avenue to rethink the modeling and analysis of offline and online negotiation processes, given the interdependent nature of negotiation data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair WL (2003) Integrative sequences and negotiation outcome in same- and mixed-culture negotiations. Int J Confl Manage 14(3): 273–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 83(3): 377–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokhari RH (2005) The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Enterp Inf Manage 18(2): 211–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonito JA (2002) The analysis of participation in small groups—methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Res 33(4): 412–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. SAGE, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt AN, Choi JN, Jaeger AM (2005) The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. J Organ Behav 26(6): 681–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne BM (2004) Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equation Model 11(2): 272–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan D (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J Appl Psychol 83(2): 234–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen A, Arlington A (1987) Research issues and strategies. In: Jacob T (eds) Family interaction and psychology: theory, methods, and findings. Plenum Press, New York, pp 259–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook WL, Kenny DA (2005) The actor-partner interdependence model: a model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Int J Behav Dev 29(2): 101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren S, Hakstian AR (1990) Conversion between systems of hearing handicap measurement: an empirically determined computational procedure. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 99(12): 977–979

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon MA, Cunningham GB (2006) Data aggregation in multilevel analysis: a review of conceptual and statistical issues. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 10(2): 85–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florin P, Giamartino GA, Kenny DA, Wandersman A (1990) Levels of analysis and effects—clarifying group influence and climate by separating individual and group effects. J Appl Soc Psychol 20(11): 881–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J (1997) Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavin MB, Hofmann DA (2002) Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadersh Q 13(1): 15–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R, Griffin D (1997) On the statistics of interdependence: treating dyadic data with respect. In: Duck S (eds) Handbook of personal relationships. Wiley, New York, pp 271–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 32(4): 1199–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann DA, Gavin MB (1998) Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications for research in organizations. J Manage 24(5): 623–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann DA, Griffin MA, Gavin MB (2000) The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW (eds) Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 467–511

    Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78(2): 306–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge TA, Scott BA, Ilies R (2006) Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. J Appl Psychol 91(1): 126–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashy DA, Kenny DA (2000) The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In: Reis HT, Judd CM (eds) Handbook of research methods in social psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 451–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA (1995) The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Pers Relatsh 2(1): 67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA (1996) Models of non-independence in dyadic research. J Soc Pers Relatsh 13(2): 279–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA (2006) Dyadic analysis. http://davidakenny.net/dyad.htm

  • Kenny DA, Cook W (1999) Partner effects in relationship research: conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Pers Relatsh 6(4): 433–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, Judd CM (1986) Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychol Bull 99(3): 422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, Judd CM (1996) A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychol Bull 119(1): 138–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, Lavoie L (1985) Separating individual and group effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(2): 339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Bolger N (1998) Data analysis in social psychology. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds) Handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp 252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data-collection, and analysis. Acad Manage Rev 19(2): 195–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai HC, Doong HS, Kao CC, Kersten GE (2006) Negotiators’ communication, perception of their counterparts, and performance in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15(5): 429–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr SL (1999) Sampling: design and analysis. Duxbury, Pacific Grove

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus DK (1998) Studying group dynamics with the social relations model. Group Dyn 2(2): 230–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen BO (1994) Multilevel covariance structure-analysis. Sociol Methods Res 22(3): 376–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newsom JT (2002) A multilevel structural equation model for dyadic data. Struct Equation Model 9(3): 431–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner CJ, Holt D, Smith TMF (1989) Analysis of complex surveys. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2007) User acceptance of web-based negotiation support systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decis Negot 16(5): 451–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan YF, Connelly CE (2008) In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. J. Manage Inf Syst 24(4): 123–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R, Kersten G, Koeszegi S (2006) User assessment of internet-based negotiation support systems: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Electron Commerce 16(2): 123–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (1975) Strategic interaction and bargaining. In: Young OR (eds) Bargaining: formal theories of negotiation. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Ofir Turel

Authors
  1. Ofir Turel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofir Turel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turel, O. Interdependence Issues in Analyzing Negotiation Data. Group Decis Negot 19, 111–125 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9118-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9118-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation