IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i1d10.1007_s10726-012-9303-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deception Performance in Online Group Negotiation and Decision Making: The Effects of Deception Experience and Deception Skill

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Zhou

    (University of Maryland, Baltimore County)

  • Yu-wei Sung

    (University of Maryland, Baltimore County)

  • Dongsong Zhang

    (University of Maryland, Baltimore County)

Abstract

Deception in computer-mediated group Negotiation and decision making presents a variety of risks. Gaining a better understanding of online deception has important implications for both individuals and organizations. Despite the rapidly increasing number of online deception cases reported in recent years, extant deception research has not considered the context beyond individuals or small groups. Additionally, there has been a mismatch between the important role of individual characteristics of the deceiver in theory and the lack of empirical investigation of their impact in research. This study aims to assess deception performance in mid-sized online groups by building a model of individual differences in deception experience and deception skill. We conceptualize deception performance in terms of deception success and two other new constructs, namely survivability and productivity. The model has been tested with a dataset collected from a real-world online community. The results show that deception skill has a positive effect on deception success, but deception experience has a negative effect. Although deception experience and deception skill are found to have opposite effects on the success of deceivers, both contribute positively to the survivability of deceivers. The findings of this study have significant implications for future deception research in online group communication and negotiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Zhou & Yu-wei Sung & Dongsong Zhang, 2013. "Deception Performance in Online Group Negotiation and Decision Making: The Effects of Deception Experience and Deception Skill," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-172, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9303-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9303-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9303-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-012-9303-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory Dees, J. & Cramton, Peter C., 1991. "Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a Theory of Morality In Practice," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 135-167, April.
    2. Cheryl L. Maranto & Robert C. Rodgers, 1984. "Does Work Experience Increase Productivity? A Test of the On-The-Job Training Hypothesis," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 19(3), pages 341-357.
    3. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    4. Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich, 1999. "Research Note. Electronic Brainstorming: Illusions and Patterns of Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 375-377, December.
    5. Shanteau, James & Stewart, Thomas R., 1992. "Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 95-106, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Jong Min & Park, Keeyeon Ki-cheon & Mariani, Marcello & Wamba, Samuel Fosso, 2024. "Investigating reviewers' intentions to post fake vs. authentic reviews based on behavioral linguistic features," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Tim Kollmer & Andreas Eckhardt & Victoria Reibenspiess, 2022. "Explaining consumer suspicion: insights of a vignette study on online product reviews," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1221-1238, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel R Clark & Dan Li & Dean A Shepherd, 2018. "Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(4), pages 442-472, May.
    2. Riccardo Sartori & Andrea Ceschi, 2013. "Assessment and development centers: judgment biases and risks of using idiographic and nomothetic approaches to collecting information on people to be evaluated and trained in organizations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3277-3288, October.
    3. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2007. "Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 225-238, December.
    4. SimanTov-Nachlieli, Ilanit & Har-Vardi, Liron & Moran, Simone, 2020. "When negotiators with honest reputations are less (and more) likely to be deceived," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 68-84.
    5. Ricchiute, David N., 1997. "Effects of Judgment on Memory: Experiments in Recognition Bias and Process Dissociation in a Professional Judgment Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 27-39, April.
    6. Azad M. Madni, 2014. "Generating Novel Options during Systems Architecting: Psychological Principles, Systems Thinking, and Computer‐Based Aiding," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, March.
    7. Dane, Erik & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Pratt, Michael G., 2012. "When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 187-194.
    8. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "The distortion of beliefs in the face of uncertainty," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:9, Stockholm School of Economics.
    9. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2012. "Entrepreneurial Success and Failure: Confidence and Fallible Judgment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1733-1747, December.
    10. Lan Li & Gang Li & Junqi Chen, 2020. "Professional Competence or Personal Relationship? Research on the Influencing Mechanism on Repeated Purchase Intention of Agricultural Resources," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Azzurra Ruggeri & Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2012. "More Does Not Always Lead to Better: Mothers, Young Women, and Girls Generating Causes of a Baby Crying," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 038, University of Siena.
    12. Justin Okoli & John Watt & Gordon Weller & William B L Wong, 2016. "The role of expertise in dynamic risk assessment: A reflection of the problem-solving strategies used by experienced fireground commanders," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 4-25, February.
    13. Cramton, Peter C. & Dees, J. Gregory, 1993. "Promoting Honesty in Negotiation: An Exercise in Practical Ethics," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 359-394, October.
    14. Liis Roosaar & Jaan Masso & Urmas Varblane, 2017. "The Structural Change And Labour Productivity Of Firms: Do Changes In The Age And Wage Structure Of Employees Matter?," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 103, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    15. Bender, Randall H., 1998. "Judgment and Response Processes across Two Knowledge Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 222-257, September.
    16. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2004. "Crisis and Competition in Expert Organizational Decision Making: Credit-Rating Agencies and Their Response to Turbulence in Emerging Economies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 687-703, December.
    17. Filipe Sobral & Gazi Islam, 2013. "Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 281-296, October.
    18. David S. Kerr & Uday S. Murthy, 2004. "Divergent and Convergent Idea Generation in Teams: A Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 381-399, July.
    19. L.R. Maglen, 1990. "Challenging the Human Capital Orthodoxy: The Education‐Productivity Link Re‐examined," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 66(4), pages 281-294, December.
    20. Yu Yang & David De Cremer & Chao Wang, 2017. "How Ethically Would Americans and Chinese Negotiate? The Effect of Intra-cultural Versus Inter-cultural Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 659-670, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9303-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.