Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data

Group Decision and Negotiation

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 111-125

  Turel, Ofir ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dyadic analysis; e Negotiation; Hierarchicallinear modeling; Independence; Interdependence; Multilevel analysis; Negotiation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952745269     PISSN: 09262644     EISSN: 15729907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10726-008-9118-x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adair WL (2003) Integrative sequences and negotiation outcome in same- and mixed-culture negotiations. Int J Confl Manage 14(3): 273-296.
2. 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.
3. Bokhari RH (2005) The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Enterp Inf Manage 18(2): 211-234.
4. Bonito JA (2002) The analysis of participation in small groups-methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Res 33(4): 412-438.
5. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. SAGE, Newbury Park.
6. 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.
7. Byrne BM (2004) Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equation Model 11(2): 272-300.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Fox J (1997) Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
15. Gavin MB, Hofmann DA (2002) Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadersh Q 13(1): 15-33.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Hofmann DA, Gavin MB (1998) Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications for research in organizations. J Manage 24(5): 623-641.
19. 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.
20. wg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78(2): 306-309.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Kenny DA (1995) The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Pers Relatsh 2(1): 67-75.
24. Kenny DA (1996) Models of non-independence in dyadic research. J Soc Pers Relatsh 13(2): 279-294.
25. Kenny DA (2006) Dyadic analysis. http://davidakenny. net/dyad. htm.
26. Kenny DA, Cook W (1999) Partner effects in relationship research: conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Pers Relatsh 6(4): 433-448.
27. Kenny DA, Judd CM (1986) Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychol Bull 99(3): 422-431.
28. Kenny DA, Judd CM (1996) A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychol Bull 119(1): 138-148.
29. Kenny DA, Lavoie L (1985) Separating individual and group effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(2): 339-348.
30. 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.
31. Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data-collection, and analysis. Acad Manage Rev 19(2): 195-229.
32. 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.
33. Lohr SL (1999) Sampling: design and analysis. Duxbury, Pacific Grove.
34. Marcus DK (1998) Studying group dynamics with the social relations model. Group Dyn 2(2): 230-240.
35. Muthen BO (1994) Multilevel covariance structure-analysis. Sociol Methods Res 22(3): 376-398.
36. Newsom JT (2002) A multilevel structural equation model for dyadic data. Struct Equation Model 9(3): 431-447.
37. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
38. Skinner CJ, Holt D, Smith TMF (1989) Analysis of complex surveys. Wiley, Chichester.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Young OR (1975) Strategic interaction and bargaining. In: Young OR (eds) Bargaining: formal theories of negotiation. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.