Empirical research is a study that is based on experimentation or observation. This kind of research gathers evidences coming from collective experience in the field. It is often conducted in order to answer a specific question or to test a hypothesis or an educated guess. Moreover, it is different from other types of research because it goes beyond simply reporting an observation but rather it enhanced the understanding of a theory’s relevance to the real environment (Manor College, 2006). An analysis of two articles involving empirical research would aid in further understanding the nature of this kind of study.
The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations is studied by three researchers namely: Leaf Van Boven, Thomas Gilovich, and Victoria Husted Medvec. This empirical research aims to examined the question of whether negotiators are susceptible to having an “illusion of transparency. ” Illusion of transparency is the belief that ones’ private thoughts and feelings are obvious or known by their negotiating partners than what is really happening.
Basically, it is the idea wherein the negotiator overestimates their negotiating partner’s knowledge of their preference.
The discussion also looks at how such idea could affect negotiations, on whether it impedes the negotiators’ success. The qualitative method of empirical research was utilized in order test the educated guess made in this study. They experimented by using a controlled group composed of participants that have to make preferential choices about various cases and situations. These participants have to negotiate among each other based upon the instructions given by the researchers. The results of the experiment where interpreted by utilizing the t-test method.
The t-test is conducted in order to see the statistical relationship of these groups of data. The findings show that in Study One, negotiators overestimated their negotiating partners’ ability to identify their preferences. Upon the utilization of the t-test, results show that percentage from the early negotiation was not statistically reliable. It was during the post negotiation that this result was obtained because the data shows that 3. 30 is statistically reliable as it is greater than the significance level of p < . 05.
Study Two, proved that negotiators who were trying to show rather than hide their preferences to other negotiators tended to overestimate those preferences’ transparency. The data supported this finding. Based on the first round of voting, negotiators overestimated the number of their corresponding partners’ ability to see the importance of a particular issue to them. These differences were all reliable because they all resulted to ts > 2. 30. During the final round of voting, it was concluded that negotiators overestimated their fellow negotiators ability to identify their top important issues.
This is proven by the statistically reliable results of the t-test, which are all t > 2. 25. Study Three, proves that negotiators showed an illusion of transparency. This is supported by data that shows negotiators overestimated their partners’ ability to find out they preferred the most by 20 percent, which is statistically reliable. They also overestimated the probability that their partners’ would identify their least preferential choice. Data supported this findings by 25 percent, which is statistically reliable at t = 4. 34.
Moreover, the study also find out that control participants showed a “curse of knowledge” because they overestimated the probability that their negotiating partner would identify correctly their counterpart’s preferences. It is statistically proven by ts = 2. 58 and 4. 49. The empirical study made by the researchers about illusion of transparency in relation to negotiation is very interesting because it gives an idea of what goes around inside the minds of these negotiators while they bargain and compromise among each other.
The researchers were also able to devised a method where this idea could actually be applied and tested on situations that actually take place in the real environment. The three studies that they conducted where able to tests their hypothesis and the utilization of the t-test method is also appropriate in measuring the participants outlook on their counterpart’s preferences. However, further study needs to be conducted in order understand the other dimensions of illusion transparency like its impact in the negotiating process and its outcomes. Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes
The researchers, namely William Maddux, Elizabeth Mullen, and Adam D. Galinsky investigated in this empirical research the hypothesis that the outcomes of negotiations can be facilitated with strategic behavioral mimicry. This means that a negotiator who follows or imitates the actions of his counterpart could greatly affect what would take place in the negotiation. Since negotiation is an interpersonal activity wherein it is largely dependent upon the negotiator’s ability to influence, persuade, and interact effectively with one’s opponent, it becomes possible that the idea of behavioral mimicry is applicable in this kind of interaction.
The Quantitative method is used in this research that is composed of two sets of studies. The researchers measured the viability of their hypothesis by conducting an experiment using a controlled group of individuals. These participants were asked to perform certain activities based upon the instructions of the researchers. Study one, tested the hypothesis through an employment negotiation with numerous issues. On the other hand, study two focused on the ability of mimicry to influence a negotiator’s ability to find out the underlying compatible interests of ones’ negotiating partner.
The data gathered was interpreted by using ANNOVA. In study one, the researchers’ examined the joint gain obtained by the negotiators through summing the individual scores of the negotiators in each dyad and then forwarded it to a one-way ANNOVA. Results show an essential effect for mimicking condition on joint gain, which is supported by F(2, 49) = 4. 02, p = . 02, n2p =. 14. They also found out that the more negotiators’ mimicked their opponents, the more points the parties’ obtained. Moreover, the increase in joint gain is also tested in terms of individual benefits for each party.
The findings proved that recruiter individual gain showed a significant effect for mimicking condition at F(2, 28) = 4. 45, p = . 017, n2p = . 15. They also found out that increase in joint gain for both parties also resulted in an increase in individual gain by whichever of the two parties did the mimicking. However, mean comparisons exemplified that the idea of “being mimicked” had no adverse effect to one’s individual gain. In study two, the researchers’ examined the percentage of deals that was obtained in dyads wherein the buyer mimicked as compared with dyads where the buyer did not mimic.
Results show that ten out of fifteen dyads or 67 percent, in which a buyer mimicked achieved a deal unlike when a buyer made a deal but did not mimic, which is only two out of sixteen dyads. Moreover, the researchers also performed a binary logistic regression analysis. The results obtained from this experiment indicated that the amount of mimicking was an essential factor in determining whether a deal was reached with this data, Ratio = 1. 047, Wald test = 6. 36, p = . 012 proving it. Therefore, the greater the number of participants mimicking their opponents, the greater the possibility of these people getting the deal.
The mediating role of trust was also examined. The researchers utilized the Sobel’s test in order to validate that the mediational effect of trust was essential to negotiation. Results show z = 1. 99, p = . 047, which could conclude that mimicry affects the process of deal making and this was mediated through trust. The study about the role of mimicry in negotiation is an example of a contemporary approach to this subject. Previously, mimicry was simply tested through actions whether a participant would mimic someone who dropped a pen.
In this case, however, it becomes more essential because it included the way people analyzed situation in order to make their corresponding decisions. The researchers were able to properly interpret the data as they performed numerous tests as well as various methods in order to assure the validity of its results. Further study would also be beneficial in testing the efficacy of mimicry in negotiation that does not only involve a single issue. Testing mimicry to distributive issues or those zero-sum situations could be a good way to enhance this study. Empirical research indeed has a huge contribution to the pursuit of knowledge.
It is through this kind of research that vague concepts could be clearly understood. This gives a reality-based application of ideas that makes a simple study essential in the everyday lives of people.
Van Boven, L. , Gilovich, T. , & Husted Medvec, V. (2003). Research Reports: The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations. Negotiation Journal. Plenum Publishing Corporation. Maddux, W. W. , Mullen, E, & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Chameleon bake bigger pies and take Bigger pieces: Strategic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from www. sciencedirect. com.