The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online bargaining and interpersonal trust.
Abstract
The presented study explores the effect of interacting over the Internet on interpersonal trust when bargaining online. Relative to face-to-face negotiations, online negotiations were characterized by (a) lower levels of pre-negotiation trust and (b) lower levels of post-negotiation trust. The reduced levels of pre-negotiation trust in online negotiations (i.e., before any interaction took place) demonstrate that negotiators bring different expectations to the electronic bargaining table than to face-to-face negotiations. These negative perceptions of trust were found to mediate another aspect of the relationship, namely, desired future interaction. Those who negotiated online reported less desire for future interactions with the other party. Online negotiators also were less satisfied with their outcome and less confident in the quality of their performance, despite the absence of observable differences in economic outcome quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983) · doi:10.21236/ada128980 · Cited by 2,263
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077
Cited by
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 · Cited by 2,606
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.2.133 · Cited by 947
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis.
Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030939 · Cited by 659
Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424 · Cited by 477
Metadata
- Authors
- Naquin, C. E., & Paulson, G. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-120
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2077373738
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 37.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
