Tipultech logo

Data Screening

Sarah Ogilvie

Validity Tests

Manipulation of Social Motivation

To check the effectiveness of the motivational orientation manipulation, negotiators were asked at the beginning of the negotiation whether their goal was to maximise individual gain (competitive motivation) or joint gain (cooperative motivation). The data demonstrated excellent agreement between the reported and assigned motivational orientation (Χ² (1, N = 88) = 49.66, p < .01) with 84% of negotiators who were assigned a competitive motivational orientation aiming to maximise individual gain and 91% of negotiators assigned a cooperative orientation aiming to maximise joint gain.

As a further validity check, once the negotiation had concluded, negotiators were asked to rate the extent to which they had behaved in either a cooperative or competitive manner on a nine-point scale in which high scores indicated cooperative behaviour. An independent samples t-test showed that negotiators who were assigned a cooperative motivation reported that they engaged in significantly more cooperative behaviour (M = 5.400, SD = 1.737) than negotiators assigned a competitive motivation (M = 4.698, SD = 2.166), t(86) = -1.682, p = .048, d = .360, one-tailed. Despite the relatively small difference in mean ratings, the estimate of effect size is moderate.

The relationship between role (applicant versus recruiter) and motivational orientation was investigated to ensure the motivational orientation that negotiators reported did not differ as a function of role. A chi-square test of independence showed no relationship between role and the motivational orientation reported by negotiators at the end of the negotiation (Χ² (1, N = 88) = 0.831, p = .046).

<< >>