the effect of the colour green on negotiations

The Effect of the Colour Green on Negotiations

Bachelor Thesis, Faculty of Humanities, Tilburg University Department of Communication- and Information Sciences

Corporate Communication and Digital Media June 2011 Author: M. de Feiter ([email protected]) Supervisors: J. Schilperoord & P.J. van der Wijst In cooperation with: F.A. Huigen & M.M.P van Herk

II

Abstract Colour is an inevitable part of our daily environment. However, the influence colour

may have on our perceptions and cognitive process is often underestimated. Multiple

studies in the past have shown that colours may provoke certain associations, which

on their turn may influence the direction of our thoughts and feelings. This

experiment takes a closer look on whether the powerful associations of colours also

translate to the domain of negotiations. In the experiment the participants had to

negotiate with an illusionary negotiation partner about an amount of 17 euro’s. When

they received an offer, they could accept or reject this. The underlying principle used

for this study is the Stroop-effect. According to this effect a beneficial offer presented

in the colour green should be accepted faster than a beneficial offer in the neutral

colour black, because green is known to bring to mind an association of positivity. For

the same reason, an insulting offer presented in the colour green should be rejected

slower than an insulting offer in the colour black. The results showed a marginally

significant effect for the longer response latency for the rejection of a green insulting

offer than a black insulting offer, but there was no significant difference between the

response latency of accepting a green beneficial offer or a black beneficial offer. It can

be stated that congruence between concept and association did not fasten the response

latency, but that incongruence did increase the response latency. This implies that

colour, even when its presence is very subtle, may have an influence on our cognitive

processes and behaviour in negotiations.

III

Preface Here it is, my bachelor thesis of Communication- and Information sciences at Tilburg

University. This thesis is the last project of the bachelor program, and as for me, it is

even my last project at Tilburg University.

‘Conducting research’, it was the element I doubted the most before making

the decision of coming to Tilburg University. After three years of academic education

and conducting a ‘real’ experiment for this thesis, I now have to admit that I have

even come to like this part of my education. Conducting the experiment for this thesis

might have led to some frustrations, difficulties, and even some tears every now and

then, but I now understand the excitement of truly believing to find a yet

undiscovered effect. Furthermore, the thesis project has also enriched my knowledge

and skills in academic writing, experimental design, and analysis techniques.

I am very proud to present to you the final version of this thesis, a result that I

could not have reached without the help and support of several persons. Therefore, I

would first like to thank my close friends and co-researchers, Veerle Huigen and

Mirna van Herk, for keeping each other motivated and conducting an experiment

with the use of each other’s strengths and energy. Of course I would also like to thank

our supervisors, Joost Schilperoord and Per van der Wijst, who provided us with great

support and feedback during the entire process of conducting the experiment and

writing our thesis. Jacqueline Dake has also been of great support. She showed us how

to use the software program E-prime to design an experiment. Furthermore, I would

like to thank all participants who were part of the research, and my close friends and

family who helped us pre-test the experiment and supported me throughout this final

semester. Last, but definitely not least, I would also like to thank my boyfriend in

Glasgow, who provided me with tips & tricks, feedback, and thesis-wisdom, even in

times when he was extremely busy with his own study (I think I also need to express

my thanks to Skype for that!).

Without the great support of all these people I could not have written this bachelor

thesis, and I am proud of this thesis being my final project for Tilburg University.

Maaike de Feiter

IV

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 The power of colour p. 5

1.2 Colour and actions p. 7

1.3 Negotiations p. 7

1.4 The colour green p. 9

1.5 The Stroop Principle p. 10

2. Method

2.1 Participants p. 12

2.2 Design p. 14

2.3 Material p. 14

2.4 Instrumentation p. 17

2.5 Procedure p. 18

2.6 Analysis p. 19

3. Results

3.1 Hypothesis 1 p. 20



3.4 Additional results p. 22

4. Conclusion & Discussion p. 25

References p. 28

Attachments p

5

1. Introduction When observing reality, it is impossible to leave out the colours of the objects we

perceive. Colour is an inevitable characteristic of any object, it surrounds us wherever

we go, and we therefore often take it for granted. However, colours might have a

bigger influence on our perceptual and mental processes than we are consciously

aware off. Colours go hand in hand with emotional and psychological associations,

and are therefore powerful tools in influencing our feelings and actions (Hevner, 1935;

Ward, 1995).

1.1 The power of colour

An associative network mediates between colours, and the effect they have on our

cognition. Associations do not just appear; they derive from two distinct sources. An

association can be learned through classical conditioning, or it can be genetically

included in our genes due to evolutionary processes (Pavlov, 1927; Mollon, 1989).

When we perceive a colour we unconsciously associate this with a certain concept or

feeling. Blue, for instance, is associated with comfort and security, while yellow

activates the concept cheerfulness. Orange, on the other hand, is seen as a distressing

and upsetting colour (Ballast, 2002; Mahnke, 1996).

The association brought on by a colour may on its turn influence our mood.

Cool colours (including blue and green) activate concepts such as calmness, relaxation,

quietness, restfulness, and peacefulness. Because of these associations, cool colours are

less likely to cause arousal or excitation in our state of mind. On the other hand, warm

colours (including red and orange) bring to mind the concepts active and stimulating,

and are more likely to cause feelings of arousal (Ballast, 2002; Sharpe 1974).

Colours do not only have the ability to influence our mood, their power

extends to our actions. In our public environment, we make clever use of the power of

colour. An early study of Babbitt (1878) showed that when violent participants were

placed in a room painted in a cool colour, their violent behaviour diminished, while

participants placed in a red room became increasingly violent. Therefore, it is no

surprise that hospitals decorate their walls with cool colours. Another branch

recognising the power of colour, are fast-food companies. There is a reason why most

of these companies have interiors and logo’s including the colour red (MacDonald’s,

6

Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken). The colour red is known to stimulate the

appetite, and is therefore useful for food companies (Singh, 2006). Furthermore,

MacDonald’s in particular had to recognise the power of colour since they received

complaints of customers about experiencing headaches when having dinner at

MacDonald’s. A research revealed that these headaches were caused by the high

saturation of the colour red, and so MacDonald’s adjusted the tone (Von Bergen,

1995).

Since associations are also acquired through classical conditioning, it is no

surprise that these associations vary across different cultures (Pavlov, 1927). Even

though people from different cultural backgrounds perceive colours in the same way,

the associations and concepts related to a colour are not universal (Davidoff, 1991).

Different cultures use different colours for different events, and therefore the

established associations are not the same everywhere. In western cultures for example,

black is the colour of death, whereas Chinese associate death with the colour white

(Kaya & Epps, 2004). Furthermore, the various associations also influence colour

preferences. African Americans prefer red, purple and black, while white subjects

indicated their preference for blue and green tones (Silver, 1988). This also translates

to the liking of objects: Japanese consumers prefer to receive white roses while Hong

Kong consumers like red roses better (Gunnerod, 1991).

Even though the associations of colours may vary per culture, the research by

Madden, Hewett, and Roth (2000) has shown that the colours red and green are

opposites on a universal level. The associations they provoke are very strong and often

dichotomous. We associate red with aggressive, bloody, and raging, while green is

seen as retiring and relaxing (Davey, 1998; Mahnke, 1996). This dichotomy also

shows in physical tests measuring differences in arousal level for red and green slides

through absolute skin conductance. This study revealed that red was more arousing

than green (Wilson, 1966). According to Gerard (1958), red and green also influence

our accuracy in an opposite way, with exposure to the colour red decreasing the

accuracy of judgments of size, length and weight while the colour green increases the

level of accuracy.

7

1.2 Colour and actions Colour associations may thus induce a certain mood or activate a certain concept, and

this may on its turn lead to changes in behaviour. Colours can thus also influence our

actions. One domain in which colour may influence our actions is in distributive

negotiations. An experiment of Hachmang (2011) has shown that negotiators wearing

a red shirt were able to sell coffee to the other participant for a higher price than

participants in a white shirt. There is however some uncertainty about the underlying

principle of this effect. It might be that the negotiator feels more self confident when

wearing a red shirt, or that the buyer feels more intimidated when a negotiator wears

a red shirt. A straightforward assumption is that these two explanations together

account for the effect. The explanations are both based on the aggressive association

the colour red provokes, leading either to a feeling of intimidation, or self-confidence.

Red is however known to bring about opposite associations to the colour green on a

universal level (Madden et al., 2000). If this is true, then it might be interesting to

research whether the colour green can also influence negotiations by the associations

it brings about. Therefore, the experiment reported in this thesis will investigate

whether the colour green has an effect on negotiations. The main research question of

the thesis is: what is the effect of the colour green on negotiations?

1.3 Negotiations

A negotiation is a situation in which at least two persons have conflicting needs and

desires (Gulliver, 1979; Rubin & Brown, 1975). These situations require a specific

form of communication since negotiating is all about reaching an agreement by

strategic exchange of information (Putnam & Roloff, 1992; Robinson & Volkov,

1998). Furthermore, the process of negotiating entails the consideration of alternative

ways to reach an agreement and striving to fulfil one’s own desires (Weigand, de

Moor, Schoop, & Dignum, 2003).

There are two main types of negotiations: distributive negotiations and

integrative negotiations. A distributive negotiation means that one focuses on

expanding one’s own potential gains, while integrative negotiations leads to mutual

gains. These different types of negotiations lead to different behaviour during the

bargaining process. People in integrative negotiations openly communicate about

8

their desires and treat their negotiation partner as an equal, while participants in

distributive negotiations are more competitive and keep control over the information

they reveal (Walton & McKersie 1965).

Besides the character of the negotiation, interpersonal differences also account

for variation in behaviour during the bargaining process. One example of an

interpersonal difference that matters in negotiations is educational background.

Hawkins & Cocanougher (1972) found that business students were more tolerant

towards insulting offers and unethical negotiation strategies than other students.

Furthermore, years of education also influences negotiation beliefs and behaviour

(Browning & Zabriskie, 1983).

Another example of a factor affecting negotiation behaviour is gender. Katz,

Amichai-Hamburger, Manisterski and Kraus (2008) found that males focus more on

the potential gains while females also pay attention to the relationship with the

negotiation partner. Therefore, women performed better in integrative situations,

where cooperative work is important, while men outperformed women in competitive

distributive negotiations.

Even though different types of negotiations and interpersonal differences evoke

certain types of behaviour, it is impossible to predict outcomes of negotiations. Every

negotiation takes place in a different situation, with different people, and different

personal factors, leading to an infinite amount of possible situations (Pruitt &

Carnevale, 1993; Lewicki, Litterer, Saunders & Minton, 1993). According to the

‘intuitive economist’ paradigm of Tetlock (1991), there however is one principle

underlying all negotiations: people will always strive to satisfy their own needs. This

leads to the following hypotheses, which will be tested in this research:

H1a: people accept a beneficial offer made by the negotiation partner

H1b: people reject an insulting offer made by the negotiation partner

The study of Hachmang (2011) found that when accepting or rejecting an

offer, colour could have an influence on the decision. The study showed that

participants wearing a red t-shirt while negotiating were able to sell coffee to the other

participant for a higher price than negotiators wearing a white t-shirt. The colour red

thus has a significant influence on negotiations. This study summons the question

whether other colours may also affect negotiation behaviour. Since the colour green is

9

a powerful colour in evoking concepts opposite to the associations of red (Davey,

1998; Mahnke, 1996), this study will explore the effect of the colour green on

negotiations.

1.4 The colour green

Green is a powerful colour associated with feelings of retirement and relaxation, and

the concepts security, comfort, calm, growth, renewal, freshness, tranquillity, hope,

peace, and serenity (Davey, 1998; Mahnke, 1996; Morton, 1997; Murray & Deabler,

1957). Furthermore, green is associated with ‘agreeable’, as entire opposite to red,

which goes hand in hand with the concept ‘disagreeable’ (Goldstein, 1942). Green is

thus in general associated with positive concepts and feelings. This statement is

reinforced by a study of Kaya and Epps (2004) which investigated the different

emotional responses elicited by the colours green, yellow, red, bleu, purple, white,

black, grey, and several mixed hues. Off all these colours, green elicited the highest

number of positive emotions with a percentage of 95.9. Participants indicated that the

green made them feel relaxed, happy, and comfortable.

The fact that green has such a calming influence is being used widely in public

environment. Green is the colour that universally signals a ‘go’ in traffic lights, the

colour that is used in the design of safety signs, and the colour used to index locations

of first aid equipment (Morton, 1997). Hospitals paint their walls green to provide a

calming atmosphere for their patients (Babbitt, 1878) and a study of Stahre,

Harleman, and Bilger (2004) showed that green test rooms were rated as open and

tranquil. Furthermore, the concept green itself nowadays refers to environment

friendly behaviour, deriving from the fact that green is the most common colour in

nature (Morton, 1997).

Besides cognitive associations, green is also powerful on a physiological level.

Short wavelength colours like green are perceived as much more calming than long

wavelength colours such as red (Stone & English, 1998). Of the short wavelength

colours, green is the most restful colour for the eye since the green light is focused

precisely on the retina through the lens of the eye. Therefore, it makes sense that

camouflage vehicles are designed with different hues of green (Morton, 1997).

10

It has not yet been investigated whether the colour green has an effect on

negotiations. It seems plausible that there will be an effect since the colour opposite to

green, red, did cause an effect. Participants were willing to buy coffee for a higher

price from a person wearing a red t-shirt than from someone wearing a white t-shirt

(Hachmang, 2011). It is possible that this effect was caused by the aggressive

associations brought to mind by the colour red, causing the buyer to feel more

intimidated by the negotiator, or the negotiator to feel more self-confident. This then

leads the buyer to comply with a higher price (Davey, 1998). If it is this associative

principle underlying the effect of colour on negotiations, then the colour green should

be congruent with a beneficial offer in a negotiation, since green is associated with

positivity and agreeableness (Goldstein, 1942, Kaya & Epps, 2004).

1.5 The Stroop principle A lot of research concerning associative networks and research into the congruency of

concepts is conducted with a Stroop test (MacLeod, 1991). The traditional Stroop test,

named after the researcher Stroop who invented the test, included the words for

different colours in a font colour either congruent or incongruent with their meaning.

In practice, this means that the colour red was printed in red, or in a deviant colour.

Participants were then asked to name the colours, while their response latency was

measured. The word red printed in red had a faster response latency than the word

red printed in a deviant colour. This means that the word red printed in another

colour causes incongruence and interference in cognition. The findings of the Stroop

test proved that colours are strongly associated with different concepts and that

incongruence between colour and concept causes confusion. This confusion shows in

delayed response latency when incongruence occurs (Stroop, 1935).

The principle underlying the Stroop test is based on interference and

inhibition. When concept A is strongly related to concept B in our associative

memory, then a connection of concept A with concept C is initially inhibited. When

concept A is unexpectedly matched with concept C, this then leads to interference,

making it more difficult to respond quickly and thus increasing the response latency

(Kline, 1921). Culler (1912, as cited in Stroop, 1935) conducted an experiment

bringing this to practice. In this study, participants completed a task by pressing keys

11

that all represented different numbers. In a second task, the keys were switched, which

caused interference and increased the pressing response latency of the participants.

The Stroop principle is still present in current research into associations and

memory. The findings have now extended from the visual sense towards the other

senses as well. A study of Holland, Hendriks, and Aarts (2005) found that when

participants were primed with citrus scent, the scent often used in cleaners, their

response latency towards cleaning related concepts was faster than participants who

were not primed with the scent. This means that congruency between the concept (the

word on a screen), and a sensory stimulus (the citrus scent) enables a fast response.

This study will also make use of the Stroop principle, with the offer made in a

negotiation functioning as the concept, and the colour green fulfilling the role of

sensory stimulus. As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, the colour green

brings about associations of positivity and agreeableness (Goldstein, 1942, Kaya &

Epps, 2004). When we translate this association of green to a negotiation, green

should thus be congruent with a beneficial offer. This means that a beneficial offer in

green should lead to a decrease in response latency, while an insulting offer in green

should lead to interference; and therefore an increase in response latency. This leads

to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in black Hypothesis 3: An insulting offer in green is rejected slower than an insulting offer in black The response latency of an offer in the colour green is compared to the response

latency to an offer in black because black is an achromatic colour, which is used most

frequently in print text. The black font colour functions as the control condition.

12

2. Method This study investigates the influence of the colour green on the response latency to a

beneficial or insulting offer by a computer mediated negotiation experiment. In the

experiment the participants receive a black/green, beneficial/insulting offer. The

dependent variable is the response latency in milliseconds before participants accept

or reject a beneficial or insulting offer in green or black.

2.1 Participants

A total of 130 participants participated in the experiment. These participants were

selected in two ways; through the ‘participant-pool’ of Tilburg University (a system

obliging first year students, and premaster students of Communication and

Information Sciences to participate in several experiments), and through the personal

network of the researchers. The sample existed of 53 male and 77 female participants

with a mean age of 21.5 and a range of 18-32. The sample existed of 93 bachelor

students, 20 premaster students, and 16 master students (there was one missing value).

Out of the total of 130 participants, 102 derived from the Faculty of Humanities of

Tilburg University, and 15 from the Faculty of Economics. The other students were

from the Social Faculty (N=4), the Theological Faculty (N=1), the Law Faculty (N=3)

or not from Tilburg University (N=3) (there were 2 missing values).

There was no age or study restriction for the participants because if the colour

green really provokes the association of positivity, this should not be different for

participants with a different educational background or age. The pre-test did however

include a variable concerning previous experiences with related negotiation

experiments since this might influence the response latency. Furthermore, the post-test

included a colour blindness test because colour blind participants should by definition

not show an effect for the response latency between a green or a black offer.

All participants were divided randomly over 8 conditions. The different

conditions consisted of two separate trials in which the participant had to reject or

accept an offer (see table 1).

13

Table 1

Overview of all conditions

Condition: Trial 1 Trial 2

1 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9

Green beneficial offer

(= 10 euro out of 17 euro)

Black insulting offer


2 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9

Green insulting offer


Black beneficial offer


3 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9

Red insulting offer*




4 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9

Red beneficial offer*




5 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9



Green insulting offer


6 (N=16)

men: 7

women: 9



Red insulting offer*


7 (N=17)

men: 5

women: 12



Green beneficial offer


8 (N=17)

men:

women: 12



Red beneficial offer *


* Due to a related research project the colour red is also included in the experimental design. The data

generated by the red-trials will be used in the testing of Hypothesis 1, but not for the verification of

Hypothesis 2 and 3.

The order of the first four trial combinations is counterbalanced in condition 5–8 so

that the data can be controlled for an order-effect. If there is no order effect, this

means all data can be used in a single analysis.

14

2.2 Design

The experimental design for this study is a ‘1-between, 1-within subject design’: with

each participant included in 2 trials (within) of 1 condition (between). This design was

used in order to duplicate the data collection so that the results are more valid. The

experimental design does however require a control check for an order-effect before

the data is analysed. This effect might occur due to procedure familiarity leading to a

faster and more automatic response (practice effect). If an order effect does occur, only

data from trial 1 can be used; if no order effect exists all data can be used. Without an

order effect this will lead to 130 participants in the control condition (black) and 65

participants in the experimental condition (green).

To reduce the likelihood of an order effect, two trials were added to the

experiment. Before starting with the real experiment and measurement of response

latency, participants got the possibility to get to know the interface design in four

subsequent try-out sessions, so that the practice effect would not be a difference

between trial 1 and 2, but between the try-out sessions and the real measurement

trials. Furthermore, a distraction task of 4 minutes was given to the participants

between trial 1 and trial so that the likelihood of a carryover effect between trial 1 and

2 is reduced.

2.3 Material

The negotiation part of the experiment was conducted in a Computer Mediated

situation, but the instructions, consent form, pre-test, distraction task, and post-test

were provided on paper.

The interface of the negotiation trial was designed with the software

programme E-prime. This software enables accurate response latency measures and

allows the insertion of visual elements; such as the presentation of an offer in a green

font with a green frame around it.

The negotiation is always about a monetary amount of 17 euros. This amount

was chosen since an equal division is impossible (decimals are not allowed). The

screens all contain information indicating how the participant can go to the next

screen. When a screen contains only information, the space bar needs to be pressed;

when the participant has to fill in certain information the enter key needs to be

15

pushed. When an offer is made the participant has to accept or reject it with ‘a’ or ‘l’

key in order to go to the next slide. The interface includes several screens in a linear

order:

1. Introduction to the experiment

2. Enter your name (if the name was shorter than two characters, the participant

received a notification that his name was too short, and he was redirected to

the ‘enter your name’ slide)

3. Waiting screen while being linked to a negotiation partner

4. The name of the negotiation partner is displayed and the participant is

informed that the computer will decide who may make the first offer.

5. The computer has decided the imaginary negotiation partner may make the

initial offer.

6. The negotiation partner is thinking about the division and the participant has

to wait.

7. Notification that the decision of the negotiation partner will be displayed on

the next screen.

8. The offer appears. This offer is preceded by a fixation cross appears so that the

participant is focussed on the right area of the screen. Then, the cross

disappears for a second and is replaced by the offer. This offer is beneficial/

insulting and is presented in a black/green font colour and frame. The

participant has the possibility to accept or reject this offer by the ‘a’ key on the

keyboard (= accept), or the ‘l’ key on the keyboard (=reject). These keys were

chosen because they are on the same height on the keyboard. A small label on

the key saying ‘Accept’ or ‘Reject’ highlighted the purpose of these keys.

Furthermore, in a try-out session participants had the possibility to get familiar

with the keys. Participants were instructed to place their fingers on these two

keys while the fixation cross was still on the screen.

9. Dependent on the acceptation or rejection of the offer, the participant is

presented with a screen stating that they accepted or rejected the offer.

Furthermore, this screen informed the participant that it was their turn to

make an offer.

10. The participant can make an offer (this element is not relevant for this

16

research, but this data was collected for a related study investigating whether

colour is also a mediating factor between the offer received and the offer made

in a subsequent situation).

11. The participant has to wait since the imaginary negotiation partner is thinking

about accepting/rejecting the offer.

12. The imaginary negotiation partner accepts the offer.

13. The participant receives the notification that the negotiations with this partner

have come to an end. The participant has the possibility to leave behind a

message for the other person.

14. The message is sent and the participant has to wait a few seconds

15. The participant has received a message from the imaginary negotiation

partner, thanking him for the negotiations

16. Negotiation trial 1 has come to an end, and the participant has to call the

experimenter.

The software procedure is exactly the same for all conditions, the only thing varying is

the name of the imaginary negotiation partner, whether the offer made is beneficial (=

you receive 10 euro) or insulting (= you receive 4 euro), the colour in which the offer

is presented (green or black), and the message the participant receives from the

imaginary partner in the end.

During the try-out session, the participant receives a selection of the total

negotiation trial. The most important purpose of the try-out session is to make the

participant familiar with the usage of the accept- and reject buttons on the keyboard,

and the interface in general.

Since negotiating with a person of the same or a different gender might

influence the degree to which offers are rejected or accepted (Stuhlmacher & Walters,

1999) gender-neutral names were used for the negotiation partners. The names

chosen for this were ‘Robin’ for the green condition and ‘Dominique’ for the black

condition (for the red condition ‘Mischa’ was used). These names could be kept

constant since a participant never participates in two subsequent trials of the same

colour.

The purpose of the interface was to give the participant the illusion that they

were negotiating with a real person located in a different room. This illusion was

17

enforced by small movie clips projecting a ‘waiting’ sign and the insertion of their own

name, which would be visible for the other participant. Furthermore, at the end of the

negotiation trial the system provided the participant with the possibility of leaving a

message for the negotiation partner, and receiving a simulated message of the partner.

Since negotiation trial 1 and trial 2 make use of the same interface,

participants received a distraction task in between. This reduces the likelihood of a

practice- or a carryover effect. The distraction task consisted of a few simple puzzles

(word finders and Sudoku) with the instruction that they had to finish puzzle one

before starting with puzzle 2. They had to do this task for 4 minutes.

2.4 Instrumentation

The e-prime software described in the previous paragraph measured the response

latency to the offer, and kept track of the inserted data (name of the participant, the

offer made by the participant, the message left behind), and whether the offer was

accepted or rejected. As addition to these measurements, a pre- and post-test were

conducted.

The pre-test included a consent form in which the participant had to indicate

their consent for the usage of their data, and fill some demographic features. The pre-

test continued with 2 demographic variables concerning the education of the

participant. Then there were 6 specific questions about the topic ‘negotiating’ of

which the first had 6 choice options, and the other five questions could be answered

with a 7-point Likert scale (1= never, 7=always). The complete pre-test can be found

in attachment 2. Besides the consent form and the pre-test, the participant also

received an instruction form about the experiment (attachment 1).

After the participant finished the first negotiation trial, he was given a set of

puzzles as distraction task. This set included an instruction on the first page, and word

finders and Sudoku puzzles on the following pages. The participant had to complete

as many puzzles as possible in four minutes.

A post-test was given to the participant after completion of negotiation trial

two (attachment 3). This test contained a colour blindness test, which is of great

importance for this experiment since the effect of colour on response latency is

measured. None of the participants turned out to be colour blind. The post-test also

checked whether the participant was familiar with negotiating experiments and if he

18

realized what the purpose of this experiment was. Furthermore, there were several

questions with the previous negotiations as subject. These consisted of four questions

about personal reflection on the negotiation trials (how much did you like the

negotiation and how content are you with the results?) and the fairness of the two

negotiation partners. All four questions could be answered with a 7-point Likert scale.

The last two questions of the post-test dealt with the expected gender of the first and

the second negotiation partner.

2.5 Procedure

Participants were instructed to take place in a cabin with a desk and a computer.

They first received an instruction about the experimental procedure (attachment 1)

and the consent form and pre-test (attachment 2). Once they finished reading and

filled in the pre-test, the experimenter started the try-out sessions. The participant was

allowed to have the instruction form on the desk during the try-out sessions. In these

sessions the participant could get acquainted with the interface and the accept/reject

buttons (the ‘a’ and ‘l’ on the keyboard). After the try-out sessions the participant had

the opportunity to ask questions concerning the experiment to the researcher. Then,

the researcher told the participant they would check whether in the other room they

were also ready for the experiment. This was done to enforce the illusion that the

participant would be linked to a ‘real’ person in another room to negotiate with.

Once this was done, the researcher started the real experiment for the

participant. After this first negotiation trial, the participant called the researcher who

then shut down the computer screen and gave the participant the instruction to make

as much puzzles as possible for four minutes. The participant was not allowed to go to

the next puzzle before finishing the first one. While the participant made the puzzles,

the researcher kept an eye on the stopwatch. After four minutes the puzzles were

taken away from the participant, and negotiation trial two was started. This time the

researcher again pretended to check the status in the other room before launching the

experiment. After negotiation trial 2 the participant notified the researcher who then

brought the post-test. Once the post-test was completed, the participant was being

thanked for participating in the experiment.

19

The procedure was similar for participants in the control condition and

experimental condition. The only variance was implemented in the design of the

experiment (a different name for the negotiation partner, a different message left

behind in the end, a different value offered, and a different colour presented in the

font/frame of the offer). Furthermore, the beneficial/ insulting condition and the

control/experimental condition were counterbalanced to control for an order effect.

2.6 Analysis

Before starting with the results, it is of importance to control for an order effect. Since

there was no order effect, the data of both trial one and trial two can be included in

the analysis. Furthermore, it is important to realize that due to the specific hypotheses

of this research, the 1- between 1 within design changes into a between subjects

design. This is the case since a participant never receives two beneficial offers or two

insulting offers in negotiation trial 1 and 2, but always one beneficial offer and one

insulting offer.

20

3. Results 3.1 Hypothesis 1

a) People accept a beneficial offer

This hypothesis includes all participants who received a beneficial offer, and verifies

whether they accepted this offer. A Pearson Chi-Square test revealed that the number

of participants accepting a beneficial offer exceeded the expected value, while the

number of rejections was much lower than the expected value (see table 2).

b) People reject an insulting offer

This hypothesis includes the participants who have received an insulting offer and

analyses the degree to which this leads to acceptation or rejection. According to the

Pearson Chi-Square test, the observed value for acceptation of an insulting offer was

much lower than the expected value. On the other hand, the observed rejection rate

was much higher than the expected value (see table 2).

Table 2

Observed and expected values for the number of participants accepting or rejecting a beneficial or an insulting offer.

Besides the incongruence between the expected and observed values, the Pearson

Chi-Square test revealed a significant difference in the reaction (accept or reject) to an

insulting or beneficial offer with (Χ2 (1)=194.643, p<.001).

Several Chi Square tests showed no significant difference in the distribution of

gender, gender of the negotiation partner, study phase, or faculty in the acceptance or

rejection of a beneficial or insulting offer.

Reaction to the offer Accepted Rejected

Observed Expected Observed Expected

Beneficial offer 115 59 15 71

Insulting offer 3 59 127 71

21

3.2 Hypothesis 2:

A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in black

For this analysis a selection was made of all participants that received a beneficial offer

in green or black, and accepted this. This leads to a total number of 86 participants,

with 31 in the beneficial green condition, and 55 in the beneficial black condition.

The dependent variable is the response latency of the acceptation of the offer in

milliseconds, and the independent variable is the colour of the offer (green or black).

This is a between subjects design since participants never received a beneficial offer in

both trial 1 and 2.

An independent t-test was used to compare the response latencies of

acceptation for a beneficial offer in green and a beneficial offer in black. There was no

significant difference between a green beneficial offer (M= 2865.03, SD= 2993.82)

and a black beneficial offer (M= 2467.93, SD= 1263.06); t<1 (see table 3).

A two factor ANOVA revealed no significant influence of gender (F<1), study

phase (F<1), or the gender of the negotiation partner (F<1) on the response latency.

The faculty background of the participants (F(4,84)=6.252, p<.001), frequency of

negotiating (F(5,84)=2.915, p<.05), and participation in similar experiments

(F(1,85)=9.267, p<.005) did have a significant effect on the response latency.

Participants from the faculty of humanities had the fastest response latencies

(M=2418.96) closely followed by the faculty of economics (M=2732.60). The social

faculty (M=8430.00) and faculty of theology (M=3357.00) took more time before

reacting to the beneficial offer. Participants negotiating on a daily basis were able to

respond faster to the offer (M=1562.25) than participants who negotiated fewer than

once a month (M=2032.520), and participants who had been in touch with similar

experiments were also faster in responding to the offer (M=2024.85) than participants

who had never been part of a negotiation-experiment before (M=3364.03).

Table 3

The means and standard deviations for the response latencies of a beneficial/ insulting black/green offer.

Response latency in

milliseconds

Black Green

Mean SD Mean SD

Beneficial offer 2467.93 1263.06 2865.03 2993.82

Insulting offer 1429.41 1010.15 1830.50 1335.44

22

3.3 Hypothesis 3:

An insulting offer in green is rejected faster than an insulting offer in black

The subset of data used for this analysis is a selection of all cases in which the

participant received an insulting offer in green or black, and rejected this. The total

amount of participants included in this data set is 96, with 32 participants in the

insulting green condition, and 64 participants in the insulting black condition. The

dependent variable is the response latency of the rejection of the offer in milliseconds

and the independent variable is the colour in which the offer is shown (green or black).

This is a between subjects design because participants never received an insulting offer

in trial 1 and 2, but always one insulting and one beneficial offer.

An independent t-test was conducted to compare the response latencies of the

rejection of an insulting offer made in green or black. There was a trend found (green

condition, M=1830.50, SD=1335.44) (black condition, M=1429.41, SD=1010.15);

t(94)=1.64, p=0.104 (see table 3).

A two factor ANOVA showed that rejection response latencies of an insulting

offer was influenced significantly by faculty (F(5,94)=6.837, p<.001), gender of the

negotiation partner (F(1,94)=4.323, p<.05) and frequency of negotiating

(F(5,95)=8.133, p<.001). Participants from the social faculty (M=1317.50), faculty of

humanities (M=1515.52), and faculty of economics (M=1518.04) were relatively faster

in responding to an offer than the law faculty (M=1721.25) and the faculty of theology

(2329.00). Furthermore, when the participant thought he was negotiating with a

woman they responded faster (M=1528.98) than when they thought they negotiated

with a man (M=2094.39), and participants negotiating on a daily basis took more time

before responding (M=4834.75) than participants negotiating fewer than once a

month (M=1391.16). The variables gender (F<1), study phase (F(2,95)=1.055,

p=.352) and participation in similar experiments (F(1,95)=1.794, p=.184) did not

have an effect.

3.4 Additional Results

Acceptation versus rejection response latency

The mean response latency in milliseconds for the rejection of an insulting offer is

1830.50 for a green offer, and 1429.41 for black, while for acceptation of a beneficial

23

offer the means are 2865.03 for green and 2467.93 for black. Therefore, further

analysis was done to test whether there is a significant difference between the means of

accepting and rejecting an offer. The analysis was conducted with a paired T-Test

since all participants received one beneficial offer (acceptation), and one insulting offer

(rejection). Before this analysis was conducted, all participants who reacted to a

beneficial offer with a rejection, or to an insulting offer with an acceptation were

removed from the data set since it is likely that they reacted accidentally or did not

understand the presentation format. This led to a selection of 112 participants out of

130. The Paired T-Test revealed that people are significantly faster at rejecting an

offer (M=1636, SD=1318.342) than at accepting an offer (M=2587.21,

SD=1977.341); t(111)=4.86, p<.001.

Red versus green

Red and green are said to be opposing colours, with green bringing to mind positive

associations and red more negative and aggressive associations (Davey, 1998;

Mahnke, 1996). Since the experimental design of this study also included red offers

(used for further analysis by another researcher) it is interesting to compare green not

only to the black control condition, but also to red. It is then expected that green leads

to faster acceptation of a beneficial offer than red, since green is associated with

positivity, and red with negativity (evoking confusion in the mind when combined

with a beneficial offer). Furthermore, it is also expected that the opposite effect will

occur for an insulting offer.

Statement 1. A beneficial offer in green is accepted faster than a beneficial offer in red.

Statement 2. An insulting offer in red is rejected faster than an insulting offer in green.

The sample of statement 1 contains all participants who received a beneficial

offer in red or green (this is a between subjects design) and accepted this (red N=29,

green N= 31). Response latency is the dependent variable, and colour (green or red)

the independent variable. The data was analysed with an independent t-test and

revealed no significant difference between the response latency in the green condition

(M=2865.03, SD=2993.816) and the red condition (M=2466.38, SD=1651.63); t<1

(see table 4). Furthermore, a two-factor ANOVA showed that the variables gender

24

(F(1,59)=1.868, p=.177), faculty (F(4,58)=1.731, p=.158), study phase (F<1),

frequency of negotiating (F<1), and gender of the negotiation partner (F<1) had no

significant influence on the response latency. The variable participation in similar

experiments (F(1,59)=4.253, p<.05) however did have a significant influence.

To test statement 2, all participants who received an insulting offer in red or

green and rejected this offer were included (red N=31, green N=32). Since a

participant receives a red or a green offer, and not both, the data of this between

subjects design was analysed with an independent t-test. The independent variable

was the colour (green or red), and the dependent variable the response latency in

milliseconds. The analysis revealed no significant difference between the response

latency in the green condition (M=1830.50, SD=1335.436) and the red condition

(M=1816.65, SD=1871.46); t<1 (see table 4). A two factor ANOVA showed that this

response latency was influenced significantly by faculty (F(5,61)=3.561, p<.01) and the

frequency of negotiating in real life (F(5,61)=3.110, p<.05). Participants from the

social faculty (M=1385.00), faculty of economics (M=1656.50) and faculty of

humanities (M=1724.97) were faster in responding to an insulting offer than the

faculty of theology (M=2329.00) or the faculty of law (2077.00). Furthermore,

participants negotiating on a daily basis (M=4747.25) took more time to respond to

the offer than participants negotiating fewer than once a month (1507.50). The

response latency was not influenced by the variables gender (F<1), study phase (F<1),

participation in similar experiments (F(1,62)=1.000, p=.321) or the gender of the

negotiation partner (F<1).

Table 4

The means and standard deviations for the response latencies of a beneficial/insulting green/red offer.

Response latency in

milliseconds

Green Red

Mean SD Mean SD

Beneficial offer 2865.03 2993.82 2466.38 1651.63

Insulting offer 1830.50 1335.44 1816.65 1871.46

25

4. Conclusion & Discussion This experiment tested the effect of the colour green on negotiations through a

computer mediated negotiation game. The results confirmed hypothesis 1, indicating

that people indeed always strive to satisfy themselves (Tetlock, 1991), and therefore

accept a beneficial offer and reject an insulting offer. Hypothesis 2 was not supported

by the results. There was no significant difference found between the response

latencies for to a green beneficial or black beneficial offer. This means that the positive

associations of the colour green, as shown by the study of Kaya and Epps (2004), did

not fasten the acceptation response latency in comparison to the black control

condition.

For hypothesis 3 the results did however reveal a trend. A significantly longer

response latency was found for the rejection of green insulting offers in comparison to

black insulting offers. This can be explained by the functioning of the associative

network, meaning that when the associations of a concept are not in line with the

content of the concept, this leads to a state of confusion, which on its turn increases

the response latency. In conclusion, this experiment found marginally significant proof

for incongruence between concept and associations causing slower response latencies

(hypothesis 3), but not for congruence fastening the response latencies (hypothesis 2).

The additional analysis on the data revealed another significant effect for the

response latency between acceptation and rejection. The rejection of an insulting offer

takes less time than the acceptation of a beneficial offer. This result may be explained

by the same principle as used for the explanation of hypothesis 1: the ‘intuitive

economist paradigm’ of Tetlock (1991) stating that people want to satisfy their own

needs in a negotiation. The participant might then expect the negotiation partner to

also have this goal, and therefore receiving a beneficial offer seems counterintuitive.

This may cause confusion when a beneficial offer is received, leading to an increase in

response latency for the acceptation of a beneficial offer in comparison to the rejection

of an insulting offer. Another explanation for the difference in response latency

concerns the monetary amounts used for this study. 4 out of 17 was offered in case of

an insulting offer, and 10 out of 17 was offered in the beneficial condition. The

midpoint of 17 is 8.5, a number that differentiates more from the value used for the

insulting offer than for the beneficial offer. When accepting or rejecting an offer, it is

therefore more prevalent that being offered 4 out of 17 is an insulting offer (8.5 – 4 =

26

4.5 euro’s away from the midpoint) than 10 out of 17 being a beneficial offer (10 – 8.5

= 1.5 euro’s away from the midpoint). People might therefore be faster in recognizing

the insulting offer as an insulting offer than the beneficial offer as a beneficial offer.

This on its turn can clarify for the significant difference in response latencies.

Since the experimental data also contained a condition with the colour red for

a related research, the data of the green and red condition were also compared on

both the response latencies to a beneficial offer, and to an insulting offer. There was

no significant difference found between the response latencies of green and red to

either a beneficial, or an insulting offer. It is remarkable that no significant effect was

found, since we did find a marginally significant effect for an insulting green offer in

comparison to an insulting black offer (hypothesis 3). If it are the associations of green

underlying this difference in response latencies, then it is expected that a red beneficial

offer would also lead to increase of response latency due to incongruence between the

beneficial nature of the offer and the negative associations of the colour red (Kaya &

Epps, 2004). The fact that no significant difference was found between the response

latency of beneficial red and green offers, makes it questionable whether it are the

different associations of the colours causing confusion and leading to an increase in

response latency.

Since there were several limitations to this experiment, the associative

influence of colour on an insulting or beneficial offer cannot be ruled out. The first

limitation is that the presence of colour in the design of the software was minimal. The

colour was only shown in the frame around the offer and the font colour of the

numbers. Future research should therefore investigate what happens when the

presence of the colour is more prevalent. Previous research of Hachmang (2011) has

shown that wearing a red t-shirt in a negotiation, which leads to a prevalent presence

of the colour, does influence the outcome of the negotiations. For this experimental

design, it is possible to insert a red or green screen before the presentation of the offer;

this may lead to more significant differences between the conditions. Another

limitation of this experiment is that only the colour black was used as a control

condition. Future research could include a neutral offer as extra control condition to

verify for the influence of colour on a neutral negotiation situation. Furthermore, this

negotiation took place in a computer-mediated environment, which is not very

representative for negotiations in real life. Even though in our current digital society

27

online negotiations become more frequent (for instance through websites such as

Ebay), offline negotiations still occur more frequently.

Even though the results of this experiment were not highly significant, they do

suggest that subtle influences of the colour green and its associations may influence

our behaviour in a negotiation.

28

References Babbitt, E.D. (1878). The principles of light and color. New York: University

Books. Ballast, D.K. (2002). Interior design reference manual. Belmont: CA Professional

Pub. Browning, J., Zabriskie, N.B. (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial

marketing management (12), pp. 219-224. Culler, A.J. (1912). Interference and adaptability. Arch. Psychol., (3)24, pp. 1-80. Davey, P. (1998). True colors: the glorious polychromy of the past suggests a

strong historical need for color, despite current reductive fashions. The Architectural Review, 204, pp. 34-36.

Davidoff, J. (1991). Cognition through color. Cambridge: MITPress. Gerard, R.M. (1958). Differential effects of colored lights on psychophysiological

functions. Los Angeles: University of California. Goldstein, K. (1942). Some experimental observations concerning the influence

of colors on the function of the organism. Occupational therapy and rehabilitation, 21, pp. 147-151.

Gulliver, P. (1979). Disputes and negotiations. New York: Academic Press. Gunnerod, P.K. (1991). Marketing cut flowers in Japan and Hong Kong.

International trade forum, 27, pp. 28-29. Hachmang, D. (2011). Ik ga naar een onderhandeling, en neem mee: een onderzoek

naar het effect van de kleur van kleding op een onderhandeling. Unpublished master’s thesis. Tilburg University, Tilburg.

Hawkins, D.I., Cocanougher, A.B. (1972). Student evaluations of the ethics of

marketing practices: the role of marketing education. Journal of marketing (36)4, pp. 61-64.

Hevner, K. (1935). Experimental studies of the affective value of colors and lines.

Journal of applied psychology, (19)2, pp. 385-398. Holland, R.W., Hendriks, M., Aarts, H. (2005). Smells like clean spirit:

nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior. Psychological Science (16)9, pp. 689-693.

Katz, R., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Manisterski, E., Kraus, S. (2008). Different

orientations of males and females in computer-mediated negotiations. Computers in human behaviour (24)2, pp. 516-534.

29

Kaya, N., Epps, H.H. (2004). Color-emotion associations: past experience and personal preference. In AIC 2004 Color and paints, proceedings of the interim meeting of the international color association, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 3-5 November 2004, ed. By Jose Luis Caivano, pp. 31-34.

Kline, L.W. (1921). An experimental study of associative inhibition. Journal of

experimental psychology (4)4, pp. 270-299. Lewicki, R.J., Litterer, J.A., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W. (1993). Negotiation:

readings, exercises and cases. Boston: The McGraw-Hill Companies. MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop-effect: an

integrative review. Psychological Bulletin (2)109, pp. 163-203. Madden, T.J., Hewett, K., Roth, M.S. (2000). Managing images in different

cultures: a cross-national study of color meanings and preferences. Journal of International Marketing (8)4, pp. 90-107.

Mahnke, F. (1996). Color, environment, human response. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Mollon, J.D. (1989). Tho she kneel’d in that place where they grow. Journal of Experimental Biology, 146, pp. 21-38.

Morton, J. (1997). A guide to color symbolism. Honolulu: Colorcom. Murray, D.C., Deabler, H.L. (1957). Colors and Mood-Tones. Journal of applied

psychology (41)10, pp. 279-283. Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: an investigation of the physiological

activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press. Putnam, L., and M. Roloff. (1992). “Communication Perspectives on Negotiation,” in

L. Putnam and M. Roloff (eds.), Communication and Negotiation. Sage, pp. 1–17. Pruitt, D.G., Carnevale, P.J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Robinson, W., Volkov, V. (1998). Supporting the negotiation life cycle.

Communications of the ACM (41)5, pp. 95-102. Rubin, J.Z., Brown, B.R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and

negotiation. New York: Academic Press. Sharpe, D.T. (1974). The psychology of color and design. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Silver, N. (1988). Sex and racial differences in color and number preferences.

Perceptual and motor skills, 66, pp. 295-299.

30

Singh, S. (2006). Impact of color on marketing. Management decision, 6, pp. 783- 789.

Stahre, B., Harleman, M., Billger, M. (2004). Colour emotions in large rand

smaller scale. In AIC 2004 Color and paints, proceedings of the interim meeting of the international color association, Porto, Alegre, Brazil, 3-5 November, 2004, ed. by Jose Luis Caivano, pp. 27-30.

Stone, N.J., English, A.J. (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on mood

satisfaction and performance. Journal of environmental psychology, 18, pp.175-185. Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of

experimental psychology, 18, pp. 643-662. Tetlock, P.E. (1991). An alternative metaphor in the study of judgment and

choice: people as politicans. Theory and psychology, 1, pp. 451-475. Von Bergen, J.M. (1995). What’s your favorite color. Calgary: Calgary Herald. Walton, R., and R. McKersie (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ward, G. (1995). Colors and employee stress reduction. Supervision, 56, pp. 3-5. Weigand, H., Moor, de, A., Schoop, M., Dignum, F. (2003). B2B negotiation

support: the need for a communication perspective. Group decision and negotiation, 12, pp. 3-29.

Wilson, G.D. (1966). Arousal properties of red versus green. Perceptual and

motor skills, 23, pp. 947-949.

31

Attachment 1: Instruction INSTRUCTIE Je gaat straks onderhandelen met een onderhandelingspartner die zich in een andere ruimte bevindt. Via de computer worden jullie online aan elkaar gekoppeld en beginnen jullie met de onderhandeling. De bedoeling is om door te onderhandelen een geldbedrag te verdelen tussen jou en je onderhandelingspartner. De computer bepaalt hierbij willekeurig wie het openingsbod mag doen. De ander krijgt hierna de kans om op dit openingsbod te reageren. Wanneer je een bod krijgt kun je:

-‐ het bod accepteren door te drukken op de knop 'ACC' op je toetsenbord. Dat is de knop van de letter A.

-‐ het bod afwijzen door te drukken op de knop 'VERW' op je toetsenbord. Dat is de knop van de letter L.

Denk goed na over je reactie, maar reageer zo snel mogelijk! Wanneer je onderhandelingspartner het openingsbod doet, is het bedrag dat je op je scherm zult zien een geldbedrag dat hij of zij aan jou aanbiedt. Wanneer jij een bod mag doen, toets je het bedrag dat je zelf wilt houden in op het toetsenbord, en sluit je af met enter. Om je een idee te geven van hoe het onderhandelingsspel werkt, gaan we er eerst een aantal keer mee oefenen. Tijdens de oefensessie ben je nog niet gekoppeld aan een onderhandelingspartner. Tijdens de oefensessie mag je dit instructieformulier naast je houden. Laat aan de experimentleider weten wanneer je klaar bent om met de oefensessies te beginnen.

32

Attachment 2: Pre-test Beantwoord de volgende vragen. Opleiding: …………………………………………………………………………………… Studiefase: Bachelor/Premaster/Master Kruis aan in hoeverre de onderstaande stellingen op u van toepassing zijn: Hoe vaak heeft u te maken met onderhandelingen?

o Iedere dag

o Enkele keren per week

o Één keer per week

o Enkele keren per maand

o Één keer per maand

o Minder dan één keer per maand

De onderhandelingen waarin ik zelf betrokken ben betreffen een geldkwestie

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd

Wanneer ik onderhandel houd ik rekening met de emoties van de tegenpartij


Bij een onderhandeling vind ik eerlijkheid belangrijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Nooit Altijd

Bij een onderhandeling probeer ik zoveel mogelijk winst voor mezelf te behalen


Als mijn onderhandelingspartner me onrechtvaardig behandelt, blijf ik zelf toch eerlijk


Lees nu de instructie voor het vervolg van het onderzoek.

33

Attachment 3: Post-test

Vragenlijst ‘Onderhandelen en Beslissen’ Ter afsluiting van het experiment dient u de volgende vragenlijst in te vullen

1. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 1 in de bijlage?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. Welk getal ziet u in afbeelding 2 in de bijlage?



……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Heeft u al eerder aan soortgelijke experimenten deel genomen?

Ja / Nee

6. Waar denkt u dat het onderzoek over ging?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Kruis aan in hoeverre de onderstaande stellingen op u van toepassing zijn:

7. Ik vond het onderhandelen:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Helemaal niet leuk Heel erg leuk

8. Over de uitkomst van de onderhandelingen ben ik:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Zeer ontevreden Zeer tevreden

9. Ik vond mijn onderhandelingspartner in de eerste

onderhandelingssituatie:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Zeer oneerlijk Zeer eerlijk

34

10. Ik vond mijn onderhandelingspartner in de tweede

onderhandelingssituatie:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο

Zeer oneerlijk Zeer eerlijk

11. Mijn onderhandelingspartner in de eerste onderhandelingssituatie was

Man / Vrouw

12. Mijn onderhandelingspartner in de tweede onderhandelingssituatie was

Man / Vrouw Bedankt voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek.

Post-‐test attachment:

Afbeelding 1 Afbeelding 2

the effect of the colour green on negotiations

Documents