This study examined the influence of anger and compassion, two discrete emotions that differ in valence and appraisals, on negotiators’ interaction goals through trust and distrust, two related, but functionally distinct constructs. Findings showed that the influence of anger (a negative emotion with appraisal of other-person control) on perceived importance of competitively oriented goals was mediated by distrust, but not trust, whereas the influence of compassion (a positive emotion with appraisal of situational control) on perceived importance of cooperatively oriented goals was mediated by trust, but not distrust. This study not only sheds light on the process whereby anger and compassion influence negotiation performance but also supports the proposition that trust and distrust represent two distinct psychological processes that are associated with different antecedents and consequences.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans resolve an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors and how cultural factors explain the differences in conflict management styles. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted involving 275 employees from China, Japan and South Korea. A hierarchical regression analysis and A‐matrix hypothesis test were used to analyze the data. Findings Koreans, compared with the Chinese and Japanese, were more likely to use a compromise style. In addition, the Japanese, compared with the Chinese and Koreans, were less likely to dominate and were more likely to oblige their supervisors. The country differences in obliging and dominating styles were partially explained by goal emphasis (self vs collective) and concern for the self, respectively. Research limitations/implications While limited to recalling specific incidents and self‐reported responses, there is evidence that East Asians differ from each other in resolving their interpersonal conflicts with supervisors. Future research needs to examine East Asian differences in resolving an interpersonal conflict with other targets such as peers and subordinates and using other kinds of conflict management styles such as mediation and arbitration. Originality/value This is one of few studies that have examined East Asian differences in conflict management styles.

This naturally occurring quasi-experiment examined how learning goal orientation (LGO), delivery mode (classroom vs. blended learning), and the perception of barriers and enablers related to motivation to learn and course outcomes. Study participants were 600 students enrolled in either classroom or blended learning courses. As hypothesized, learners in the blended learning condition, high in LGO, and who perceived environmental features as enablers rather than barriers had significantly higher motivation to learn. Motivation to learn, in turn, was significantly related to course outcomes (satisfaction, metacognition, and grades). The mediation hypotheses received partial support. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed 3 significant interactions between delivery mode, LGO, and perceived barriers and enablers on motivation to learn and course satisfaction.

Four previously established characteristics of procedural justice (consistency, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, and feedback timeliness) and one additional characteristic (automated versus human decision agent) were manipulated in a policy-capturing design to examine their relative importance in predicting fairness perceptions in a Web-based applicant-screening context. Results showed that all five justice characteristics influenced fairness perceptions and that a hierarchy of importance among the characteristics existed, with consistency weighted most heavily followed by opportunity to perform. Gender, conscientiousness, and job application experience moderated the effects of several of these characteristics in predicting fairness perceptions. implications and future research directions are discussed. (C) 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The impact individual differences have on social interactions such as negotiations and group processes has been largely discounted and doubted by scholars in recent years (e.g., Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000; Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989). For example, negotiation researchers have consistently concluded that individual difference variables such as cognitive ability and conscientiousness, which are proved to be highly valid of work performance in general (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), have literally no impact on negotiated outcomes (Bazerman et al., 2000; Thompson, 1998; Thompson, 1990). However, others have found that cognitive ability and personality traits such as extraversion do have an impact on work team effectiveness (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997) despite the fact that the effective sizes of them are generally small. Given the inconsistency among these conclusions, we believe that further investigation is necessary and propose to test a new set of individual differences variables which suggests that people vary in their interaction with others. In our study, instead of focusing on the personality traits one may possess, we examine the impact of interpersonal styles (i.e., variations in stable preferences in dealing with social situations) on group outcomes.