隨著全球化電子商務的盛行與網路科技的快速發展，電子化談判已經成為管理者日常活動中不可或缺的一部份。而為在激烈的競爭中生存，企業勢必採用更有效率及更有效益的作業流程，使得時間壓力成為電子化談判中的關鍵因素；因此，瞭解時間壓力對電子化談判的影響，已成為一項重要的議題。
過去雖有許多面對面談判的時間壓力研究，但由於不同媒體豐富度會影響談判活動，過去的研究結果無法推論到電子化談判的情境中。本研究目的係透過談判的三個構面：談判策略、過程以及結果，進一步瞭解時間壓力在電子化談判中之影響。
研究結果發現，雖然時間壓力對談判者策略並無顯著影響，但卻會對談判者在過程的掌控度產生顯著之負向影響：壓力愈高談判者對過程的掌控度愈低。同時本研究也發現，談判者對過程的掌控度會顯著的正向影響談判者對結果的滿意度：對過程的掌控度愈高，則對結果的滿意度亦愈高。

The popularity of global e-business and the rapid development of Web technologies have made e-negotiation an integral part of the daily lives of many managers in all types of business affairs. Moreover, the presence of severe competition has made making business processes both efficient and effective a necessity for enterprises to survive. This has made time pressure a crucial factor in e-negotiation, and hence it is important to understand how time pressure affects the both the process and outcome of e-negotiation.
Most of the many studies on time pressure have considered face-to-face negotiations, and the findings therefore cannot be directly applied to the e-negotiation context because the degree of media richness has been shown to affect negotiations. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the effects of time pressure on e-negotiations from three aspects: negotiation strategy, process, and outcome.
Though research results did not find the relationship between time pressure and negotiation strategy, we still found the significant negative relationship between time pressure and perceived control over the negotiation. Moreover, we also found that perceived control over the negotiation had significant positive influence on outcome satisfaction.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Popularity of e-Negotiation.................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Role of Time Pressure in e-Negotiation.............................................................................. 6
1.3 Motivation and Research Purpose....................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2. Literature Review............................................................................................... 9
2.1 Negotiation and Negotiation Support System.................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Basic Concept of Negotiation..................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Structure of Negotiation Support System.................................................................. 10
2.2 Effects of Time Pressure on Traditional Negotiation......................................................... 12
2.3 Negotiation Strategy.............................................................................................................. 14
2.4 Negotiation Process and Outcome....................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3. Research Model and Hypotheses................................................................. 18
3.1 Research Model..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Hypotheses............................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Time Pressure and Negotiation Strategy.................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Time Pressure and Negotiation Process..................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Negotiation Strategy and Negotiation Outcome....................................................... 23
3.2.4 Negotiation Strategy and Negotiation Process.......................................................... 25
3.2.5 Negotiation Process and Negotiation Outcome........................................................ 26
Chapter 4. The Experimental Approach......................................................................... 27
4.1 Experimental Design............................................................................................................. 27
4.1.1 Negotiation Scenario and Time Pressure Manipulation........................................... 27
4.1.2 Negotiation System..................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Subjects and Implementation............................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Subjects......................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 Implementation............................................................................................................ 30
4.3 Measurements........................................................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 Perceived Time Pressure............................................................................................. 31
4.3.2 Negotiation Strategy, Process, and Outcome............................................................ 31
Chapter 5. Analysis and Result............................................................................................ 34
5.1 Descriptive Statistics............................................................................................................. 34
5.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.............................................................................................. 34
5.3 Checking the Time-Pressure Manipulation......................................................................... 36
5.4 Hypotheses Testing................................................................................................................ 37
5.4.1 Negotiation Strategy and Process............................................................................... 37
5.4.2 Negotiation Outcome................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 6. Conclusions............................................................................................................ 41
6.1 Empirical Findings and Applications.................................................................................. 41
6.2 Limitation............................................................................................................................... 41
6.3 Future Research..................................................................................................................... 42
References....................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendix A: Questionnaires.................................................................................................. 51
Appendix B: Negotiation System......................................................................................... 58





List of Figures
Figure 1. Three elements of negotiation.......................................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Interdependence among Primary Parameters of Negotiation....................................... 10
Figure 3. The structure of INSPIRE................................................................................................ 11
Figure 4. The structure of Negoisst.................................................................................................. 12
Figure 5. Research model with five hypotheses............................................................................. 19
Figure 6. Web-based negotiation system: latest message from counterpart................................ 28
Figure 7. Web-based negotiation system: offer formulation......................................................... 28
Figure 8. Web-based negotiation system under high time pressure: the remaining time........... 29
Figure 9. Web-based negotiation system under high time pressure: the deducted utility........... 29
Figure 10. Experimental Process...................................................................................................... 31














List of Tables
Table 1. Source of construct items................................................................................................... 32
Table 2. Profiles of subjects.............................................................................................................. 34
Table 3. Factor analysis (before item deducting)............................................................................ 35
Table 4. Factor analysis (Final esult)............................................................................................... 35
Table 5. Reliability statistics............................................................................................................. 36
Table 6. ANOVA test for checking the time-pressure manipulation............................................. 36
Table 7. ANOVA results of hypothesis testing for negotiation strategy and process.................. 38
Table 8. Regression result of hypothesis testing for the perceived level of control.................... 39
Table 9. Regression result of hypothesis testing for outcome satisfaction................................... 40
Table 10. Summary of the hypothesis testing................................................................................. 40

1. Ahituv, N., Igbaria, M., and Sella, A., “The Effects of Time Pressure and Completeness of Information on Decision Making,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall 1998, pp. 153-172.
2. Aminilari, M., and Pakath, R., “Searching for information in a time-pressured setting: experiences with a Text-based and an Image-based decision support system,” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41, Issue 1, November 2005, pp. 37-68.
3. Arunachalam, V., and Dilla, W., “Computer-Mediated Communication and Structured Interaction in Transfer Pricing Negotiation,” Journal of Information Systems, 6, 1992, pp. 149-170.
4. Arunachalam, V., and Dilla, W., “Judgment Accuracy and Outcomes in Negotiation: A Causal Modeling Analysis of Decision-Aiding Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 61, 1995, pp. 289-304
5. Barkhi, R., “Cognitive Style May Mitigate the Impact of Communication Mode,” Information & Management, Vol. 39, Issue 3, Sep. 2002, pp. 677-688.
6. Barry, B., and Oliver, R. L., “Affect in Dyadic Negotiation: A Model and Propositions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, No. 2, Aug. 1996, pp. 127-143.
7. Beersma, B., and De Dreu, C. K. W., “Integrative and Distributive Negotiation in Small Groups: Effects of Task Structure, Decision Rule, and Social Motive,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 87, No.2, March 2002, pp. 227-252.
8. Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S., “An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Color and Graphical Information Presentation Under Varying Time Constraints,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10, Issue 1, March 1986, pp. 59-83.
9. Bharati, P., and Chaudhury, A., “An Empirical Investigation of Decision-Making Satisfaction in Web-Based Decision Support Systems,” Decision Support Systems, 37, 2004, pp. 187-197.
10. Blake, R. R., and Mouton J. S., “The Managerial Grid,” Houston, Gulf, 1964.
11. Bottom, W. P., “Negotiator Risk: Source of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76, No. 2, 1998, pp. 89-112.
12. Briggs, R. O., De Vreede, G. J., and Reining, B. A., “A Theory and Measurement of Meeting Satisfaction,” in 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2002. Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE.
13. Brookmire, D. A., and Sistrunk, F., “The Effect of Perceived Ability and Impartiality of Mediators and Time Pressure on Negotiation,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 1980, pp. 311-327.
14. Bui, T., “Building DSS for Negotiators: A Three-Step Design Process,” in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1992. Kauai, Hawaii: IEEE.
15. Carnevale, P. J. D., and Lawler, E. J., “Time pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreement in Bilateral Negotiations,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30, No. 4, Dec. 1986, pp. 636-659.
16. Carnevale, P. J. D., and Pruitt, D. G., “Negotiation and Mediation,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 43, Issue 1, 1992, pp. 531-582.
17. Carlson, J. R., and George, J. F., “Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness and Synchronicity,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 191-210.
18. Chidambaram, L., “Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, Issue 2, June 1996, pp. 143-165.
19. Conlon, D. E., and Hunt, C. S., “Dealing with Feeling: The Influence of Outcome Representations on Negotiation,” The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2002, pp. 38-58.
20. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., and Trevino, L K., “Message Equivocality: Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, Issue 3, Sep. 1987, pp. 355-366.
21. Damian, D. E. H., Eberlein, A., Shaw, M. L. G., and Gaines, B. R., “Using Dofferent Communication Media in Requirements Negotiation,” IEEE Software, May/June 2000.
22. Delaney, M. M., Foroughi, A., and Perkins, W. C., “An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of a Computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS),” Decision Support Systems, Vol. 20, Issue 3, July, 1997, pp. 185-197.
23. De Dreu, C. K. W., “Time Pressure and Closing of the Mind in Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 91, Issue 2, 2003, pp. 280-295.
24. Dennis, A. R., and Kinney, S. T., “Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, Sept. 1998, pp. 256-273
25. Druckman, D., “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 38, No. 3, Sept. 1994, pp. 507-556.
26. Edland, A., and Svenson, O., “Judgment and Decision Making Under Time Pressure,” In Ola Svenson and A. John Maule (eds), Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. New York. Plenum Press, 1993, pp. 27-40.
27. Friedman, R. A., Currall, S. C., and Tsai, J. C., “What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Personal Conflict Style on Work Conflict and Stress,” The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2000, pp. 32-55.
28. Garrity, E. J., Glassberg, B., Kim, Y. J., Sanders, G. L., and Shin, S. K., “An Experimental Investigation of Web-Based Information systems Success in the Context of Electronic Commerce,” Decision Support System, 39, 2005, pp. 485-503.
29. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. W., “Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2003, pp. 51-90.
30. Giebels, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., and Van de Vliert, E., “Interdependence in Negotiation: Effects of Exit Options and Social Motive on Distributive and Integrative Negotiation,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, 2000, pp. 255-272.
31. Gillespie, J. J., Brett, J. M., and Weingart, L. R., “Interdependence, Social Motives, and Outcomes Satisfaction in Multiparty Negotiation,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, 2002, pp. 779-797.
32. Greenhalgh, L., and Chapman, D., “Negotiator Relationships: Construct Measurement, and Demonstration of Their Impact on the Process and Outcomes of Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 7, No. 6, Nov. 1998, pp. 465-489.
33. Harinck, F., and De Dreu, C. K. W., “Negotiation Interests or Values and Reaching Integrative Agreements: The Importance of Time Pressure and Temporary Impasses,” European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 34, 2004, pp. 595-611.
34. Harmon, J., “Electronic Meeting and Intense Group Conflict: Effects of a Policy-Modeling Performance Support System and an Audio Communication Support System on Satisfaction and Agreement,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 1998, pp. 131-155.
35. Holsapple, C. W., Lai, H., and Whinston, A. B., “Implications of Negotiation Theory for Research and Development of Negotiation Support Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 1996, pp. 255-274.
36. Holsapple, C. W., Lai, H., and Whinston, A. B., “A Formal Basis for Negotiation Support System Research,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 1998, pp. 203-227.
37. Jain, B. A., and Solomon, J. S., “The Effect of Task Complexity and Conflict Handling Styles on Computer-Supported Negotiation,” Information & Management, Vol. 37, Issue 4, June 2000, pp. 161-168.
38. Kelly, J. R., and Loving, T. J., “Time Pressure and Group Performance: Exploring Underlying Process in the Attentional Focus Model,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 185-198.
39. Kersten, G. E., “The Science and Engineering of E-Negotiation: An Introduction,” Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’ 03).
40. Kersten, G., and Noronha, S., “Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-Cultural Study of Decision Making,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 8, 1999a, pp. 251-279.
41. Kersten, G., and Noronha, S., “WWW-Based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation, and Use,” Decision Support Systems, 25, 1999b, pp. 135-154.
42. Kersten, G., Vetschera, R., and Koszegi, S., “The Effects of Culture in Anonymous Negotiations: Experiment in Four Countries,” Proceeding of the 35the Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2002.
43. Lim, L. H., and Benbasat, I., “A Theoretical Perspective of Negotiation Support System,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 9, Issue 3, 1993, pp. 27-44.
44. Lomuscio, A. R., Wooldridge, M., and Jennings, N. R., “A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, 2003, pp. 31-56.
45. Naquin, C. E., and Paulson, G. D., “Online Bargaining and Interpersonal Trust,” The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 1, Feb. 2003, pp. 113-120.
46. Niederman, F., and Bryson, J., “Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcome for a Division Coordinating Group,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 7, 1998, pp. 293-325.
47. Nunnally, J. C., “Psychometric Theory,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
48. Odell, J. S., “Creating Data on International Negotiation Strategies, Alternatives and Outcomes,” International Negotiation, Vol. 7, 2002, pp. 39-52.
49. Paese, P. W., and Gillin, D. A., “When an Adversary is Caught Telling the Truth: Reciprocal Cooperation Versus Self-Interest in Distributive Bargaining,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26, 2000, pp. 79-90.
50. Paese, P. W., Schreiber, A. M., and Taylor, A. W., “Caught Telling the Truth: Effect of Honesty and Communication Media in Distributive Negotiations,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, No. 6, Nov. 2003, pp. 537-566.
51. Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., and Ramamurthy, K., “User Satisfaction with System, Decision Process, and Outcome in GDSS Based Meeting: An Experimental Investigation,” Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2004.
52. Pruitt, D. G., “Negotiating Behavior,” New York: Academic Press 1981.
53. Pruitt, D. G., “Achieving Integrative Agreements,” in M. H. Bazerman and R. J. Lewicki (eds.), Negotiation in Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sega Publications 1983.
54. Purdy, J. M., and Nye, P., “The Impact of Communication Media on Negotiation Outcomes,” The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 2000, pp. 162-187.
55. Rahim, M. A., “Reference Role and Styles in Handling Interpersonal Conflict,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 126, Issue 1, Feb. 1986, pp. 79-86.
56. Rahim, M. A., and Bonoma, T. V., “Managing Organization Conflict: A Model for Diagnosis and Intervention,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 44, 1979, pp. 1323-1344.
57. Reinig, B. A., and Mejias, R. J., “An Investigation of the Influence of National Culture and Group Support Systems on Group Processes and Outcomes,” Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2003.
58. Rhee, H. S., Pirkul, H., Jacob, V., and Barkhi, R., “Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication on Group Negotiation: An Empirical Study,” Proceedings of the 28th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 1995.
59. Schoop, M., Jertila, A., and List, T., “Negoisst: A Negotiation Suppoet System for Electronic Business-to-Business Negotiations in e-Commerce,” Data & Knowledge, Vol. 47, 2003, pp. 371-401.
60. Shakun, M., “An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 8, 1999, pp. 237-249.
61. Shea, G. F., “Creative Negotiating,” Boston: CNI Publishing 1983.
62. Shell, G. R., “Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2001, pp. 155-174.
63. Sondak, H., and Moore, M. C., “Relationship Frames and Cooperation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 2, pp. 103-118.
64. Stuhlmacher, A. F., Gillespie, T. L., and Champagne, M. V., “The Impact of Time Pressure in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 9, Issue 2, Apr. 1998, pp. 97-116.
65. Stuhlmacher, A. F., and Champagne, M. V., “The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decision,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 9, No. 6, Nov. 2000, pp. 471-491.
66. Swaab, R. I., Postmes, T., Neijens, P., Kiers, M. H., and Dumay, A. C. M., “Multiparty Negotiation Support: The Role of Visualization's Influence on The Development of Shared Mental Models,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 19, Issue 1, 2002, pp. 129-150.
67. Tajima, M., and Fraser, N. M., “Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 3, May. 2001, pp. 217-235.
68. Thomas, K. W., “Conflict and Conflict Management,” Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. M. C. Dunnett, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 889-935.
69. Thomas, K. W., and Kilmann, R. H., “Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Profile and Interpretative Report,” Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press Inc, 2001.
70. Topi, H., Valacich, J. S., and Hoffer, J. A., “The Effects of Task Complexity and Time Availability Limitations on Human Performance in Database Query Tasks,” International journal of human-computer studies, 62, 3, 2005, pp. 349-379.
71. Vetschera, R., Kersten, G., and Koszegi, S., “User Assessment if Internet-Based Negotiation Support Systems: An Exploratory Study,” InterNeg Research Papers INR 04/03 (2004). Retrieved from http://interneg.concordia.ca/interneg/research/papers/2003/04.pdf
72. Vrij, A., and Mann, S., “Detecting Deception: The Benefit of Looking at a Combination of Behavioral, Auditory and Speech Content Related Cues in a Systematic Manner,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 61-79.
73. Yuan, Y., Milena, H., and Mei, D., “The Effects of Multimedia Communication on Web-Based Negotiation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 12, 2003, pp. 89-109.
74. Yukl, G. A., Malone, M. P., Hayslip, B., and Pamin, T. A., “The Effects of Time Pressure and Issue Settlement Order on Integrative Bargaining,” Sociometry, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep 1976, pp. 277-281.