Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, United States of America.
Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229501. eCollection 2020.
Language is critical to coordination in groups. Though, how language affects coordination in groups is not well understood. We prime distributive and integrative language in a bargaining experiment to better understand the links between group outcomes and communication. We accomplish this by priming interests or positions language in randomized groups. We find that priming positions as opposed to interests language leads to agreements where controllers, subjects with unilateral authority over the group outcome, receive a larger share of the benefits but where the total benefits to the group are unaffected. In contrast to common justifications for the use of integrative language in bargaining, our experimental approach revealed no significant differences between priming interests and positions language in regards to increasing joint outcomes for the groups. Across treatments, we find subjects that use gain frames and make reference to visuals aids during bargaining experience larger gains for the group, while loss frames and pro-self language experience larger gains for the individual through side payments. This finding suggests a bargainer's dilemma: whether to employ language that claims a larger share of group's assets or employ language to increase joint gains.
语言对于群体协调至关重要。然而，语言如何影响群体协调还不太清楚。我们在讨价还价实验中使用分布式和综合性语言进行启动，以更好地理解群体结果和沟通之间的联系。我们通过在随机分组中启动利益或立场语言来实现这一点。我们发现，与启动利益语言相比，启动立场语言会导致协议达成，其中控制器（对群体结果拥有单方面权力的主体）获得更大份额的收益，但群体的总收益不受影响。与讨价还价中使用综合性语言的常见理由相反，我们的实验方法表明，在增加群体的共同收益方面，启动利益和立场语言之间没有显著差异。在各种处理中，我们发现讨价还价时使用增益框架并参考视觉辅助工具的参与者会为群体带来更大的收益，而通过支付附加费使用损失框架和利己语言的参与者会为个人带来更大的收益。这一发现提出了一个讨价还价者的困境：是使用语言要求更大份额的群体资产，还是使用语言增加共同收益。
