= 2.61, .01, = .44. Furthermore, Mixed High-Power Dominance dyads created t(85.79) p = d more value than did Mixed No Dominance dyads (t(78.0) = 2.96, .04, = .45) and Mixed p = d Both Dominance dyads; = 2.08, .04, = .45. They also created somewhat more value t(78.9) p = d than did Mixed Low-Power Dominance dyads; = 2.96, .06, = .41. Neither Mixed t(81.3) p = d Low-Power Dominance dyads nor Mixed Both Dominance dyads created significantly different amounts of value, > .60. ps We analyzed whether the effect of dominance instructions on total points depended upon whether the counterpart of the person expressing dominance expressed dominance in return. An ANOVA, however, showed that the effect of dominance instructions was not moderated by the degree to which a counterpart responded with dominance of his/her own, > .60. ps ----------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here ------------------------------------------------ Own Points. We then examined the effects of power and dominance on the number of points accumulated by each negotiator. A mixed-models analysis revealed a significant main effect of negotiator power (F(1, 166) = 22.4, = .001, = .51) on own points. As shown in Table p d 1, high-power negotiators accumulated more points than did low-power negotiators. The analysis also revealed a significant Own Power x Counterpart Dominance Instructions interaction (F(1, 331.9) = 6.36, = .01), and a marginally significant Own Dominance p Instructions x Counterpart Dominance Instructions interaction, 166) = 2.89, .09. No F(1, p = other main effects or interactions were significant.
t(85.79) = 2.61, p = .01, d = .44. Furthermore, Mixed High-Power Dominance dyads created more value than did Mixed No Dominance dyads (t(78.0) = 2.96, p = .04, d = .45) and Mixed Both Dominance dyads; t(78.9) = 2.08, p = .04, d = .45. They also created somewhat more value than did Mixed Low-Power Dominance dyads; t(81.3) = 2.96, p = .06, d = .41. Neither Mixed Low-Power Dominance dyads nor Mixed Both Dominance dyads created significantly different amounts of value, ps > .60. We analyzed whether the effect of dominance instructions on total points depended upon whether the counterpart of the person expressing dominance expressed dominance in return. An ANOVA, however, showed that the effect of dominance instructions was not moderated by the degree to which a counterpart responded with dominance of his/her own, ps > .60. ----------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here ------------------------------------------------ Own Points. We then examined the effects of power and dominance on the number of points accumulated by each negotiator. A mixed-models analysis revealed a significant main effect of negotiator power (F(1, 166) = 22.4, p = .001, d = .51) on own points. As shown in Table 1, high-power negotiators accumulated more points than did low-power negotiators. The analysis also revealed a significant Own Power x Counterpart Dominance Instructions interaction (F(1, 331.9) = 6.36, p = .01), and a marginally significant Own Dominance Instructions x Counterpart Dominance Instructions interaction, F(1, 166) = 2.89, p = .09. No other main effects or interactions were significant.
Draft%203-1.docx