conditions, three of these dyads were Matched Low-Power Dominance dyads and one dyad was a Matched High-Power No Dominance dyad. We included the data from these dyads and note any instances in which excluding the data changes key significant results to significance. Manipulation Checks across Mixed-Power Dyads. We first conducted a 2 (own power instructions: low power vs. high power) x 2 (own dominance instructions: no instructions vs. dominance instructions) x 2 (counterpart dominance instructions: no instructions vs. dominance instructions) mixed-models analysis on negotiators’ subjective senses of power in the mixed-power conditions. Negotiators in the high-power condition reported having significantly more power (M = 4.99, = 0.86) than did their low-power counterparts (M = 3.46, = 1.07), 155.4) = SD SD F(1, 148.2, < .001, = 1.58. Negotiators given dominance instructions also believed they had more p d power (M = 4.41, = 1.16) than did those who did not receive such instructions (M = 4.06, SD SD = 1.28), 265.2) = 11.70, = .001, = .29. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, this effect was F(1, p d qualified by a significant Own Power x Own Dominance Instructions interaction, 267.1) = F(1, 4.21, = .04. Negotiators in the low-power condition felt more powerful as a result of receiving p dominance instructions (M = 3.75, = 1.06 vs. = 3.18, = 1.00), = 3.50, = .001, SD M SD t(155) p d = .55, whereas high-power negotiators did not (M = 5.07, = 0.85 vs. = 4.92, = 0.87), SD M SD = 1.05, = .29. t(157) p The main effect of the counterpart’s dominance instructions was also significant. Negotiators whose counterparts received dominance instructions perceived themselves to be less powerful than did negotiators whose counterparts did not receive dominance instructions (M =
conditions, three of these dyads were Matched Low-Power Dominance dyads and one dyad was a Matched High-Power No Dominance dyad. We included the data from these dyads and note any instances in which excluding the data changes key significant results to Manipulation Checks across Mixed-Power Dyads. We first conducted a 2 (own power instructions: low power vs. high power) x 2 (own dominance instructions: no instructions vs. dominance instructions) x 2 (counterpart dominance instructions: no instructions vs. dominance instructions) mixed-models analysis on negotiators’ subjective senses of power in the mixed-power conditions. Negotiators in the high-power condition reported having significantly more power (M = 4.99, SD = 0.86) than did their low-power counterparts (M = 3.46, SD = 1.07), F(1, 155.4) = 148.2, p < .001, d = 1.58. Negotiators given dominance instructions also believed they had more power (M = 4.41, SD = 1.16) than did those who did not receive such instructions (M = 4.06, SD = 1.28), F(1, 265.2) = 11.70, p = .001, d = .29. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, this effect was qualified by a significant Own Power x Own Dominance Instructions interaction, F(1, 267.1) = 4.21, p = .04. Negotiators in the low-power condition felt more powerful as a result of receiving dominance instructions (M = 3.75, SD = 1.06 vs. M = 3.18, SD = 1.00), t(155) = 3.50, p = .001, d = .55, whereas high-power negotiators did not (M = 5.07, SD = 0.85 vs. M = 4.92, SD = 0.87), t(157) = 1.05, p = .29. The main effect of the counterpart’s dominance instructions was also significant. Negotiators whose counterparts received dominance instructions perceived themselves to be less powerful than did negotiators whose counterparts did not receive dominance instructions (M = significance.
Draft%203-1.docx