Videoconference buyer-seller negotiations: a systematic literature review

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3394981/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Videoconference buyer-seller negotiations: a systematic literature review

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3394981/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Negotiations performed through videoconference have traditionally been studied in comparison to other communication media such as face-to-face, audio channels, or instant messaging. In this systematic literature review, we aim at gathering all empirical studies of buyer-seller negotiations performed synchronously by two people using a video system, analyzing the variables studied and the technological evolution of video negotiations. We develop a framework to classify the relevant variables, dividing them into negotiation, communication, and technological variables, and also in objective or subjective variables. We find that there are mixed or inconclusive results concerning negotiation variables such as economic outcomes, negotiation time, satisfaction, power, or trust. Technological variables like screen size, hardware and software used or user familiarity with technology show the evolution of videoconferencing and are very different among studies, which hinders its comparability. Emerging technologies involving extended reality or artificial intelligence may change the game in the negotiation world.

buyer-seller negotiation

videoconference

video communication

systematic literature review

human-computer interaction

Nowadays, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, it is very usual for companies to communicate through videoconference, either internally, or externally with their clients or suppliers. Indeed, having to work from home intensified the use of video communication for personal and business reasons (Waizenegger et al., 2020). Also, e-commerce experimented a substantial growth, as many businesses turned digital and offered goods online, that consumers usually bought in traditional stores (Bhatti et al., 2020). Moreover, when we returned to “normal life”, many businesses implemented some home-office days for their employees or even some positions became 100% remote. This made the use of videoconference software essential for business communication, and therefore also for buyer-seller negotiations.

Negotiations are part of our personal and professional life every day. The base of a negotiation is the interaction of two or more parties that are in an apparent conflict, where the joint solution of this conflict is better than the individual one (Lax and Sebenius, 1986). Negotiations are “mixed-motive” interactions, where there is a need to collaborate to achieve a better mutual agreement, and to compete, to attain our individual goals (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Walton and McKersie, 1965). By collaborating, negotiators may increase the resources available for the negotiation and reach a mutually beneficial agreement, which refers to the integrative potential of a negotiation. If negotiators only compete to claim resources, there is less room for expanding them and achieving a win-win solution (Thompson and Nadler, 2002).

In order to explore the possibilities for integrative potential of a negotiation, parties need to explore the differences in their preferences by communicating with each other. Different communication media have been used to carry out negotiations, from the traditional face-to-face interaction to several computer mediated communication media, such as videoconferencing (Geiger, 2020). Videoconferencing allows us to be closer to real-life face-to-face communication while not being in the same physical location. It involves the use of a certain technology in form of different telecommunication systems and devices that allows users to transmit video, audio and other data through a network (Lowden and Hostetter, 2012). Therefore, processes such as buyer-seller negotiations can also be performed through this medium.

There is a lot of videoconferencing software available, with different integrated features to facilitate communication, with instant messaging and content sharing (screen, applications, or document sharing) being the most common ones. New artificial intelligence tools, such as deepfake software, may also be used in videoconferences. This may create a new range of challenges that need to be researched.

The negotiation literature has studied the use of different communication media (Geiger, 2020) but has usually analyzed video communication in comparison with other media, for example, face-to-face, telephone, or instant messaging. With such intensive use of this technology, there is a need for deepening its analysis of negotiations. Hence, this systematic literature review aims to examine all studies performed on buyer-seller negotiations, where two real people communicate via a videoconference software or device. We have been looking for articles with empirical evidence to find out what has been studied, which aspects of video communication have been evaluated, and what has been the evolution of videoconferencing throughout the years. This research integrates a business and computer science perspective, focusing on human-computer interaction.

After describing the methodology used to perform a systematic literature review (SLR) in section 2, we present the results in section 3. Subsequently, we discuss the findings in section 4, while pointing out directions for future work, and end up with the conclusion in section 5.

We integrated Kitchenham’s guidelines (Kitchenham, 2004; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007) to perform a SLR with PRISMA’s guidelines (Page et al., 2021) to identify and report the relevant studies, following the three main phases: planning the review, conducting the review, and reporting the review. Therefore, after a preliminary literature research, we set the research questions, developed and evaluated the review protocol, including review and primary studies search strategy, study selection criteria, and procedures, study quality assessment checklists and procedures, data extraction strategy, synthesis of the extracted data, and project timetable (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). In this section we describe our preliminary literature research, identify the research questions, define the study selection criteria and procedures and explain how we conducted the review.

2.1. Preliminary literature research

From March to September 2021, we started analyzing several articles related to videoconference negotiations. We also retrieved the articles that were cited in the relevant papers, letting a snowballing effect appear in an unstructured way to better define the scope of the following structured literature review. As stated in the introduction, this research combines the fields of business management/economics and computer science. Thus, we can find relevant articles in publications in both fields.

Regarding negotiation, we can find variations of negotiations that have specific research. For example, group or collaborative decision-making, mediation, or auction are different than “pure” negotiations but are often related. The scope of this review is to include only negotiation or bargaining, which are used as synonyms.

Moreover, negotiations can be about a lot of different topics. Other than business negotiations, typically where a buyer and a seller are involved, there are also other fields where negotiation is studied but are not relevant to this article. For example, psychological or education research on family negotiations, linguistic research on meanings, education research on teaching negotiation, or computer science research on quality of service (QoS) negotiation. Also, business negotiations can also be performed by either two people (dyadic negotiations) or by groups of people, so we decided to use dyadic negotiations to narrow down our scope.

Regarding videoconferences, the body of research appears to be less vast. Negotiation research shows that computers can be used in different ways. The way we are interested in is the use of videoconference as a communication channel, i.e. as a tool (Kersten and Lai, 2007). However, there is also computer software to perform automated negotiations, where a person negotiates with a machine or negotiation support systems.

Often, videoconference negotiations are included in the group of computer-mediated negotiations, which also include e-mail or instant messaging communication where there is no visual access. Therefore, we need to isolate videoconference negotiations from other communication channels.

Additionally, there are several ways of referring to videoconferencing (also written separately or as “video-conferencing”), such as tele-conferencing. Therefore, we will have to include both terms as keywords.

2.2. Research questions

To integrate the business management and computer science perspectives and isolate articles about negotiations carried out through videoconference, we set the following research questions:

RQ1: Which articles specifically study videoconference negotiations?

After the preliminary literature review, we need to retrieve which articles focus specifically on videoconference negotiations instead of a general comparison of different communication media.

RQ2: What specific aspects of video negotiations have been studied?

As video negotiations have both a technical and a social component, it is necessary to point out which technical aspects or characteristics of this type of negotiation may have an impact (process, outcomes...) on the negotiation. The focus lays specifically on how the use of certain videoconference tools or solutions affects negotiation outcomes, either economic or socio-emotional.

RQ3: How has video negotiation evolved throughout the years?

During the preliminary unstructured research performed, we found articles starting in the 1980s to date. However, videoconference solutions were not the same at the beginning as today. It is needed to see if the literature has captured this technological evolution, how the newest videoconference solutions might or might not overcome the limitations of the first studies, and which challenges are we facing today.

2.3. Study selection criteria and procedures

To answer the research questions, the selected articles, either reviews or primary studies, need to fulfill the following inclusion/exclusion criteria, which are developed with the knowledge gained from our preliminary research. Thus, we summarize our inclusion/exclusion criteria in Table 1. Articles will be included or excluded by using database search filters when possible and by the researcher, screening by their title, abstract, or keywords, otherwise.

Table 1

Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Nr.	Criteria
1	Articles about negotiation, not group decision-making, auction, mediation, collaboration, or similar.
2	Articles on business or buyer-seller negotiations, performed by adults. Other negotiations such as family or couple negotiations, linguistic negotiation of meaning, the teaching of negotiation, or quality of service (QoS) negotiation will be excluded.
3	Articles where real people are the ones who negotiate synchronously, using videoconference software only as a tool (Kersten and Lai, 2007). Automated negotiations or negotiations using support systems that intervene in the negotiation will be excluded.
4	Articles about dyadic negotiations, where two negotiators are performing the task. Studies regarding multi-party negotiations will be excluded.
5	Articles with theoretical and empirical findings on negotiations performed through a videoconference system. Articles that do not specifically separate video from other computer-mediated communication media will be excluded.
6	Articles from journals and not proceedings papers, to increase accessibility and availability (Geiger, 2020).

2.4. Conducting the review

According to Wohlin and Prikladnicki’s review on systematic literature reviews in software engineering (2013), it is necessary to complement database searches with other complementary searches. Also, Webster and Watson (2020) recommend a snowballing approach to perform a literature search, starting with the main articles and then going backward to their references and forward to the citations of the papers found.

Therefore, our first step was to find the relevant review articles and meta-analyses through a database search. Then, we used those articles for a reference-based search, and finally, performed a database search for other primary studies.

2.4.1. Review articles’ database search

We performed two different searches, on Web of Science (WoS) and the same two on Scopus. One search included the words “negotiation” and “video” or “conference” (adding a wildcard to incorporate related terms) and the other included “e-negotiation” or “electronic negotiation” or “virtual negotiation”. We searched by topic (including title, abstract, and keywords) different keywords and filtered by only review articles, only articles in English, and only articles from the relevant fields of study (computer science-telecommunication and business management). This search was performed in June 2022 and updated in February 2023 to make sure we have all results.

After performing the four searches, we found three relevant articles that we used as a starting point for our research: Geiger (2020) and Regenbrecht & Langlotz (2015) from the first search and Kersten & Lai (2007) from the second search, where also Geiger (2020) appeared. Furthermore, Geiger (2020) also identifies four other articles classified as meta-analyses, which are: Lu et al. (2017), Stuhlmacher and Citera (2005), Stuhlmacher et al. (2007) and Swaab et al. (2012).

To sum up, these seven systematic reviews and meta-analyses were the starting point to retrieve the relevant primary studies for this present SLR in the reference-based search explained in the following section.

2.4.2. Primary studies’ reference-based search

Foremost, we used our seven relevant review articles and meta-analyses as take-off papers (Skoglund and Runeson, 2009) to find primary studies about videoconference negotiations. We analyzed both the references used in each paper and then looked for other papers that cite each of our reviews. To select the relevant studies, used the inclusion/exclusion criteria described above including articles in English and the relevant research area, and excluding articles that cannot be retrieved. The searches were performed in May-June 2022, updated in January-February 2023, and led to 8 relevant articles.

2.4.3. Primary studies’ database search

After our reference-based search, we performed a database search using WoS and Scopus in the same way as in the review articles. We also applied the filter of “article” to exclude conference papers or book chapters, according to our inclusion/exclusion criterion 6. Then, we merged our results from WoS and Scopus to remove all duplicates. Afterward, we performed a screening of article titles and abstracts to apply the rest of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, to find the relevant primary studies. In case we could not find any conclusive information in titles and abstracts to include or exclude an article, we performed a full-text screening.

Our relevant primary studies came from the first search on negotiation and videoconference. The search on e-negotiation did not turn out any relevant results. The searches were performed on February 13^th, 2023 and our results are displayed as a PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) in Fig. 1.

After the data extraction and synthesis processes, we started analyzing the research questions separately and then integrated the results into a framework to better understand and connect the variables relevant to videoconference negotiations, as described in this section.

3.1. Research questions

3.1.1. RQ1: Which articles specifically study videoconference negotiations?

According to our reference-based search, we have eight relevant studies, and according to our database search, ten. However, some of them are duplicated, which leaves us with 13 relevant papers for our review, as displayed in Table 2. Twelve of them compare videoconference negotiation to another communication medium, being Swaab & Swaab (2009) the only one focusing on videoconferencing when studying sex differences in negotiations. Whereas the first articles compare video negotiations to face-to-face and audio (Short, 1974; Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976), instant messaging or synchronous text communication appears in 1999 with Wachter (1999) and Suh (1999). In the latest article, which is by Kornfield et al. (2021), a new form of interaction appears, namely the negotiation through a telepresence robot.

Additionally, in Daly-Jones et al. (1998), we can see the combination of video communication and the visualization of a document, as an early approximation of the current videoconferencing tools for sharing documents.

3.1.2. RQ2: What specific aspects of video negotiations have been studied?

There is a broad range of variables studied in the 13 articles, either related to the negotiation or other characteristics of the interaction and also focusing on either objective or subjective measures, as summarized in Table 2. Most studies analyze at least one objective negotiation variable being economic outcomes or negotiation time the most researched and complemented with profit distribution or amount of consensus change. The authors also usually combine it with subjective negotiation variables like process or outcome satisfaction, power, trust, or other perception-related variables.

We can also find another type of variables that are not related to negotiation but to the interaction itself or the way it was carried out. For example, we find verbal fluency of videoconference communication or screen size of the device used among the objective variables studied. Regarding the other subjective variables, several articles analyze the perceived richness of the communication media used, the cognitive effort required to use a certain medium or ease of use of technology and the engagement of the negotiation partner with one’s environment.

Table 2

Media and variables studied per article
Nr.	Article	Media studied^a	Negotiation variables^b		Other variables^c
Nr.	Article	Media studied^a	Objective	Subjective	Objective	Subjective
1	Short (1974)	FTF – V – A	EO
2	Turnbull et al. (1976)	FTF – V – A	EO	P, OP
3	Daly-Jones et al. (1998)	V – A		OP	VF	CE
4	Suh (1999)	FTF – V – A – IM	EO, NT	S		MR
5	Wachter (1999)	FTF – V – A – IM	EO, PD	S, P, T
6	Purdy et al. (2000)	FTF – V – A – IM	EO, NT, PD	S, OP		MR
7	Mennecke et al. (2000)	FTF – V – A – IM	NT, CC			MR
8	Schweitzer et al. (2002)	V – A	EO	T, OP
9	Hausen et al. (2006)	FTF – V – A – IM		OP
10	Swaab & Swaab (2009)	V	EO	OP
11	Wang & Doong (2014)	FTF – V – IM	NT	S		CE
12	Kurtzberg et al. (2018)	V – IM	EO	T	SS
13	Kornfield et al. (2021)	V – R	PD	P		PE
^aMedia studied – FTF: Face-to-face, V: video, A: audio, IM: instant messaging, R: robot ^bNegotiation variables – EO: economic outcomes, NT: negotiation time, PD: profit distribution, CC: consensus change, S: process and outcome satisfaction, P: power/dominance, T: trust, OP: other perception variables ^cOther variables – VF: verbal fluency, SS: screen size, MR: perceived media richness, CE: cognitive effort/ease of use of technology, PE: partner’s engagement with the local environment

3.1.3. RQ3: How has video negotiation evolved throughout the years?

The articles in our study date from 1974 to 2021, so we can see an evolution of the technologies used in these almost 50 years. Whereas the earlier articles stressed the fact that video communication also included audio communication (Short, 1974; Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976), the latest already assume that everyone knows how to communicate via videoconference (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018; Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021).

In the beginning, we find that there was a distinction between video communication or videoconferencing, which referred to the use of a TV monitor (Short, 1974; Daly-Jones, Monk, and Watts, 1998), and computer conferencing or desktop conferencing, which meant using a computer (Suh, 1999; Wachter, 1999). Daly-Jones et al. (1998), for example, already describe different technologies associated with videoconferencing and “media spaces”. Around 2000, researchers start using “video-based media” to refer to videoconference or videophone (Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000) and also teleconference (Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002). Other concepts such as multimedia or interactive media group together videoconference and instant messaging communication (Hausen, Fritz, and Schiefer, 2006). Videoconferencing might also be used equivalently to a negotiation support system (NSS) but only in the case that this software is used as a video communication tool, being a passive technology, without other negotiation-enhancing features (H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014). However, NSS usually involve the use of other features that aim at reducing the negotiator’s cognitive effort by helping to structure the negotiation process, evaluate different alternatives, or even predict the other party’s moves (Kersten and Lai, 2007). We see in 2018 that video-based interactions can additionally mean the use of a smartphone (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018), being more recently described as “a well-established mode of distance communication” (Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021).

Analyzing the different technologies used in the relevant articles, we can see an evolution in the hardware and software used, the screen size, the concern for connection speed, and the familiarity of users with the technology. Although these variables are usually just described when explaining the experiment researchers performed (except screen size), they are key to understanding the evolution of videoconference negotiations and the comparability of the studies performed throughout the years.

3.2. Videoconference negotiations variables’ framework

With the study of the defined research questions, we saw that researchers generally study the impact of a negotiation carried out through a certain communication medium on a set of negotiation or communication-related variables. The technological conditions under which a videoconference is performed are mostly noted but are not the object of the study itself or are not controlled for. However, those technological conditions and their evolution are key factors when we want to compare different studies. That is why, we propose a framework to classify the different variables we found in this SLR or other variables that might be studied in future research about videoconference negotiations, as displayed in Fig. 2. We can classify the variables according to their field of study in negotiation, communication, and technological variables, and also according to the data used to measure them, in either objective or subjective variables. This way, we stress the importance of technological variables in this specific part of negotiation research as we integrate the business management and the computer science perspectives in this human-computer interaction approach that is a videoconference negotiation.

3.2.1. Negotiation variables

Starting with the objective negotiation variables, economic outcomes is the most studied one and it is measured as profits or payoffs by adding up the scores set for the negotiation task. The authors find that negotiation through video leads to higher profits than audio (Short, 1974; Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976), also than IM (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018), and similar profits to FTF (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976). Some specific variables have an effect on economic outcomes, as scores are higher when negotiating consonant to one’s personal views (Short, 1974), with eye contact when being female (Swaab and Swaab, 2009) and without eye contact when being male (Swaab and Swaab, 2009). Other studies do not find economic outcome differences when compared to FTF, audio, and IM (Suh, 1999).

Referring to the negotiation time, also named as the time to reach an agreement or negotiation efficiency, video negotiation takes either the same time as FTF (Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000; Suh, 1999; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014) or more than FTF (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000). Compared to audio, the results are contradictory, as video is found to take more time (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Suh, 1999) or less time (Hausen, Fritz, and Schiefer, 2006; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000). Compared to IM, we can find consistent results stating that video negotiation takes less time (Hausen, Fritz, and Schiefer, 2006; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Suh, 1999; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014).

Another measure related to economic outcomes is the difference between the negotiation profits achieved by both negotiators, as in profit inequity or profit distribution (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000) or contract balance (Wachter, 1999). This variable also gives us information about the negotiator’s behavior, being more cooperative, then the difference is smaller and more competitive when the difference is larger (Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000). Indeed, Purdy et al. (2000) find a more competitive behavior in video than in FTF negotiation. However, when comparing video to robot negotiation, Kornfield et al. (2021) do not find a significant difference. However, when negotiating through videoconference, negotiation outcomes appear to be more equal between negotiators when users are perceived to be geographically close and less equal when they are geographically far (Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021). Regarding differences between female and male negotiators, Wachter (1999) does not find a significant difference.

Also related to the negotiation profits, we can find the variable measuring the amount of consensus change, calculating the difference between the payoffs of the initial allocations made by negotiators and the payoffs of the final agreement allocations. In this case, Mennecke et al. (2000) cannot find a significant difference between video, FTF, audio, and IM.

Concerning the subjective negotiation variables and focusing on satisfaction with the negotiation process, studies find that satisfaction in the video condition is the same as FTF (Suh, 1999; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014) and is higher than in audio (Suh, 1999). Compared to IM, we find contradictory results as Wang & Doong (2014) find satisfaction to be higher and Suh (1999) to be lower.

The satisfaction related to the negotiation outcome is found to be similar between video and FTF (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000) or no significant differences between FTF, video, audio, and IM are found (Suh, 1999).

Power or the dominance of one user in the negotiation appears to be easier to exert for women in video and audio than in FTF; as there is more physical distance between negotiators (Wachter, 1999) and is found not significant comparing the interaction through video or a telepresence robot (Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021).

Regarding trust, although Wachter (1999) does not report conclusive results on the video condition, Kurtzberg et al. (2018) find higher levels of trust when the negotiation is performed through videoconference than through IM. More specifically, they find that trust partially mediates the relationship between the communication medium used and the negotiation outcome. Although trust is not a requirement for a higher negotiation outcome, they argue that trust makes the integrative potential of a negotiation easier to achieve. While they do not find dis-trustworthy behavior in their study, they point out that future research should explore trust and distrust in videoconferences. Also, Schweitzer et al. (2002) find a higher level of trust in videoconference with respect to audio negotiation when studying deception, as their users are more able to monitor the effect of the lies they are telling. In general, they find that trust decreases when a person is a target for a lie, but they find that trust increases when a person is a target for a lie in the case of monitoring-dependent lies and visual access. The negotiator who is lying is especially attentive to the other person’s reactions because he/she is monitoring how the other handles the lie, to avoid capitulation risk. This creates a high level of (fake) trust, similar to the trust experienced by negotiators that do not tell monitoring-dependent lies. Actually, Schweitzer et al. (2002) point out that visual access may help negotiators use deception more successfully and increase the likelihood that they will use deception.

Considering the other relationship-related variables, we can highlight Daly-Jones et al. (1998) studying interpersonal awareness, meaning the importance of being aware of the attention that the other person is paying to the conversation, for example. When the negotiation is performed via video and not audio, interpersonal awareness is higher. This means that one negotiator can monitor if the other one is focusing on what the first one is saying or active listening rather than concentrating on something else. However, they point out that this increased attentional status might be due to the novelty effect of using video communication back in 1998 or the fact that there is a discrepancy in eye contact, which can make users have to focus more. They also argue that those barriers will be overcome with time, as people will get used to video communication.

The desire for future interaction does not appear to be significantly different in the video, FTF, and audio negotiations, it is only found to be higher than in IM (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000). Concerning the development of a shared understanding during the negotiation, meaning that negotiators take into account the other parties’ interests to find a common viewpoint, Swaab & Swaab (2009) find different results depending on the negotiator’s gender. For females, they find that eye contact is needed to develop a shared understanding that will bring higher negotiation outcomes. However, for males, this shared understanding is better developed without eye contact, leading then to higher negotiation outcomes.

3.2.2. Communication variables

In terms of the objective communication variables, we can highlight Daly-Jones et al. (1998) studying verbal fluency, measured by the number of turns spoken, the number of words used in every turn, overlapping speech, and vocal or visual backchannels. The authors find that it is not significantly higher in video communication than in audio.

Regarding the subjective communication variables, some studies have focused on the media richness theory (Daft and Lengel, 1984, 1986) and evaluated if the negotiator’s perceptions of the media used corresponded to the theory’s predictions. Video appears to be a richer medium than audio (Suh, 1999; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000), and IM (Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000) but its richness is similar to FTF (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000).

Also, Daly-Jones et al. (1998) analyze interpersonal awareness, detecting that it is higher when the negotiation is performed via video and not audio. At last, Kornfield et al. (2021) are also concerned about the partner’s engagement with the local environment. As they compare videoconference to a telepresence robot, they observe that partners negotiating via videoconference are less engaged with the local environment.

3.2.3. Technological variables

Starting with the objective technological variables and regarding the hardware used, we can see that in the first articles, a closed circuit television with a TV monitor was used for the video negotiation (Short, 1974; Daly-Jones, Monk, and Watts, 1998). After that, in 1999–2000 negotiators use a videophone (Wachter, 1999; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000), and the use of desktop computers also began and carries on until nowadays (Suh, 1999; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002; Hausen, Fritz, and Schiefer, 2006; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014; Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021). We can also see the use of newer versions of personal computers such as laptops in 2018, where also the first study with a smartphone appears (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018). In the latest article, the use of a desktop computer is compared to a telepresence robot (Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021).

If we focus on the software used in the negotiations performed via computer, when specified, an early Intel ProShare Video System 150 is used by Suh (1999); and own software is developed for the studies of Hausen et al. (2006) and Wang and Doong (2014). It is after 2018 with Kurtzberg et al. (2018) and also Kornfield et al. (2021), that the broadly known software Skype is used in videoconference negotiations.

Among the studies that specify screen size, we can find either very small screens such as videophone’s 3-inch screens (Wachter, 1999; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000) or smartphone screens (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018) or relatively large or very large screens, from 17 to 27 inch to be exact (Short, 1974; Daly-Jones, Monk, and Watts, 1998; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014; Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018; Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021). Mennecke et al. (2000) already point out that, although only limited research has been performed at that point referring to video communication and screen size, there are findings stating that user’s ratings of small screens are more negative than those of larger screens (Duncanson and Williams, 1973). Indeed, Kurtzberg et al. (2018) focus on the effect of screen size on negotiation performance, finding that larger screens lead to higher individual and joint gains. In fact, the highest joint gains are achieved when both negotiators use large screens.

Another interesting finding showing the evolution of videoconferencing is the concern of some studies for the speed of their connections or the frame transmission. For example, Suh (1999) uses a connection transmitting 15 frames per second, whereas Mennecke et al. (2000) there is a 2–5 frames per second refresh rate. Schweitzer et al. (2002) use a 112–128 kbps line and Wang and Doong (2014) make sure all their users have the same high network speed to perform the experiment. However, in the two latest studies, namely Kurtzberg et al. (2018) and Kornfield et al. (2021), the use of Internet already seems to be normal, and there is no concern about the transmission speed anymore. Indeed, researchers already note in their limitations that the transmission speed may have affected their results. Earlier articles such as Daly-Jones et al. (1998) already analyze different video systems showing concern about the speed of the video links and discussing that there are bandwidth restrictions that impact its transmission clarity. Also, Purdy et al. (2000) argue that with the growth of internet bandwidth, also technologies will evolve and combinations of different media like videoconferencing with instant messaging will be developed, which is an area of future research. Furthermore, Mennecke et al. (2000) also identify that the slow refresh rate of their videophone needs to be taken into account when analyzing the use of that medium.

Referring to the subjective technological variables, the cognitive effort is measured in two studies, finding that videoconference demands more effort than audio negotiation (Daly-Jones, Monk, and Watts, 1998); but that when the task matches the medium used, for example, when the task is less analyzable and the negotiation is performed through videoconference or FTF, the cognitive effort is lower (H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014). Similarly, Kornfield et al. (2021) measure the ease of use of the technology, finding that videoconference is perceived to be easier to use than the telepresence robot.

With the evolution of videoconference systems, also the familiarity of users with the technology varies. For example, In Suh’s study (1999), their participants have very little experience with videoconferencing, as they state in their limitations, and they did not control for possible novelty effects in their experiments. Mennecke et al. (2000) also point out that the experience of users with the video medium needs to be taken into account. In their experiment, negotiators had more experience with communication via traditional channels such as FTF and telephone rather than videoconference. Therefore, they also indicate in their limitations that this should be considered to interpret their results.

Similarly, in Purdy et al. (2000), study participants did not have any prior experience with videoconferencing. However, we can see a shift after 2006 as in Hausen et al. (2006), one of the assumptions of their study is that users are familiar with the handling of the communication system designed. Although Swaab & Swaab (2009) do not specify if the users are acquainted with the system, they mention the term “regular videoconference”, indicating familiarity. The concern of familiarity is also present in Wang & Doong (2014), as they question their participants before the experiment, finding that 122 out of 144 users have online negotiation experience. Another change can be noticed after 2018, as in Kurtzberg et al. (2018) the familiarity with videoconference or video devices is already so high that they even allow the participants to use their own laptop and smartphone devices for the study. Analogously, to Kornfield et al. (2021) communicating via videoconference is described as mainstream, where participants are used to collaborating remotely with geographically dispersed professional teams, online communities, or even romantic relationships.

Indeed, the use of new technology might create a “novelty effect” that can distort results. For example, Daly-Jones et al. (1998) point out the enthusiasm users show in their subjective ratings in the video condition and Suh (1999) notes that video participants are using a “state-of-the-art” technology which might explain a higher process satisfaction. Also, Mennecke et al. (2000) state that the introduction of a novelty element, for example, video as a new communication medium, changes the negotiation process, as users need to first figure out other processes before focusing on the negotiation itself.

Moreover, Purdy et al. (2000) specify that the introduction of a new medium means that users need to compensate for the reduction of conventional nonverbal and para linguistic cues; which might lead to a higher joint outcome, which in this case is similar to FTF. We can also see this novelty effect in Kornfield et al. (2021) but this time the new medium is a telepresence robot instead of videoconferencing. The authors point out that negotiators’ perceptions might be altered by the enthusiasm of communicating via such a new medium.

The technological evolution of videoconference negotiations in terms of hardware and software used, screen sizes, connection speed, user familiarity with technology, and novelty effects, makes that one cannot directly compare studies performed at different points in time.

Taking our results into account, we have divided our discussion into four main points. We start by arguing the similarity that videoconference negotiations have with FTF communication and continue to describe new scenarios we might face with the appearance of new negotiation media. Also, we make the distinction between negotiating with someone we already know, versus with a stranger in an experimental setting. At last, we acknowledge the importance of studying negotiations performed by combining several media or using videoconference systems in different ways.

4.1. Similarity to FTF

Analyzing the several results of the primary studies of this systematic literature research, we can see that in many cases, videoconference negotiation leads to very similar or not significantly different results than FTF negotiation. More specifically, regarding objective negotiation variables, we have seen similar results in terms of economic outcomes (Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976; Suh, 1999; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000) and negotiation time (Suh, 1999; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014) or even the amount of consensus change (Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000). If we focus on subjective negotiation variables, also negotiation process satisfaction (Suh, 1999; H.-C. Wang and Doong, 2014) and outcome satisfaction (Suh, 1999; Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000) are very close in the video and FTF conditions. Similarly, the successful use of deception and the likelihood of using deception (Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002) is evaluated equally in both cases. Moreover, the desire for future interaction is not found to be significantly different (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000) in both scenarios. Indeed, the richness reported by those two media is stated to be similar (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000; Mennecke, Valacich, and Wheeler, 2000) and both media are often grouped together to study visual contact or visual access (Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002; Swaab and Swaab, 2009). Nevertheless, Purdy et al. (2000) discuss that they cannot equivocally state that negotiating in person or through videoconference is the same.

As Ahearne et al. (2022) point out in their conceptual paper, research on negotiations through videoconference and its difference from FTF is limited. They argue that newer software can actually offer a videoconference experience close to FTF, as micro-expressions of one’s face are visible, although the observation of complete body language or eye contact is still not possible. They consider that eye contact is an important element to build rapport and to connect with the other party. Other difficulties that video negotiations present are the nonverbal cues available or videoconference fatigue.

4.1.1. Eye contact

The problem of eye contact is already reported in Daly-Jones et al.’s experiment (1998), where there is no eye contact as the camera is placed on the side of the person. The authors show interest in the eye contact difficulty and they explain that videoconferencing developers try to improve technology to match eye contact (Ishii, Kobayashi, and Grudin, 1993). However, they also acknowledge that users will get used to this issue and will no longer affect communication. From our selected studies, also Purdy et al. (2000) notice the difficulty of eye contact in the technologies they use and Swaab and Swaab (2009) try to replicate eye contact using a special device.

In fact, Bohannon et al. (2013) review research related to eye contact in videoconference communication with the technologies available at the time, concluding that it is an important matter in terms of communication efficacy, trust, or impression formation. They qualify the placement of the camera above the screen as a good solution, as users rapidly adapt to this setting. However, they report higher user satisfaction when other solutions are applied, for example, using a video tunnel or installing a camera on the screen.

Although in our latest studies (Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018; Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021) the problem of eye contact is not reported, it still appears as a studied variable in negotiation research (Boothby, Cooney, and Schweitzer, 2023) and trying to be improved in videoconference systems (Park, Heo, and Lee, 2021).

4.1.2. Nonverbal cues

Another element that differentiates FTF from video communication is the fact that the picture displayed in videoconferences only shows the head and shoulders of the other party; which does not allow to see certain nonverbal cues coming from other parts of the body. Researchers have investigated to overcome this problem by using new technologies such as negotiation through avatars.

Focusing on group communication, Clayes and Anderson (2007) set up groups of three performing different tasks, including a business meeting task similar to a negotiation, and compare videoconferencing with the use of static avatar icons. Also, Ang et al. (2013) analyze avatar communication with 12 and 13-year-old users in a non-business setting, also compared to videoconferencing. They use AvatarKinect, a software that uses avatars reacting to emotional and gesture cues, an improved technology with respect to the study previously commented. In newer studies such as Abdullah et al. (2021), also focusing on group communication, we can see that technology has evolved as an embodied virtual reality environment is used, where facial and even finger tracking to transmit to avatars is possible.

4.1.3. Videoconference fatigue

Another problem of videoconferencing in relation to FTF communication is videoconference fatigue, which is the “non-pathological tiredness arising from videoconferencing which manifests in physical, emotional, cognitive and social ways” (Li and Yee, 2022), as reviewed by Li and Yee (2022) and also reported by Ahearne et al. (2022). In video communication, users retrieve non-verbal cues only from the head and shoulders of the other users, being forced to be more attentive to the words and available cues. Furthermore, sometimes they need to pay attention to several faces and to who is saying what, which is a more demanding task compared to FTF communication. Also, some users also divide their attention to several tasks at the same time and even spend the whole day in video meetings, leading to videoconference fatigue.

Having to retrieve non-verbal cues only from the head and shoulders of the other users, being forced to be more attentive to the words and available cues create videoconference fatigue (Ahearne et al., 2022; Li and Yee, 2022), a problem not present in FTF settings.

4.2. New negotiation media

In the latest study we have analyzed, Kornfield et al. (2021) introduce a new medium to negotiate, namely a telepresence robot. Looking into the future of negotiation interactions, Haggenmüller et al. (2022) develop future scenarios and state that electronic media will be intensively used by negotiators, showing a general tolerance of new technologies. If we look into computer science research, we can see the development of new technologies that can potentially be used in the field of negotiation that can lead to negotiator misrepresentation, challenge the perception of media richness, and make the comparability among studies, difficult.

4.2.1. Emerging technologies

The use of avatars in other negotiation studies out of our scope (Clayes and Anderson, 2007; Ang et al., 2013; Abdullah et al., 2021) bring remote negotiations closer to FTF communication. Already more than 20 years ago, Teich et al. (1999) see virtual meetings, virtual handshakes, and virtual eye contact as technologies to be implemented in the short term; and we can also find some studies that analyze the effects on social presence of 2D and 3D videoconferencing (J. Hauber et al., 2005; Jörg Hauber et al., 2006; Joerg Hauber et al., 2012).

As reviewed by Shen et al. (2023), immersive communication media are being developed, where user interaction is much closer to a FTF interaction. The authors mention extended reality, haptic and holographic communication as the three main forms of immersive communication.

For example, extended reality covers a wide range of technologies, from augmented reality to virtual reality, where there is a combination of sensory data with virtual environments, producing artificial sceneries, using headsets or portable display devices (Shen et al., 2023). Earlier studies (H. Regenbrecht et al., 2003, 2004) already present an approach to 3D videoconferencing but collaborative virtual applications such as VirtualCube (Zhang et al., 2022) can synthesize users and place them in the same environment for a 3D videoconference. Furthermore, those technologies are also evolving to be used in mobile or wearable devices rather than only as desktop hardware (Young et al., 2019, 2020).

Combining extended reality with other technologies such as artificial intelligence or blockchain, we can find a new paradigm of the metaverse, as a fully immersive virtual shared space (Y. Wang et al., 2023).

Whereas haptic communication involves adding a sense of touch using specific devices, holographic communication shows a 3D image of remote users that can be viewed with the naked eye (Shen et al., 2023). When applied to a teleconference, as in HoloKinect’s holographic 3D videoconferencing (Siemonsma and Bell, 2022), multiple sensors can capture a user’s visual and audio information and reproduce them to the other user as a hologram. If we combine a holographic 3D videoconference with a haptic communication device; we could even, for example, simulate a handshake (Shen et al., 2023) to “seal the deal” in a negotiation.

All in all, the future evolution of such technologies or a combination of them could provide a remote negotiation experience that is very close to a FTF setting.

4.2.2. Negotiator misrepresentation

Avatars, extended reality, metaverse interactions, haptic technologies, or holograms can show a virtual representation of our physical self, but they can also be an altered version of us.

We can already find certain software that purposedly alters or replace our appearance or our voice, which is the case of deepfakes and can be implemented for negotiations (Baten and Hoque, 2021; Boothby, Cooney, and Schweitzer, 2023). A deepfake is a manipulation of content, either visual or auditory, or both, based on deep learning (Kietzmann et al., 2020; Verdoliva, 2020; Mirsky and Lee, 2021). Actually, in June 2022, the at that time mayors of Berlin, Madrid, and Vienna held videoconferences with supposedly Kyiv’s mayor Vitali Klitschko and realized that something was off, so they ended the conversation (Oltermann, 2022). It was indeed a deepfake of Klitschko, meaning that someone else was behind Klitschko’s image. It took Berlin’s former Mayor Franziska Giffey 15 minutes to realize that there was something wrong. Indeed, deepfake technology allows real-time alteration of one’s image or voice and it can be used in a regular videoconference.

Although researchers have focused on the generation and detection of deepfakes and their dangers (for example, Kietzmann et al. 2020; Verdoliva 2020; Tolosana et al. 2020; Mirsky and Lee 2021). Imagine that a client is used to negotiating with a certain supplier, they trust each other and have a good bond, but this supplier goes on holiday. A supplier’s colleague could potentially use a deepfake software to show the trusted supplier’s image and be the one to further negotiate, trying to benefit from that stronger relationship. Would the client notice? How would that affect their relationship? How would newer technologies affect people’s bonds? An advantage of knowing your negotiation partner might be the detection of possible negotiator misrepresentation. If negotiators previously know each other and already have a bond or built trust, it can be more difficult to be fooled by a deepfake software that changes one’s appearance or voice. However, as deepfake software is getting more precise and easier to use, it can be harder to detect, as Baten and Hoque (2021) warn.

However, there are also positive implementations of emerging technology that could be highly beneficial for negotiations. For example, negotiation research, as seen in the studies analyzed in this review, is highly based on experiments. This way, deepfakes can be used in social science research as a way to control experimental manipulations (Eberl, Kühn, and Wolbring, 2022). Another example is discrimination by gender, age, or by race, which is an important study direction in negotiation research (Boothby, Cooney, and Schweitzer, 2023). In this case, deepfakes could be implemented, as in the study by Haut et al. (2021), to analyze credibility depending on race by using deepfakes in videoconferencing.

There are also many occasions where business negotiations might happen between people speaking different languages. Then deepfakes could be used to implement real-time translation between different languages (Ke, 2022) or as an assistive technology translating from or to sign language (Sugandhi, Kumar, and Kaur, 2021; Nguyen et al., 2021; Maghraby et al., 2021), as pointed out years ago by Teich et al. (1999).

How this representation or misrepresentation of users can affect negotiation is yet to be explored. Therefore, future research should take into account how new technologies such as deepfakes can affect videoconference negotiations.

4.2.3. Comparability of different technologies

Another question is how we will analyze studies performed at different times with different technologies. The use of new technologies or the evolution of existing ones makes that studies that are far apart are not comparable, as Suh (1999) and Wheeler et al. (1995) note. Also, the user’s familiarity with technology and novelty effects, as we have seen in our studies and also pointed out by Wheeler et al. (1995), influences the user’s perceptions and the way they use technology. The authors argue that if researchers aim at measuring media effectiveness in terms of perceptions or performance, studies should be based on the underlying dimensions of communication, for example, symbol variety and rehearsability, and the learning curve of using those technologies over time.

Indeed, if we aim at increasing comparability, future research could replicate older studies, taking this gained knowledge into account and creating settings that allow comparability with newer technologies.

4.3. Negotiating with someone we know

Many of the studies included in this systematic review measure relationship-related variables such as trust (Wachter, 1999; Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002; Kurtzberg, Kang, and Naquin, 2018), power or dominance (Turnbull, Strickland, and Shaver, 1976; Kornfield, Rae, and Mutlu, 2021), interpersonal awareness (Daly-Jones, Monk, and Watts, 1998), degree of conflict (Wachter, 1999), desire for future negotiation interaction (Purdy, Nye, and Balakrishnan, 2000), deception and retaliation (Schweitzer, Brodt, and Croson, 2002), shared understanding (Swaab and Swaab, 2009) or excellence of coordination (Hausen, Fritz, and Schiefer, 2006). Nevertheless, in all experiments performed, we find a negotiation between two people that do not know each other. This fact is not representative of real-life negotiations, where buyers and sellers use to know each other and interact over time.

In fact, in previous studies performed interviewing experienced negotiators, we found that the focus on a long-term stable relationship affects the negotiator’s behavior; as strategies that might damage the relationship are avoided and parties are more concerned about building trust and maintaining the relationship rather than in a single negotiation’s profit maximization (Prat, 2014).

If there is a negotiation between two strangers, how can negotiators be sure that the person is to be trusted? Maybe they assume so because it is a laboratory experiment within a research project, but what would happen in real life? Would people negotiate through videoconference about an important project when they do not know each other, or they have never seen each other in person? In this matter and regarding group decision-making, Damian (2002) notes the importance of initial face-to-face contact before starting videoconference communication. Furthermore, knowing about the existence of deepfakes, how can one be sure that the person they are seeing on the videoconference really is the person they are supposed to negotiate with? Kurtzberg et al. (2018) point out that they did not find dis-trustworthy behavior in their study, arguing that their participants had limited context, relationship, and task incentives but acknowledge that trust and distrust in video communication should be explored in future studies.

4.4. Multimodal negotiations

Furthermore, the studies in this systematic literature review focus on the use of one communication medium or another to perform negotiations. However, newer technologies enable the simultaneous use of different media. Only in Daly-Jones et al. (1998) we can see a combination of video communication with document sharing, which is a very common tool videoconference software offer nowadays. Either the combination of different media, the use of certain tools such as shared data, or the choice of different settings in a videoconference session may have an impact on the negotiation and are key points for future research.

4.4.1. Media combinations

As Geiger (2020) points out, there is a research gap on media combinations in negotiations. Indeed, different media can be combined, either in parallel or sequentially. Some negotiation tasks might be more easily achieved using email; other more sensitive topics are better handled face-to-face or some urgent matters can be solved via videoconference (Ahearne et al., 2022); as different media might be used in different stages of interaction (Moffett, Folse, and Palmatier, 2021) or as it is more effective to handle structured discussions asynchronously before a videoconference session in group negotiations (Damian, Lanubile, and Mallardo, 2008). Also, Akrout and Woodside (2023), while studying trust climate in negotiations, note that the perception or importance given to certain environmental attributes may be altered when using digital multi-format communication tools, especially with the use of real-time interactive videoconferencing.

4.4.2. Videoconferencing with shared data

For example, in the earlier versions of videoconferencing, Wheeler et al. (1995) use software with a shared spreadsheet to perform different kinds of tasks and Damian (2002) finds a shared electronic workspace to support video communication useful for conflict resolution. In other studies, Clayes and Anderson (2007) also combine video or avatar communication with shared data on the screen, although users could not choose what they saw or switch between settings. In a newer study on group negotiation, Abdullah et al. (2021) also combine video with shared data, where the “UseTogether” software allowed participants to move a mouse over the displayed data.

4.4.3. Choice of settings

The specific use of technology might also be different from person to person. In the case of videoconferencing, where users can choose between different screen settings or have different tools available, the impact on a negotiation might not be the same if, for example, they display the remote partner’s image on full screen or if they are focusing on a shared document and only hearing the partner’s voice (Wheeler, Valacich, and Alavi, 1995). When using new technologies with a wider range of options available, these differences might be more salient or have a greater impact on the negotiation.

Videoconference negotiations have been studied in comparison to other communication media but there is a need to analyze them separately, taking into account their own characteristics. In this SLR we identify the studies that analyze videoconference negotiations, the variables studied, and describe its technological evolution. We have created a framework of analysis of videoconference negotiation variables by dividing them by field of study in negotiation, communication, or technological variables; and also, according to the data analyzed in objective and subjective variables.

Although the results obtained in the empirical studies contained in this SLR lead to similar results in video and face-to-face negotiations, there are differences in terms of eye contact and the availability of non-verbal cues. There has been an important evolution of videoconference technologies and their user familiarity, that still goes on nowadays introducing 3D, extended reality, and artificial intelligence systems, which may lead to negotiator misrepresentation, and can hinder comparability among studies. Furthermore, videoconferencing also allows the combination of different media, tools to share data, or several choices of settings that may also influence negotiations. All in all, the broad use of videoconferencing for business and the constant evolution of its technology advise a need for intensifying research on this particular topic.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare relevant to this article’s content.

Availability of data and materials

As it is a literature review, the analyzed data are the relevant articles referenced below.

Abdullah, A.; J. Kolkmeier; V. Lo; and M. Neff (2021). Videoconference and Embodied VR: Communication Patterns across Task and Medium. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. CSCW2, 2021.
Ahearne, Michael; Yashar Atefi; Son K. Lam; and Mohsen Pourmasoudi (2022). The Future of Buyer–Seller Interactions: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 50, no. 1, January 2022, pp. 22–45.
Akrout, H.; and A.G. Woodside (2023). Trust Climate in International Business-To-Business E-Negotiations: Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing.
Ang, Chee Siang; Ania Bobrowicz; Panote Siriaraya; Joshua Trickey; and Kate Winspear (2013). Effects of Gesture-Based Avatar-Mediated Communication on Brainstorming and Negotiation Tasks among Younger Users. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 3, May 2013, pp. 1204–11.
Baten, Raiyan Abdul; and Ehsan Hoque (2021). Technology-Driven Alteration of Nonverbal Cues and Its Effects on Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, 2021, pp. 35–47.
Bhatti, Anam; Hamza Akram; Hafiz Basit; Ahmed Khan; Syeda Mahwish; Raza Naqvi; and Muhammad Bilal (2020). E-Commerce Trends during COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, vol. 13, June 2020.
Bohannon, Leanne S.; Andrew M. Herbert; Jeff B. Pelz; and Esa M. Rantanen (2013). Eye Contact and Video-Mediated Communication: A Review. Displays, vol. 34, no. 2, April 2013, pp. 177–85.
Boothby, Erica J.; Gus Cooney; and Maurice E. Schweitzer (2023). Embracing Complexity: A Review of Negotiation Research. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 74, no. 1, 2023, pp. 299–332.
Clayes, Emma L.; and Anne H. Anderson (2007). Real Faces and Robot Faces: The Effects of Representation on Computer-Mediated Communication. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 65, no. 6, June 2007, pp. 480–96.
Daft, Richard L.; and Robert H. Lengel (1984). Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6, 1984. US: JAI Press, Inc., pp. 191–233.
--- (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science, vol. 32, no. 5, 1986. INFORMS, pp. 554–71.
Daly-Jones, O; A Monk; and L Watts (1998). Some Advantages of Video Conferencing over High-Quality Audio Conferencing: Fluency and Awareness of Attentional Focus. International Journal Of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 49, no. 1, July 1998, pp. 21–58.
Damian, Daniela (2002). An Empirical Study of a Multimedia Group Support System for Distributed Software Requirements Meetings. E-Service Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 2002. Indiana University Press, pp. 43–60.
Damian, Daniela; Filippo Lanubile; and Teresa Mallardo (2008). On the Need for Mixed Media in Distributed Requirements Negotiations. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 34, no. 1, 2008, pp. 116–32.
Duncanson, James P.; and Arthur D. Williams (1973). Video Conferencing: Reactions of Users. Human Factors, vol. 15, no. 5, October 1973. SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 471–85.
Eberl, Andreas; Juliane Kühn; and Tobias Wolbring (2022). Using Deepfakes for Experiments in the Social Sciences - A Pilot Study. Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 7, November 2022, p. 907199.
Geiger, Ingmar (2020). From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 29, no. 2, April 2020, pp. 207–50.
Haggenmüller, S.; P. Oehlschläger; U. Herbst; and M. Voeth (2022). Time for Change? Scenario Analysis on Buyer–Seller Negotiations. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, 2022. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd.
Hauber, J.; H. Regenbrecht; A. Hills; A. Cockburn; and M. Billinghurst (2005). Social Presence in Two- and Three-Dimensional Videoconferencing In: Presence 2005. London, England: University of Canterbury. Computer Science and Software Engineering., pp. 189–98.
Hauber, Joerg; Holger Regenbrecht; Andy Cockburn; and Mark Billinghurst (2012). The Impact of Collaborative Style on the Perception of 2D and 3D Videoconferencing Interfaces. The Open Software Engineering Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, June 2012.
Hauber, Jörg; Holger Regenbrecht; Mark Billinghurst; and Andy Cockburn (2006). Spatiality in Videoconferencing: Trade-Offs between Efficiency and Social Presence In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. CSCW ’06. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 413–22.
Hausen, T.; M. Fritz; and G. Schiefer (2006). Potential of Electronic Trading in Complex Supply Chains: An Experimental Study. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 104, no. 2, 2006, pp. 580–97.
Haut, Kurtis; Caleb Wohn; Victor Antony; Aidan Goldfarb; Melissa Welsh; Dillanie Sumanthiran; Ji-ze Jang; Md Ali; and Ehsan Hoque (2021). Could You Become More Credible by Being White? Assessing Impact of Race on Credibility with Deepfakes. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2102.08054.
Ishii, Hiroshi; Minoru Kobayashi; and Jonathan Grudin (1993). Integration of Interpersonal Space and Shared Workspace: ClearBoard Design and Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 4, October 1993, pp. 349–75.
Ke, Xin (2022). English Synchronous Real-Time Translation Method Based on Reinforcement Learning. Wireless Networks.
Kersten, Gregory E.; and Hsiangchu Lai (2007). Negotiation Support and E-Negotiation Systems: An Overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 16, no. 6, November 2007, pp. 553–86.
Kietzmann, Jan; Linda W. Lee; Ian P. McCarthy; and Tim C. Kietzmann (2020). Deepfakes: Trick or Treat? Business Horizons, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING,, vol. 63, no. 2, March 2020, pp. 135–46.
Kitchenham, Barbara (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Joint Technical Report, Computer Science Department, 2004, Keele University (TR/ SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (0400011T.1), 33.
Kitchenham, Barbara; and Stuart Charters (2007). Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University. Citeseer.
Kornfield, R; I Rae; and B Mutlu (2021). So Close and Yet So Far: How Embodiment Shapes the Effects of Distance in Remote Collaboration. Communication Studies, vol. 72, no. 6, November 2021, pp. 967–93.
Kurtzberg, Terri R.; Sanghoon Kang; and Charles E. Naquin (2018). The Effect of Screen Size and E-Communication Richness on Negotiation Performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 27, no. 4, August 2018, pp. 573–92.
Lax, David A.; and James K. Sebenius (1986). The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: London: Free Press ; Collier Macmillan.
Li, Benjamin (Benjy) J.; and Andrew Z.H. Yee (2022). Understanding Videoconference Fatigue: A Systematic Review of Dimensions, Antecedents and Theories. Internet Research, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, January 2022.
Lowden, Robert J.; and Carol Hostetter (2012). Access, Utility, Imperfection: The Impact of Videoconferencing on Perceptions of Social Presence. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 2, March 2012, pp. 377–83.
Lu, Serena Changhong; Dejun Tony Kong; Donald L. Ferrin; and Kurt T. Dirks (2017). What Are the Determinants of Interpersonal Trust in Dyadic Negotiations? Meta-Analytic Evidence and Implications for Future Research. Journal of Trust Research, vol. 7, no. 1, January 2017, pp. 22–50.
Maghraby, Ashwag; Safaa Qutub; Afraa Alandijani; Huda Alandijani; Linah Bakhsh; and Nuha Alharbi (2021). A Real-Time Translation of Arabic Video Contents to Arabic Sign Language In: 2021 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pp. 1008–13.
Mennecke, Brian E.; Joseph S. Valacich; and Bradley C. Wheeler (2000). The Effects of Media and Task on User Performance: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 9, no. 6, November 2000, pp. 507–29.
Mirsky, Yisroel; and Wenke Lee (2021). The Creation and Detection of Deepfakes: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 1, January 2021, p. 7:1–7:41.
Moffett, Jordan W.; Judith Anne Garretson Folse; and Robert W. Palmatier (2021). A Theory of Multiformat Communication: Mechanisms, Dynamics, and Strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 49, no. 3, May 2021, pp. 441–61.
Nguyen, Lan Thao; Florian Schicktanz; Aeneas Stankowski; and Eleftherios Avramidis (2021). Evaluating the Translation of Speech to Virtually-Performed Sign Language on AR Glasses In: 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), pp. 141–44.
Oltermann, Philip (2022). European Politicians Duped into Deepfake Video Calls with Mayor of Kyiv. The Guardian, June 25, sec. World news.
Page, Matthew J.; Joanne E. McKenzie; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C. Hoffmann; Cynthia D. Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M. Tetzlaff; Elie A. Akl; Sue E. Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M. Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M. Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W. Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A. McGuinness; Lesley A. Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C. Tricco; Vivian A. Welch; Penny Whiting; and David Moher (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ, vol. 372, March 2021. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, p. n71.
Park, Wooyeong; Jeongyun Heo; and Jiyoon Lee (2021). Talking Through the Eyes: User Experience Design for Eye Gaze Redirection in Live Video Conferencing In M. Kurosu (ed): Human-Computer Interaction: Interaction Techniques and Novel Applications, Hcii 2021, Pt Ii. Cham: Springer International Publishing Ag, 12763:pp. 75–88.
Prat, Mireia (2014). Sales Negotiations in Professional Service Firms: An Exploratory Study on Agenda Setting and Issue Management. BestMasters. Gabler Verlag.
Purdy, Jill M.; Pete Nye; and P.V. (Sundar) Balakrishnan (2000). The Impact of Communication Media on Negotiation Outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 11, no. 2, February 2000. MCB UP Ltd, pp. 162–87.
Regenbrecht, H.; T. Lum; P. Kohler; C. Ott; M. Wagner; W. Wilke; and E. Mueller (2004). Using Augmented Virtuality for Remote Collaboration. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 13, no. 3, June 2004, pp. 338–54.
Regenbrecht, H.; C. Ott; M. Wagner; T. Lum; P. Kohler; W. Wilke; and E. Mueller (2003). An Augmented Virtuality Approach to 3D Videoconferencing In: The Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2003. Proceedings., pp. 290–91.
Regenbrecht, Holger; and Tobias Langlotz (2015). Mutual Gaze Support in Videoconferencing Reviewed. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 37, no. 1, November 2015.
Schweitzer, M. E.; S. E. Brodt; and R. T. A. Croson (2002). Seeing and Believing: Visual Access and the Strategic Use of Deception. International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 13, no. 3, 2002. Bowling Green: Center Advanced Studies Management, pp. 258–75.
Shen, Xuemin (Sherman); Jie Gao; Mushu Li; Conghao Zhou; Shisheng Hu; Mingcheng He; and Weihua Zhuang (2023). Toward Immersive Communications in 6G. Frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 4, 2023.
Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of Medium of Communication on Experimental Negotiation. Human Relations, vol. 27, no. 3, 1974. US: Sage Publications, pp. 225–34.
Siemonsma, Stephen; and Tyler Bell (2022). HoloKinect: Holographic 3D Video Conferencing. Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, January 2022. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 8118.
Skoglund, Mats; and Per Runeson (2009). Reference-Based Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. EASE’09. Swindon, GBR: BCS Learning & Development Ltd., pp. 31–40.
Stuhlmacher, Alice F.; and Maryalice Citera (2005). Hostile Behavior and Profit in Virtual Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, September 2005, pp. 69–93.
Stuhlmacher, Alice F.; Maryalice Citera; and Toni Willis (2007). Gender Differences in Virtual Negotiation: Theory and Research. Sex Roles, vol. 57, no. 5, September 2007, pp. 329–39.
Sugandhi; Parteek Kumar; and Sanmeet Kaur (2021). Indian Sign Language Generation System. Computer, vol. 54, no. 3, March 2021, pp. 37–46.
Suh, Kil Soo (1999). Impact of Communication Medium on Task Performance and Satisfaction: An Examination of Media-Richness Theory. Information & Management, vol. 35, no. 5, May 1999, pp. 295–312.
Swaab, Roderick I.; Adam D. Galinsky; Victoria Medvec; and Daniel A. Diermeier (2012). The Communication Orientation Model: Explaining the Diverse Effects of Sight, Sound, and Synchronicity on Negotiation and Group Decision-Making Outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 16, no. 1, February 2012. SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 25–53.
Swaab, Roderick I.; and Dick F. Swaab (2009). Sex Differences in the Effects of Visual Contact and Eye Contact in Negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 1, January 2009, pp. 129–36.
Teich, J; H Wallenius; and J Wallenius (1999). World-Wide-Web Technology in Support of Negotiation and Communication. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, vol. 17, nos. 1–2, 1999, pp. 223–39.
Thompson, Leigh; and Janice Nadler (2002). Negotiating via Information Technology: Theory and Application. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 58, no. 1, 2002, pp. 109–24.
Tolosana, Ruben; Ruben Vera-Rodriguez; Julian Fierrez; Aythami Morales; and Javier Ortega-Garcia (2020). Deepfakes and beyond: A Survey of Face Manipulation and Fake Detection. Information Fusion, vol. 64, December 2020, pp. 131–48.
Turnbull, Allen A.; Lloyd Strickland; and Kelly G. Shaver (1976). Medium of Communication, Differential Power, and Phasing of Concessions: Negotiating Success and Attributions to the Opponent. Human Communication Research, vol. 2, no. 3, March 1976, pp. 262–70.
Verdoliva, Luisa (2020). Media Forensics and DeepFakes: An Overview. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 14, no. 5, August 2020, pp. 910–32.
Wachter, R. M (1999). The Effect of Gender and Communication Mode on Conflict Resolution. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 15, no. 6, November 1999, pp. 763–82.
Waizenegger, Lena; Brad McKenna; Wenjie Cai; and Taino Bendz (2020). An Affordance Perspective of Team Collaboration and Enforced Working from Home during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, July 2020. Taylor & Francis, pp. 429–42.
Walton, R. E.; and R. B. McKersie (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, Hui-Chih; and Her-Sen Doong (2014). Revisiting the Task-Media Fit Circumflex: A Further Examination of Negotiation Tasks. Information & Management, vol. 51, no. 6, September 2014, pp. 738–46.
Wang, Yuntao; Zhou Su; Ning Zhang; Rui Xing; Dongxiao Liu; Tom H. Luan; and Xuemin Shen (2023). A Survey on Metaverse: Fundamentals, Security, and Privacy. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 1, 2023, pp. 319–52.
Watson, Richard T.; and Jane Webster (2020). Analysing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review a Roadmap for Release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, July 2020. Taylor & Francis, pp. 129–47.
Wheeler, B. C.; J. S. Valacich; and M. Alavi (1995). The Emergence of Desktop Videoconferencing for Collaborative Work In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4:pp. 808–17 vol.4.
Wohlin, Claes; and Rafael Prikladnicki (2013). Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Information and Software Technology, vol. 55, no. 6, June 2013, pp. 919–20.
Young, Jacob; Tobias Langlotz; Matthew Cook; Steven Mills; and Holger Regenbrecht (2019). Immersive Telepresence and Remote Collaboration Using Mobile and Wearable Devices. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 25, no. 5, May 2019, pp. 1908–18.
Young, Jacob; Tobias Langlotz; Steven Mills; and Holger Regenbrecht (2020). Mobileportation: Nomadic Telepresence for Mobile Devices. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 4, no. 2, June 2020, p. 65:1–65:16.
Zhang, Yizhong; Jiaolong Yang; Zhen Liu; Ruicheng Wang; Guojun Chen; Xin Tong; and Baining Guo (2022). VirtualCube: An Immersive 3D Video Communication System. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 5, May 2022, pp. 2146–56.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Videoconference buyer-seller negotiations: a systematic literature review

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

2.1. Preliminary literature research

2.2. Research questions

2.3. Study selection criteria and procedures

2.4. Conducting the review

2.4.1. Review articles’ database search

2.4.2. Primary studies’ reference-based search

2.4.3. Primary studies’ database search

3. Results

3.1. Research questions

3.1.1. RQ1: Which articles specifically study videoconference negotiations?

3.1.2. RQ2: What specific aspects of video negotiations have been studied?

3.1.3. RQ3: How has video negotiation evolved throughout the years?

3.2. Videoconference negotiations variables’ framework

3.2.1. Negotiation variables

3.2.2. Communication variables

3.2.3. Technological variables

4. Discussion

4.1. Similarity to FTF

4.1.1. Eye contact

4.1.2. Nonverbal cues

4.1.3. Videoconference fatigue

4.2. New negotiation media

4.2.1. Emerging technologies

4.2.2. Negotiator misrepresentation

4.2.3. Comparability of different technologies

4.3. Negotiating with someone we know

4.4. Multimodal negotiations

4.4.1. Media combinations

4.4.2. Videoconferencing with shared data

4.4.3. Choice of settings

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1