100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
EXTENSIVE SUMMARY: Psychology of Business Communication (all reading material €8,38   In winkelwagen

Samenvatting

EXTENSIVE SUMMARY: Psychology of Business Communication (all reading material

 29 keer bekeken  6 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Instelling

Master Communication and Information Sciences (CIS) Psychological Processes in Business Communication (826024) 2023, Block 4 All of the 20 articles of Psychology of Business Communication. I've extensively summarized every article from introduction to conclusion. The abstract of every articl...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 5 van de 66  pagina's

  • 24 september 2023
  • 66
  • 2023/2024
  • Samenvatting
avatar-seller
1




Psychology of Business
Communication
Summary literature


Table of contents
Psychology of Business Communication.................................................................................................1
Session 2. Biases in communication: introduction.........................................................................5
1. Pronin, E., Puccio, C., & Ross, L. (2002). Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological
Perspectives. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The
psychology of intuitive judgment. (pp. 636 - 665): Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.038 (30 pages).......................................................5
Session 3. Emotion in communication: introduction....................................................................10
2. Campbell, T., O'Brien, E., Van Boven, L., Schwarz, N., & Ubel, P. (2014). Too much experience:
A desensitization bias in emotional perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 106(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035148 (14 pages).....................................10
3. Beukeboom, C. J., & Semin, G. R. (2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 553-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.005 (14
pages)...........................................................................................................................................13
Session 4. Stereotypes.................................................................................................................16
4. Burgers, C., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2020). How language contributes to stereotype formation:
Combined effects of label types and negation use in behavior descriptions. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 39(4), 438-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20933320 (14 pages)
......................................................................................................................................................16
5. Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of
accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025 (3 pages).................................................................18
Session 5. Emotion in professional settings..................................................................................20
6. Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 86(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971 (32 pages)................20
7. Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political
attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24,
106-11. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797612452572 (6 pages).............................................27
Session 6. Persuasion...................................................................................................................29
8. Forgas, J. P. (2019). Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 306-313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419834543 (7 pages)...............................................................29

, 2


9. Roghanizad, M. M., & Bohns, V. K. (2021). Should I Ask Over Zoom, Phone, Email, or In-
Person? Communication Channel and Predicted Versus Actual Compliance. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 19485506211063259. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211063259
(10 pages).....................................................................................................................................31
Session 7. Emotion and Bias in Leadership...................................................................................33
10. Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the
past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107-1119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.006 (10 pages)........................................................33
11. See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of
power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 116(2), 272-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 (12 pages)...............35
Session 9. Emotions in CMC.........................................................................................................38
13. Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of
emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193163 (16 pages)............................................................38
14. Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). RU mad@ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of
ambiguous text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 368-379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.032 (12 pages)................................................................42
Session 10. Negotiation...............................................................................................................45
15. Chambers, J. R., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Egocentrism drives misunderstanding in conflict
and negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51(0), 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.001 (11 pages)...............................................................45
16. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the
head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in
negotiations. Psychological science, 19(4), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02096.x (7 pages)........................................................................................................48
Session 11. Communication bad news.........................................................................................50
17. Seifart, C., Hofmann, M., Bär, T., Riera Knorrenschild, J., Seifart, U., & Rief, W. (2014).
Breaking bad news–what patients want and what they get: evaluating the SPIKES protocol in
Germany. Annals of Oncology, 25(3), 707-711. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt582 (5
pages)...........................................................................................................................................50
18. Sussman, S. W., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic
communication. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.150 (15 pages).....................................................................52
Session 12. Miscommunication in CMC........................................................................................56
19. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we
communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 (10 pages).............................................................56
20. Roos, C. A., Koudenburg, N., & Postmes, T. (2020). Online social regulation: when everyday
diplomatic skills for harmonious disagreement break down. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 25(6), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa011 (20 pages).................60
Session 2. Biases in communication: introduction.........................................................................2

, 3


1. Pronin, E., Puccio, C., & Ross, L. (2002). Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological
Perspectives. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The
psychology of intuitive judgment. (pp. 636 - 665): Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.038 (30 pages).......................................................2
Session 3. Emotion in communication: introduction......................................................................7
2. Campbell, T., O'Brien, E., Van Boven, L., Schwarz, N., & Ubel, P. (2014). Too much experience:
A desensitization bias in emotional perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 106(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035148 (14 pages).......................................7
3. Beukeboom, C. J., & Semin, G. R. (2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 553-566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.005 (14
pages)...........................................................................................................................................10
Session 4. Stereotypes.................................................................................................................13
4. Burgers, C., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2020). How language contributes to stereotype formation:
Combined effects of label types and negation use in behavior descriptions. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 39(4), 438-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20933320 (14 pages)
.....................................................................................................................................................13
5. Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of
accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093-1096.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025 (3 pages).................................................................15
Session 5. Emotion in professional settings.................................................................................17
6. Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 86(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971 (32 pages)...............17
7. Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political
attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24,
106-11. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797612452572 (6 pages).............................................23
Session 6. Persuasion...................................................................................................................25
8. Forgas, J. P. (2019). Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 306-313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419834543 (7 pages)...............................................................25
9. Roghanizad, M. M., & Bohns, V. K. (2021). Should I Ask Over Zoom, Phone, Email, or In-
Person? Communication Channel and Predicted Versus Actual Compliance. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 19485506211063259. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211063259
(10 pages).....................................................................................................................................27
Session 7. Emotion and Bias in Leadership..................................................................................29
10. Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the
past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107-1119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.006 (10 pages)........................................................29
11. See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of
power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 116(2), 272-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 (12 pages)...............31
Session 9. Emotions in CMC.........................................................................................................34

, 4


13. Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of
emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193163 (16 pages)............................................................34
14. Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). RU mad@ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of
ambiguous text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 368-379.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.032 (12 pages)................................................................38
Session 10. Negotiation...............................................................................................................41
15. Chambers, J. R., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Egocentrism drives misunderstanding in conflict
and negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51(0), 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.001 (11 pages)...............................................................41
16. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the
head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in
negotiations. Psychological science, 19(4), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02096.x (7 pages).......................................................................................................44
Session 11. Communication bad news.........................................................................................46
17. Seifart, C., Hofmann, M., Bär, T., Riera Knorrenschild, J., Seifart, U., & Rief, W. (2014).
Breaking bad news–what patients want and what they get: evaluating the SPIKES protocol in
Germany. Annals of Oncology, 25(3), 707-711. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt582 (5
pages)...........................................................................................................................................46
18. Sussman, S. W., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic
communication. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.150 (15 pages).....................................................................48
Session 12. Miscommunication in CMC.......................................................................................52
19. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we
communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 (10 pages)............................................................52
20. Roos, C. A., Koudenburg, N., & Postmes, T. (2020). Online social regulation: when everyday
diplomatic skills for harmonious disagreement break down. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 25(6), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa011 (20 pages).................56

, 5


Session 2. Biases in communication: introduction
1. Pronin, E., Puccio, C., & Ross, L. (2002). Understanding Misunderstanding:
Social Psychological Perspectives. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds.),
Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. (pp. 636 - 665):
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.038 (30
pages)


Biases that distort human judgment. This article: explore some of the consequences of such biases.

Biases contribute to conflict 1. People think and feel differently about issues (frustration). 2.
Interpret and misinterpret each other’s words and deeds.

Noting some cognitive and motivational biases:

From intrapersonal biases to interpersonal conflict

Inter: involve interaction and relationships between people. Intra: describe things that relate to an
individual's self or that occur within a person's mind

Even when people attend to the facts and arguments of the ‘other side’, their opinions become even
more polarized.  people accept arguments/ evidence within their interests and beliefs, while
critical about arguments that threaten those beliefs.

But intergroup enmity can also arise from availability and representativeness biases.

Our media-based notions of what a person (e.g. homophobe) looks and acts like, helps determine
which claims about a particular group member we find credible and noncredible.

Dissonance research highlighted the barriers to rational judgment and ‘ geschillenbeslechtiging’
that are created by prior commitment, personal sacrifice, and perseverance.

 people readily recognize biases in others that they do not recognize in themselves, and as a
result, they make overly negative attributions about others whose views and self-interested
motives seem ‘ conveniently’ congruent.

Psychological reactance also a bias. Particular reactive devaluation whereby potential
compromise offers become less attractive as a consequence of the fact that they have been offered
(by someone, at a specific time, etc.) (e.g. peace proposals where purported (beweerde) authorship
mattered more than the actual authorship and content).



Prospect Theory deals with suspect (verdachte) decisions and preference choices, that arise from
the way people deal with potential gains versus losses. Important in negotiation. (for some
individuals, the pain from losing $1,000 could only be compensated by the pleasure of earning
$2,000) loss and gain perspectives in an asymmetric manner.

In conflicts reluctance to trade concessions + willingness to take foolish risks in order to avoid
certain losses + refusal to take sensible risks in order to achieve prospective gains.

And, the adversaries in question are inclined to defend their own prudence (voorzichtigheid) even
while making harsh attributions about their adversaries’ intransigence (onverzettelijkheid).

Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:

√  	Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.

Focus op de essentie

Focus op de essentie

Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper StudentTilburgUni123. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,38. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 73918 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen
€8,38  6x  verkocht
  • (0)
  Kopen