Abstract:

Negotiation is a core managerial competence linked to professional effectiveness, employability, and interpersonal problem-solving. Research in negotiation and educational psychology shows that negotiation self‑efficacy (NSE), individuals’ confidence in their ability to negotiate effectively, can be strengthened through practice, experience, and guided reflection. However, university curricula often offer limited structured opportunities for students to build these skills in authentic contexts. To address this gap, we implemented two instructional approaches across two comparable student cohorts, both of whom participated in the same serious business simulation but differed in the structure and experiential intensity of their negotiation training.

In both cohorts, students completed a simulation-based decision-making exercise requiring them to solve business challenges collaboratively, and their NSE was measured at two points. However, the programs differed in the level of instructional structure. One cohort followed an unstructured approach, in which students engaged only in the simulation without guided negotiation practice. The second cohort participated in a structured program combining the simulation with two negotiation role plays. These role plays were based on closed negotiation cases with predefined agreements and included several required steps: completing an NSE questionnaire to unlock case instructions, conducting the negotiation via Microsoft Teams following a standardized recording protocol, submitting the agreement reached, and individually completing the Subjective Value Inventory (SVI) to reflect on their subjective experience. Between the two role plays, students also attended a seminar on negotiation strategies, biases, preparation, and integrative techniques, providing additional scaffolding.

This design enables a comparative analysis of two pedagogical formats grounded in experiential learning: a simulation-only model and a more structured, scaffolded model that incorporates repeated practice, behavioral feedback, and guided reflection. Using consistent measures across both cohorts, the study aims to:
(1) compare changes in NSE between the structured and unstructured programs, and
(2) examine whether role play based practice leads to a closer alignment between self‑perceived competence and actual negotiation performance, as measured by point-based outcomes in the structured cohort. Additionally, by integrating both SVI and objective indicators in the form of agreement scores, the research explores how different instructional designs shape students’ confidence, perceptions, and behavioral effectiveness.

The forthcoming analyses will allow us to evaluate whether structured negotiation training produces deeper or more consistent gains in NSE, whether it drives different patterns of change than an unstructured experiential approach, and to what extent structured practice supports the calibration of students’ self‑perceptions relative to their real negotiation outcomes. By contrasting these two cohorts, the study contributes to ongoing discussions about how structured experiential learning formats can be leveraged to enhance negotiation education in higher education settings.

Keywords:

Serious Game, Role Play, Negotiation self-efficacy, active learning, training program.