Fostering social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy in negotiating through simulation design

Abstract

The current study followed the need for more research concerning the understanding of the relationship between simulation design and self-efficacy in negotiating development within role-play simulations of political decision-making. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of social persuasion as a source for self-efficacy in negotiating with simulation design elements. The research was conducted in a three-day simulation about the EU decision-making process. By means of daily diaries and semi-structured interviews, critical incidents about the emergence of social persuasion influencing self-efficacy development were defined. Data were analysed by applying thematic content analysis. Findings show that social persuasion was largely facilitated by the simulation design that offered possibilities for informal contact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41304-023-00420-1.

Introduction

Over recent decades, political science teaching and learning has increasingly turned to role-play simulations of political decision-making (Elias 2014). In these simulations, students take on roles of real political actors (such as ministers, diplomats or lobbyists) and simulate political processes on regional, national and international levels (Boyer and Smith 2015). Such simulations are positively associated with student learning, such as a deeper processing of learning materials and more profound understanding of the subject matter (Guasti et al. 2014), higher order thinking skills (Brunazzo and Settembri 2015), or a greater interest in processes of political decision-making (Kaunert 2009).

Research mostly focuses on learning outcomes such as student success, political knowledge (Hamann et al. 2021), students’ sense of political efficacy, or attitudes towards the EU (Oberle et al. 2020), sometimes in relation to students’ socio-demographic backgrounds (Cicchi et al. 2021). However, Kröger (2018) states that it is important to properly design and prepare simulations to fully explore the potential of these learning tools. Yet, only recently, the attention for simulation design elements and the understanding of their relationship with learning outcomes in role-play simulations of political decision-making has increased (Duchatelet al. 2019, 2020). For example, Vermeiren et al. (2022) found that simulation participants’ self-belief in their negotiating skills related to the extent to which the simulation design allowed for participants to perform their negotiating skills.

Self-efficacy in negotiating is an important learning outcome discussed in recent literature about role-play simulations of political decision-making (e.g. Duchatelet et al. 2020). In general, the concept of self-efficacy refers to individuals’ judgement of their capabilities to execute certain courses of action required to achieve desired performances (Bandura 1997). In the context of political simulations, the development of negotiating skills is a key learning goal, as these skills are essential for students to engage in simulations (Duchatelet et al. 2021; Obendorf and Randerson 2013). In recent research, social persuasion, or receiving positive or negative judgements from significant others about their own capabilities (Bandura 1994; Won et al. 2017), has been shown to be an important source for self-efficacy in negotiating development (Duchatelet et al. 2020). However, to date, little is known about how, and which, simulation design elements contribute to self-efficacy in negotiating development by means of creating possibilities for social persuasion to emerge (Duchatelet et al. 2020).

In the current study, we adopt an exploratory approach to delve into the interplay between simulation design and social persuasion. Increased insights into this interplay contributes to more accurately designing and investigating simulations in the future, as well as to a more in-depth understanding of the source of social persuasion in simulation contexts.

Theoretical framework

Firstly, we elaborate on recent insights into design elements of role-play simulations of political decision-making. Secondly, the concept of self-efficacy (in negotiating) as a learning outcome is discussed. Thirdly, the source of social persuasion that is central in this study is discussed in relation to role-play simulations of political decision-making as learning environments.

Design elements of role-play simulations of political decision-making

According to recent research, the learning environment of role-play simulations of political decision-making consists of four different components: structure (i.e. simulation environment), agency (i.e. individual freedom of action), verisimilitude (i.e. real-world extent), and social dynamics (i.e. interactions) (Duchatelet et al. 2019, 2020; Wright-Maley 2015). The component of verisimilitude can be defined as the extent to which the simulation is a valid, authentic representation of reality (Wright-Maley 2015), whereas the component of social dynamics comprises the degree to which interactions between simulation participants can cause the simulation to flow in unexpected directions (Duchatelet et al. 2020). Due to social dynamics, the simulation process and outcome can vary between individual simulations, even when a specific simulation is reiterated and the same students have participated in it more than once (Duchatelet et al. 2020; Usherwood 2015). Current research points out that the interplay between the simulation environment and participants’ actions determines the extent to which verisimilitude and social dynamics emerge in the simulation (Duchatelet et al. 2019). In other words, social dynamics and verisimilitude are considered a product of human agency combined with the structure provided by the simulation environment (Chin et al. 2009; Duchatelet et al. 2019; Wright-Maley 2015).

The concept of structure refers to the simulation environment in which students operate as political actors (Chin et al. 2009; Duchatelet et al. 2019). Structural elements only change in the long term and cannot directly be influenced by actions of students (Chin et al. 2009). Examples are the simulation design (duration, learning objectives, physical environment), political and simulation-specific rules, and the role of lecturers in the simulation (e.g. active or observing/distant; Duchatelet et al. 2019). The concept of agency refers to the individual choices students are able to make within the boundaries of the simulation (Chin et al. 2009; Duchatelet et al. 2019). Simulation design elements that contribute to student agency are: students’ simulation preparation (e.g. the extent to which they adequately prepare themselves), the way roles are allocated (e.g., can students choose?) and the specific roles students enact (e.g. more or less power roles). For example, roles may be assigned to students randomly or by granting students the possibility to choose their own role (Duchatelet et al. 2019).

Finding the right balance between structure and agency elements in simulation design is important to ensure sufficient social dynamics and verisimilitude during the simulation conduction (Chin et al. 2009). With regard to verisimilitude, for example, too much structure could limit the options participants can choose from. At the same time, too little structure could allow them to make choices that deviate from real-world processes (Chin et al. 2009; Duchatelet et al. 2020). Hence, there is a constant trade-off between structure and agency in simulation design: the simulation environment determines the extent to which agency of participants is possible.

Self-efficacy in negotiating as learning outcome

Self-efficacy in negotiating is an important learning outcome of role-play simulations of political decision-making (Duchatelet et al. 2020, 2021). Despite thorough preparation and attempting well thought-out strategies, students can be confronted with difficulties during negotiation processes, such as situations of deadlock (Duchatelet et al. 2021). In such cases, acting resilient in response to actual or anticipated setbacks plays a crucial role in untangling faltering negotiations and eventually, overcoming impasses (Spector 2006). Previous studies have shown that self-efficacy contributes to the development of competencies, which are pivotal to negotiating effectively, such as persistence, self-regulation and resilience (Cassidy 2015; Pajares 1997). When students feel confident regarding their negotiation skills, they feel more competent, which motivates them to actively engage in the simulation (Duchatelet et al. 2020). At the same time, they are better able to bounce back more easily when faced with problems or setbacks during the negotiation process (Duchatelet et al. 2021). Lastly, self-efficacy in negotiating promotes the development of skills implicitly connected to negotiating. Examples are oral communication skills, public speaking, and more complex negotiation skills, such as debating issues and coalition formation (Duchatelet et al. 2020).

Social persuasion in role-play simulations of political decision-making

According to Bandura (1994, 1997), students derive their self-efficacy beliefs from four sources. These are (1) evaluating previous performances on the same or similar tasks (mastery experiences), (2) observing and evaluating achievements of others and comparing these achievements to their own capabilities (vicarious experience), (3) feedback about their own achievements from others (social persuasion) and (4) interpreting their own physiological signals and emotional reactions as information about their own self-efficacy (physiological and psychological states).

With regard to the context of role-play simulations of political decision-making, Duchatelet et al. (2021) conclude that mastery experiences majorly and consistently contribute to self-efficacy development. This is consistent with previous research findings that show that mastery experience is considered the most powerful and effective source for developing a strong sense of self-efficacy (Bandura 1994). As Bandura (1994) states, successful experiences from the past deliver individuals direct, robust evidence that they have the capabilities to succeed in the same or similar tasks.

However, next to mastery experience, the source of social persuasion also plays an important, if not pivotal role in promoting self-efficacy in negotiating for students in the learning context of role-play simulations of political decision-making. Duchatelet et al. (2021) argue that the overtly social nature of such role-play simulations, in which students are continuously engaging with others, naturally creates situations of social persuasion. In these situations, students coach each other and give feedback to each other (Duchatelet et al. 2021). Furthermore, Duchatelet et al. (2021) expand Bandura’s definition of social persuasion of direct, predominantly verbal messages to distinguishing between direct and indirect messages of social persuasion. They point out that social persuasion does not only relate to direct messages by significant others, such as positive or negative verbal feedback exchanged between students, but also to indirect messages, such as the behaviour of other students and outcomes of negotiation processes which indicate that the student has performed well. Examples of indirect messages are: being approached by other participants for advice or help, contributing to a final amendment, or being elected as a representative (for example, for a committee) during negotiations (Duchatelet et al. 2020).

The current study

Overall, social persuasion is considered part of the social dynamics in role-play simulations of political decision-making (Duchatelet et al. 2019). The current study investigates its emergence as an outcome of the interplay between the simulation design elements of structure and agency. This is particularly relevant considering the recently discussed importance of strong, targeted design for optimal learning in simulations (Kröger 2018; Baumann and FitzGibbon 2021; Vermeiren et al. 2022). As such, the current study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1 What simulation design elements can be observed regarding the emergence of social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy?

RQ2 What forms of social persuasion related to self-efficacy in negotiating development can be observed?

RQ3 How do simulation design elements relate to the emergence of different forms of social persuasion?

Method

The research design is a single holistic case study, a design which focuses on understanding and analysing one single situation in depth and as a whole (Yin 2018). Case studies are often conducted to analyse more fully the richness and complexity of a phenomenon (e.g. Duchatelet and Donche 2022). The current study is an exploratory case study, drawing on self-efficacy theory and theory concerning simulation design. The study is conducted to observe the emergence of social persuasion in detail and to define questions or hypotheses based on these observations. To ‘strengthen the case’, multiple complementary sources of evidence are used (Duchatelet and Donche 2022; Yin 2018), and further discussed in paragraph 3.4.

Setting and participants

The current study was conducted during EuroSim, which is a three-day large scale transatlantic simulation of the decision-making processes of the EU, in which about 200 students from more than 20 universities from Europe and the United States take part annually. Students from different fields of study take on roles of different political actors to negotiate real-world topics, which reflect the ongoing EU-agenda (Jones and Bursens 2014). This edition focused on EU asylum policy and the revision of the Dublin Regulation and could not take place in its traditional face-to-face manner due to restrictions taken during the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, the simulation took place using the online software platform Virbela. Table 1 presents the design features of the simulation that are relevant for the setting of our study. Further, Appendix 1 presents a detailed time schedule of the simulation programme.

Table 1.

Specific design features of EuroSim* 2021 (based on Baumann and Fitzgibbon 2021)

Features of simulation design	EuroSim 2021
Situation & Setting	Simulation settings: European Parliament, European Council, JHA Council, LIBE I Committee, LIBE II Committee, NGOs, Council of Ministers, Heads of State and the press
	Time schedule: Simulation days consist of roughly 3 to 5 formal meetings (standard meetings, non-standard meetings, plenary sessions). At the same time, EuroSim provides time for informal meetings. For a more detailed schedule of events during EuroSim 2021, see Appendix A
	Degree of authenticity: The following elements reflect the reality of the EU negotiation process: the roles of many different (political) actors, the topic of asylum policy, the use of EU jargon, and the programme with formal and informal meetings. The duration of the simulation (three days) limits the extent to which the negotiation process reflects reality
Logistics & Operations	Duration: The duration of the simulation is three days
	Learning environment: Using the online software platform Virbela, students’ roles are represented by digital avatars that can access multiple congress and private rooms
	Additional technology: Students are free to use social media (such as Twitter or WhatsApp)
Roles	Role types: Each role is allocated in one of the different simulation settings. Some students have a role as party coordinator, chair, or Commissioner
	Role assignment: Teachers assign roles and can choose to take student’s preference into account. Generally, EU universities are assigned more central roles
	Teacher role: During the three days of the simulation, faculty members retreat to the background. Interventions only occur when students are confronted with severe conflicts or deadlocks
Process	Preparation: Preparation depends on how the participating University embeds the simulation in their teaching. This varies from one preparatory meeting with a University teacher to a several weeks preparatory course
	Rules of engagement: Time spent on and the way of elaborating on the rules of engagement varied across universities

*A more elaborate description of the EuroSim-simulation in general can be found in Jones and Bursens (2014)

The participants in this study were students from the same university who participated in the elective master course that prepared them for the EuroSim simulation. As such, all students participated in the same preparatory activities. Examples are writing a position paper on the topics discussed during the simulation, and participating in a negotiation and presentation skills training. To select participants for the current study, a convenience sample was taken. The participants were exclusively selected from the same university to obtain a homogeneous sample (Creswell 2012), in which variation in student characteristics (such as prior knowledge and/or simulation experience) would be limited. All participants were approached for the research during a course meeting. Afterwards, they received an informed consent that emphasized voluntary participation and no negative consequences for their course grade when withdrawing. In total, four out of the eleven students taking part in the course agreed to participate in the study.

To gain insight into the specific simulation design elements that relate to which form of social persuasion, within-case sampling was used by means of the critical incident technique (Flanagan 1954). In within-case sampling, specific activities, processes, events, times, locations and role partners are sampled within one case (Miles et al. 2014). In this study, critical incidents can be defined as events during the negotiating processes that play a crucial role in the emergence of social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy. To define critical incidents, data were collected using the following measures: a diary that was sent to participants daily during EuroSim, and semi-structured interviews that took place shortly after EuroSim.

Measures

Diary

During the simulation, participants were asked to fill out a diary at the end of each day, after the official simulation programme had ended. The outline of the diary was based on the passlet used by Duchatelet et al. (2020), which is a diary that is passed between researcher and participants and vice versa. Focusing on the emergence of social persuasion, the format of the passlet was slightly adapted in order to obtain more specific information about the role of the behaviour of others (see Appendix 2). In each diary, the participants were requested to describe two events involving others and how these others positively or negatively influenced their self-efficacy in negotiating. Participants received three separate e-mails (one for each simulation day) with the request to fill out the diary for that specific day before 1:00 pm the following day. The main goal of sending these daily e-mails was to remind participants of the diaries to gather as much detailed information as possible within a short time frame after each simulation day. This is particularly important given the fact that recall accuracy of participants considerably diminishes after the critical forty-eight-hour time period after events (Henderson and Tallman 2006). In total, twelve diaries containing twenty-four events were collected (three diaries and six events per participant). During the semi-structured interviews, the most meaningful events were selected using within-case sampling, on which we elaborate further in the following section (Duchatelet et al. 2020).

Semi-structured interviews

After EuroSim had ended, further data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews. Similar to the diaries, the semi-structured interviews took place within the critical forty-eight-hour time period after EuroSim, ensuring that participants recalled the events during the simulation in as much detail as possible. All interviews were conducted online and were audio-recorded. Interviews ranged in length from forty-five to seventy minutes. The interview outline is based on interview protocols designed by Duchatelet et al. (2020) and Usher (2009). Example questions are: ‘Which of these three events (presented in a PowerPoint) had the largest positive impact on your self-confidence in negotiating?’, ‘Could you describe the specific situation again?’, ‘What role did other people have in this situation?’, ‘What were you thinking at that time?’ and ‘How did [description of event] influence your self-belief in negotiating exactly?

The diaries served as a guideline for the semi-structured interviews. During the interview, participants were shown two PowerPoint presentation slides, one containing the three positive and one containing the three negative events they had described in their diaries. Subsequently, they were requested to pick the positive and negative events they perceived as having the most impact on their self-efficacy in negotiating. This was implemented to be able to determine which specific events were most meaningful to participants in terms of promoting and inhibiting self-efficacy in negotiating, and to filter out more minor events. Aiming for thick description (Yin 2018), the participants were prompted to describe the chosen events in detail again and were asked about the specific role others had in these situations. This process of within-case sampling resulted in the final sample of eight detailed critical incidents, the most meaningful events relating to self-efficacy in negotiating (as depicted in bold in Table 2).

Table 2.

Short description of the critical incidents and their impact on self-efficacy in negotiating (Ntotal = 24)*

		Participant 1		Participant 2		Participant 3		Participant 4
		Positive impact	Negative impact	Positive impact	Negative impact	Positive impact	Negative impact	Positive impact	Negative impact
Day 1	Who?	EVENT 1 Two fellow students representing Ministers of the Interior (Germany and France)	EVENT 5 Fellow student chairing the meeting, JHA Council	Fellow student (President of the European Council)	EU Council Members	EVENT 3 Party leaders	JHA Council, LIBE I Committee	Professor and assistant from same university	EVENT 8 LIBE II Committee
	Where?	Breaks, Virbela	Plenary session	Standard meeting	Standard meeting	Breaks, WhatsApp	Standard meeting	Breaks	Standard meeting
	Factual situation	Informal conversation with fellow students resulted in an overall understanding and solution of problems	Amendment proposed by participant 1 (and chair) was unexpectedly introduced and poorly received by multiple member states	Participant 2 was unexpectedly called upon to guide negotiations and successfully contributed to discussions	Participant 2 sat on a bench on the side due to a lack of virtual chairs and therefore was unable to take fully part in discussions	Participant 3 succeeded in bringing together potential coalition partners (by private messaging to meet during recess)	Participant 3 was not able to fully express himself in the desired way (due to fatigue and being a non-native speaker of English)	Participant 4 received reassuring remarks from listed individuals after struggling during negotiations	While participant 4 was trying to play an active role in negotiations, other committee members remained silent and passive
Day 2	Who?	Professor, assistant and fellow student from same university	JHA Council	EVENT 2 Fellow Commissioners, fellow students from same university	EU Council Members	President of the European Council + Council secretariat	Party leaders	Participant 3	LIBE I Committee, LIBE II Committee
	Where?	Breaks, WhatsApp	Standard meeting	Plenary session, WhatsApp	Standard meeting	Breaks, WhatsApp	Breaks	Breaks	Plenary session
	Factual situation	Participant 1 received multiple compliments concerning achievements	Participant 1 had trouble re-joining the debate after losing track of time in break before the meeting	Participant 2 delivered a concise and clear speech in plenary session and subsequently was congratulated on WhatsApp by fellow students	Participant 2 was unable to provide constructive feedback to fellow delegates during unmoderated caucus	Party leaders formed a coalition, following participant 3’s advice on day 1	A fellow student mentioned that a delegation had to be voted in the plenary session. Participant 3 had been unaware of this before, as the chair had not communicated this	Fellow student acknowledged the difficulty of leading participant 4’s committee and gave participant 4 reassuring remarks and compliments	Participant 4 was confronted with vast differences between his own committee (LIBE II) and LIBE I and felt personally responsible for this
Day 3	Who?	Members of JHA Council	Multiple delegates from JHA Council, professor from other university	Fellow student (President of the European Council)	EVENT 6 Members of EU Council, Heads of State	Other delegates	EVENT 7 Other delegates, students from same university, chair of meeting	EVENT 4 Other delegates	Chair of European Parliament
	Where?	Plenary session	Breaks	Breaks	Standard meeting	Plenary session	Plenary session	Plenary session	Plenary session
	Factual situation	Other delegates voted participant 1 third best negotiator of EuroSim	Participant 1 provided an erroneous explanation concerning the negotiation process and subsequently was corrected by a professor from another university	Participant 2 received a compliment on a speech from fellow student before delivering said speech in a plenary session	Participant 2 was invited to take the floor to answer questions. Yet, other delegates remained completely silent after their introductory remarks	Participant 3 received award (best delegate of committee)	Participant 3 and her fellow students objected when the chair disregarded legislative procedures. Yet, the chair and other delegates did not listen	Participant 4 received helpful informative feedback from fellow student. Therefore, he was able to propose a trade-off between two articles and thus contributed to resolving deadlock	Participant 4 tried to convince the chair to follow legislative procedures. Yet, the chair and other delegates did not listen

*Chosen critical incidents are presented in bold. The first four incidents relate to a positive impact, whereas the last four incidents relate to a negative impact on self-efficacy in negotiating

Analysis

The final sample of eight critical incidents could be defined after conducting the semi-structured interviews, which were considered the main data source for further analysis. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into the qualitative data analysis software package Atlas.ti 8. Data were systematically analysed applying thematic content analysis, and following several steps (Cohen et al. 2011). First, the coding process started with a phase of deductive coding. During this phase, text fragments were coded into two main groups: (1) simulation design elements (structure and agency) and (2) messages of social persuasion (direct and indirect) (based on Duchatelet et al. 2019, 2020, 2021). Second, during the following phase of inductive coding, text segments were coded in a more fine-grained way, which resulted in multiple subcategories. This enabled answering the first two research questions about the description of simulation design elements and forms of social persuasion (RQ1&2).

In a third and final step, the interplay between the different design elements and messages of social persuasion was mapped through co-occurrence tables. These tables displayed the overlap between these two domains of codes and provided insights into what design elements related to the emergence of which forms of social persuasion (RQ3).

Reliability and validity

This study used triangulation to enhance validity and reliability. Data triangulation, which refers to gaining information from multiple data sources about the same phenomenon (Yin 2018), shows in the use of diaries as well as semi-structured interviews. Although the diaries were not coded, they served as a background against which the critical events during the simulation could be interpreted and relationships between code categories could be identified. The use of this source contributed to collecting detailed and nuanced information, and thus, to thick description and the capturing of contextual complexity in the simulation (Cohen et al. 2011; Duchatelet et al. 2020). By using both the diaries and the semi-structured interviews as measuring instruments, information was gathered at different time points, namely shortly after specific simulation days and shortly after EuroSim had ended. This ensured time triangulation and allowed for a more reliable and detailed picture of the most meaningful critical events, which contributed to the quality and richness of the data. During the design of the study, the development of the coding scheme and interpretation of the data, both researchers repeatedly exchanged thoughts, known as investigator triangulation. This ensured the neutralizing of possible biases of the principal researcher considering the approach and interpretation of the data and enhanced the credibility of the findings (Creswell 2012).

Results

What simulation design elements can be observed regarding the emergence of social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy? (RQ1)

Simulation design elements can be divided into two broader categories: (1) structure, and (2) agency, of which subcategories are presented in Table 3. Each critical incident involves one or more of the following elements of structure: the formal programme, rules of procedure, or breaks. The formal programme is most frequently mentioned and consists of formal meetings planned and listed in the simulation’s programme guide, such as plenary sessions, standard and non-standard meetings. Rules of procedure refer to the rules that are used during the negotiations, such as imposing a time limit for students to take the floor during formal meetings, or starting every meeting with a position statement. Breaks are determined in the programme in advance, and refer to informal moments in which participants are able to leave their seats to relax, but also to mingle and converse freely in an informal setting.

Table 3.

Simulation design elements related to the emergence of social persuasion (N = 8)

Structure	Agency
Formal programme (n = 7) Rules of procedure (n = 2) Breaks (n = 3)	Preparation (n = 3) Role performance (n = 4) Amount of participation (n = 4) Informal contact (outside of the programme) (n = 3)
Total: n = 8	Total: n = 8

The following elements of agency could be defined: preparation, role performance, amount of participation, and informal contact (outside of the programme). Preparation relates to how students had prepared themselves for the simulation, comprising in-course preparations as well as additional individual preparations. Role performance refers to the way other students played their role as a political actor. For example, students can take on their roles in a way that is close to the real-world persona they portray. Conversely, students can break character during negotiations, for example, due to the previously discussed element of lacking preparation. This also includes the role of chairs, who have the option to interfere, to call speakers to order when they depart from the subject. Also, they can decide to which extent they actively initiate and manage the voting procedure. Amount of participation refers to the level to which other students actively participated in the simulation, for example, by commenting on a speech, initiating discussion, or proposing an amendment. Informal contact (outside of the programme) was initiated by students outside of the programme outline, such as communication via WhatsApp, private messaging in Virbela, or being in the same (non-virtual, real-life) room off-campus with fellow students of the same University. The latter enabled students to share thoughts about the progress of negotiations and related processes. To communicate with members of their committee or council, or with their fellow students, participants used group chats as well as individual chats in WhatsApp. The online environment Virbela permitted participants not only to use audio to speak directly to individuals in their proximity, but also allowed them to send messages to individual participants during on-going negotiations.

What forms of social persuasion related to self-efficacy in negotiating development can be observed? (RQ2)

Two groups of social persuasion messages could be distinguished: negative and positive messages. These messages could be of a direct or indirect nature. As such, we could distinguish four categories: direct positive messages, indirect positive messages, direct negative messages, and indirect negative messages, of which subcategories are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Messages of social persuasion emerging during the simulation (N = 8)

Direct positive	Indirect positive	Direct negative	Indirect negative
Positive feedback (n = 1) Helpful informative feedback (n = 1)	Negotiation outcomes (n = 3) Relational aspects (n = 2) Support (n = 2)	Negative feedback (n = 1)	Lack of participation (n = 2) Lack of support (n = 1)
Total: n = 2	Total: n = 4	Total: n = 1	Total: n = 3

Regarding direct positive messages of social persuasion, two kinds of messages could be identified: positive feedback and helpful informative feedback. Positive feedback are compliments on the performance during or after negotiations, given by students from the same university. Helpful informative feedback encompasses helpful information regarding strategies during the negotiations yet to come from participants other than the fellow students from the same university. This type of feedback did not merely evaluate a final achievement in a positive way, but offered real-time information and reflections on the negotiations while these were still occurring.

Positive messages of an indirect nature were discussed most frequently, and included three subcategories: negotiation outcomes, relational aspects, and support. Negotiation outcomes encompass forming a coalition between parties, shaping the amendment, resolving deadlock, and reaching consensus. Shaping the amendment includes other delegates proposing amendments in line with one’s own proposal or interest, and contributing to the final amendment in such a way that one’s proposal was voted upon by a majority. Resolving deadlock involves contributing to the solving of an impasse in the negotiation process, and reaching consensus refers to achieving widespread agreement on a subject. Relational aspects include personal bonding when informally engaging with other participants, collaboration with others during the negotiation process, and others acting dependent while relying on the participant for advice and feedback. Support refers to messages in which participants receive support and backup from either their fellow students or other participants.

Direct negative messages were reported least often, and involved receiving negative feedback in the form of a negative verbal judgment concerning an amendment. Two forms of indirect negative messages could be distinguished: lack of participation, and lack of support. Lack of participation refers to the passive attitude of other participants during the negotiation process. This message was shown with other members of the committee not interfering with the negotiation process and remaining silent during discussions. Lack of support can be considered a more intense form of lack of participation, and involves not receiving any responses after having presented a statement, or not winning approval after making a statement or after asking critical questions. Also, it refers to not being acknowledged by other participants after having offered advice during negotiations.

How do simulation design elements relate to the emergence of different forms of social persuasion? (RQ3)

We subsequently discuss and illustrate the co-occurrence of simulation design elements and forms of social persuasion by quotes of direct positive, indirect positive, direct negative, and indirect negative messages of social persuasion. Finally, we discuss the interrelation between different forms of messages of social persuasion. Direct positive messages were received in the setting of plenary sessions as a structural design element. An overview of the interplay of different subcategories can be found in Table 5. The following quote is situated in a plenary session in which the participant received informative feedback from another well-prepared delegate, who actively contributed in the simulation.

I think the brainstorming with [name delegate] […], who on the one side was very permissive but on the other side also said: ‘okay, this is as far as you go.’ So actually running up against a limit, which to me, indicated […] okay, we can do something with this aspect, and we cannot do something with that aspect [Participant 4, Event 4].

Table 5.

Interplay of simulation design elements and direct positive messages of social persuasion

	Structure	Agency				Direct positive messages
	Formal programme	Preparation	Role performance	Amount of participation	Informal contact	Positive feedback	Helpful informative feedback
Event 2	X				X	X
Event 4	X	X	X	X			X

How this positively affected his self-efficacy in negotiating is illustrated by the following quote in which participant 4 stated that this event had played a pivotal role in him being able to resolve the deadlock.

The fact that there was an overall consensus,. […] which eventually led to a sort of, yes… resolving the deadlock […], which gave me a sense of victory, […] was a sort of highlight of […] EuroSim for me […] which made me believe more in my own negotiation skills [Participant 4, Event 4].

Another quote illustrates the positive impact on self-confidence of receiving positive feedback from fellow students through an informal contact via WhatsApp, also during a plenary session.

But day two is really in front of everyone. So, a big pressure there and I delivered and, especially getting the positive feedback from my fellow Commissioners and other students from [the same university], who congratulated me on WhatsApp, and such, and that really gave me a boost of confidence going into the day’s negotiations [Participant 2, Event 2].

Different aspects, such as messages concerning the negotiation outcome, relational aspects, or support, characterize indirect positive messages of social persuasion. As a structural design element, the formal programme as well as the informal programme (breaks) contribute to the emergence of this form of social persuasion. Informal contact is also present outside the programme as an element of agency. The interplay of elements is depicted in Table 6. The following quotes illustrate how informal contact (during breaks and outside the programme) is associated with the emergence of relational aspects (collaboration and personal bonding) and the negotiation outcome of consensus.

From the point I had that [informal talk] with Germany and France, […] I collaborated with them a lot […]. I had never met them in person, but they came across as very nice people, so… [laughter]. And, yeah, […] if that personal level is there, the rest also goes smoother, I think [Participant 1, Event 1].

Just via a private message or via WhatsApp, I was sending a lot of messages, all the time. […] That way, we could often find a consensus, which would have been harder to achieve otherwise [Participant 1, Event 1].

Table 6.

Interplay of simulation design elements and indirect positive messages of social persuasion

	Structure	Agency					Indirect positive messages
	Formal programme	Breaks	Preparation	Amount of participation	Role performance	Informal contact	Negotiation outcomes	Relational aspects	Support
Event 1		X				X	X	X
Event 3	X	X				X	X
Event 4	X		X	X	X		X	X	X
Event 6	X			X					X

How informal moments contribute to self-confidence by enabling the negotiation outcome of coalition formation is discussed in the following quote.

I had sent them [party leaders] a private message. And said, ‘do you want to come together in the break?’ […] I succeeded in bringing EPP and Renew together, for example, that not necessarily have any […] overlapping views […]. Nevertheless, I still succeeded in persuading them that that was a good idea, and [they] saw that I could negotiate well [laughter], and was able to quickly persuade those people [Participant 3, Event 3].

The interplay between direct negative messages and simulation design elements is illustrated by a quote in which the participant recalls receiving negative feedback from other participants after another participant unexpectedly introduced the proposal they had been working on together during a standard meeting, without consulting him first. Only event 5 related to such messages, which—next to standard meeting, and negative feedback—also included the agency element of role performance.

I first told the [other] student: ‘[…] maybe we have to wait a little while with [the proposal] […] maybe we have to look at it again and evaluate it.’ […] He introduced it anyway, without discussing it with me. […] From the moment that legitimate remarks were made, this confidence diminished. [Participant 1, Event 5].

Rules of procedure and role performance come into play in situations in which indirect negative messages of lack of support emerge and self-confidence decreases (Table 7). These incidents also relate to agency elements of preparation, role performance and participation. Two illustrative quotes are presented below.

The chair started with […] normal discussions, just making small talk […] and […] we ended up not voting. […] Then I said: ‘No, wait! […] We really have to vote.’ […] The EP President and that chair […]consistently kept saying ‘no’ without ever even hesitating or checking it. Then I felt like, okay, you guys trust me as a Commissioner, but whenever I say, ‘this is not the correct legislative procedure, […] we really have to vote now’, then you just go […] against my […] advice [Participant 3, Event 7].

Very little structure […], little rules of procedure. [...] The chair was […]cursing into the microphone, he totally did not know what to do. […] I was doubting my own skills after a while, because I was thinking: ‘Am I saying the right things’, because the chairs were not really joining me, the rapporteur was not informed about everything, so I was doubting myself a bit, because of the fact others weren’t informed well enough either. [Participant 4, Event 8].

Table 7.

Interplay of simulation design elements and indirect negative messages of social persuasion

	Structure		Agency			Indirect negative messages
	Formal programme	Rules of procedure	Preparation	Role performance	Participation	Lack of participation	Lack of support
Event 6	X				X	X
Event 7	X	X	X	X	X		X
Event 8	X	X	X	X	X	X

Lastly, results also showed overlap between different forms of social persuasion. How support (indirect positive message) positively contributes to a decrease of self-confidence after being confronted with the lacking participation of other participants (indirect negative message), is illustrated in the quote below.

There was just […] silence […] there was no sort of feedback or response. […] It did decrease, yes, quite a bit, my [belief in my] negotiating skills, meaning that I didn’t participate at all for the remainder of that session […] but then luckily, after maybe, well, a few minutes, […] another student from [my university], she helped me out by saying […] ‘I think it’s all clear, you know, I think there’s no further questions.’ And, yeah I was relieved to hear her voice. [Participant 2, Event 6].

How informative feedback (direct positive message) results in negotiation outcomes and support (indirect positive messages), is illustrated in the following quote.

At the last moment, just when it seemed like it would be impossible to make a deal, I offered a trade-off between two articles that would favor the JHA and the implementation of one article that would benefit the EP. […] This was a great victory, and I felt great about being the one that achieved this. […] Eventually, it was… voted upon by both the JHA Council and the Parliament. […] Here, my [belief in my] skills concerning negotiating really emerged. [Participant 4, Event 1].

Discussion and conclusion

Over the last decades, political science teaching and learning has increasingly turned to role-play simulations of political decision-making as active and authentic learning environments to teach about complex and dynamic political processes (Duchatelet et al. 2019; Elias 2014). According to recent research, self-efficacy in negotiating can be considered an important learning outcome of these simulations, as it enables students to engage actively in negotiating and to overcome impasses (Duchatelet et al. 2020). Further, social persuasion can be considered an important source of self-efficacy in negotiating in role-play simulations of political decision-making (Duchatelet et al. 2020). However, to date, it remains unclear how simulation design elements contribute to the emergence of social persuasion. As such, this exploratory study intended to gain detailed insights into what specific design elements relate to meaningful events in which sources of social persuasion come into play.

Related to previous research, findings point to simulation design elements of structure and agency (Duchatelet et al. 2019). The way participants referred to the element of informal contact expands previous findings (Duchatelet et al. 2019, 2020). This element showed to be a feature of simulation design (i.e., when the programme includes formally reserved units of time for informal negotiations in the form of breaks) and a feature of agency (i.e., when students take initiative for conversations outside of the negotiation environment and the programme schedule). Four groups of social persuasion messages were observed: indirect and direct messages, of a positive or negative nature. The group of indirect positive messages was discussed most frequently. Since indirect messages, such as reaching consensus or succeeding in building a coalition, are also seen as desired outcomes of successful negotiating (Duchatelet et al. 2020), this overlap might explain why these show to be a powerful social persuasion source for self-efficacy in negotiating development.

Regarding the interplay between simulation design elements and messages of social persuasion, results indicated that informal contact played an important role for the emergence of positive social persuasion messages, either during breaks or outside of the programme. Our findings exceed these insights by pointing to their value for student learning, especially for students’ self-efficacy in negotiating. Further, overlapping messages of different types of social persuasion could be observed within one event. This confirms the highly complex and unpredictable nature of simulation processes as observed by Duchatelet et al. (2021). Although probing further into the co-occurrence of different messages of social persuasion lies outside the scope of the current study, studying the overlap observed here could provide more profound insights in the complex relationship between different messages of social persuasion.

This study was conducted in an online simulation, which shapes our findings. Virbela is an online software platform, in which participants meet each other as avatars in a virtual world. In this world, they are encouraged to engage in conversations through using audio or (private) messages. The importance of the informal element in the simulation could be influenced by the possibility participants had to exchange their thoughts and opinions in real time during negotiations because of the availability of the communication platforms in Virbela and WhatsApp. Such moments were important to come to collaboration with others, and to reach consensus. However, communication via WhatsApp is also possible during more traditional face-to-face simulations, albeit to a more limited extent in order not to disturb negotiations and to keep up their diplomatic behaviour. As such, it might be that the digital learning environment enabled participants to more intensively and constantly communicate in an informal way during negotiations as compared to face-to-face simulations.

Being represented by an avatar in the Virbela environment could be a downside because it does not allow participants to receive non-verbal feedback from others, such as gestures or facial expressions. In addition, hiding behind avatars might have contributed to some participants more easily participating in a passive way than in face-to-face settings (e.g. lacking participation). However, the lack of participation might also be related to the variation of preparatory activities of students participating in the simulation as this varied from one preparatory activity with a University teacher to a several week preparatory course.

EuroSim 2021 is a large-scale simulation, which includes a large variety of actors and offers a high level of variation in simulation settings (e.g. formal and informal programmes). It provides a rich environment in which simulation dynamics take place in their full complexity (Duchatelet et al. 2022). This complexity contributes to the rich findings, including the emergence of different types of social persuasion. However, the 2021 edition of EuroSim differs substantially from smaller-scale in-class simulations which last only a few hours and often involve a smaller group of students, or from simulations that do not include the virtual element. This means that our findings should be interpreted with caution as they cannot be generalized to non-similar simulation settings. Future research should explore further the relations between design elements and the outcome of self-efficacy in negotiating in other diverse simulation settings.

The sample of this study could be considered rather small and therefore results can be considered less generalizable. However, case studies do not primarily aim to generalize findings to other settings or populations, but are conducted to explain more fully the richness and complexity of a case in a real-life context or setting (Yin 2018). Participants were exclusively selected from one and the same university, which ensured limited variation in student characteristics such as prior knowledge and/or simulation experience. This ensured that the variation found within the sample was primarily based on contextual factors of the simulation (Palinkas et al. 2015), or put more specifically, on the critical incidents in which social persuasion emerges during the simulation. Also, the use of different data sources spread over time allowed a consistency check. Triangulation of researcher, data, and time (Cohen et al. 2011; Yin 2018) contributed to the reliability of the findings.

This study’s key findings imply several recommendations for educational practice. The importance of informal settings in negotiations is clearly mirrored in our results. Firstly, to foster self-efficacy in negotiating, the emergence of social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy could be facilitated by granting students enough possibilities to initiate informal contact. This could be facilitated, for example, by formally reserving time in the programme for breaks, as occurred during the 2021 edition of EuroSim, but also by organizing social events after formal negotiations. Although it might be more difficult to organize such events during online simulations, informal meetings—albeit digital—could provide additional space and time for participants to prepare and eventually achieve decisions. Furthermore, preparatory activities could inform students about the crucial role informal meetings play in the negotiation process prior to the simulation and offer them the possibility to practice negotiating informally during classes. In addition, as also available during EuroSim 2021, teachers could stimulate their students to set up chat groups via WhatsApp on the first day of the simulation, to be able to communicate informally with members from their committee or council from an early stage of the negotiations. With regard to the use of a specific digital environment such as Virbela, teachers could advise their students to visit the environment prior to the simulation to explore its communication options, or could even visit this environment during class. In this way, students will be prepared to take full advantage of their opportunities to negotiate informally in the digital environment.

Secondly, future simulation design could give more attention to the amount of participation and preparation of students in simulations. In the current study, both aspects were mentioned in relation to indirect negative messages of social persuasion. Possibly, stimulating students to actively participate and thoroughly prepare themselves could not only contribute to the real-world extent (verisimilitude) and smoother running of the negotiation process, but also to the overall presence of the source of social persuasion in the simulation. When students participate actively in the simulation and are well-prepared, this enhances the chance of them being visible (Duchatelet et al. 2020) and receiving more positive messages of social persuasion when performing well, such as being asked for help by other participants. This, in turn, might positively affect their self-efficacy and their negotiation success. Previous work has pointed to variation in preparation from one or several meetings with mostly a focus on knowledge sharing, to one or several assignments including researching, writing and presenting (Duchatelet et al. 2019). It seems that the students in our sample were well prepared after taking a several week course that includes preparatory activities, such as writing a position paper on the topics discussed during the simulation, and participating in a negotiation and presentation skills training. However, research has not yet focused on how different types of preparatory activities contribute to student learning in simulations of political decision-making.

Thirdly, it should be underlined that poor role performance, which has been discussed in relation to indirect negative messages of social persuasion and experiencing a decrease in self-efficacy, could be related to the way roles are allocated. Future research could further investigate the effects of role assignment based on student characteristics on simulation-based learning outcomes, for example, aspects such as academic success, motivation or personality could be taken into account (e.g., Duchatelet et al. 2019). For simulation practice, results point to the competence, expertise and adequate role performance of chairs that seem to play an important role during simulation conduction. Thus, it would be advisable to carefully select chairs. In general, the process of allocation of different roles and their relation with student learning needs further attention from researchers.

To conclude, this study contributed to exploring the role of simulation design elements in fostering social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy in negotiating. By adopting a qualitative exploratory approach, results provided a detailed overview of both design elements and messages of social persuasion. Also, findings offer profound insights into the interplay between these two domains. We hope the findings of the current study might not only spark further attention concerning the role of design in simulation contexts, but might also inspire political science teachers who offer simulations in their teaching practice.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Biographies

Anne Veerman

studied Educational Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. She is affiliated as an educational consultant at Vonk (previous organisation name: Clusius College), Alkmaar (the Netherlands). Her particular activities include educational innovation, and evaluation of the educational process and of educators. Her research interests include curriculum design and fostering student motivation in the specific context of vocational education.

Dorothy Duchatelet

is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the Open University of the Netherlands. She is a member of the research group Online Learning and Instruction. Her research interests include authentic (online) learning contexts that bring professional practice into education. More specifically, her research focuses on simulation-based learning in higher education, and on the development of professional expertise.