IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v137y2016icp156-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Schaerer, Michael
  • Loschelder, David D.
  • Swaab, Roderick I.

Abstract

We challenge the assumption that having multiple alternatives is always better than a single alternative by showing that negotiators who have additional alternatives ironically exhibit downward-biased perceptions of their own and their opponent’s reservation price, make lower demands, and achieve worse outcomes in distributive negotiations. Five studies demonstrate that the apparent benefits of multiple alternatives are elusive because multiple alternatives led to less ambitious first offers (Studies 1–2) and less profitable agreements (Study 3). This distributive disadvantage emerged because negotiators’ perception of the bargaining zone was more distorted when they had additional (less attractive) alternatives than when they only had a single alternative (Studies 1–3). We further found that this multiple-alternatives disadvantage only emerges when negotiators used quantitative (versus qualitative) evaluation standards to gauge the extremity of their offers (Study 4), and when they base their offers on their own numerical alternative(s) versus on opponent information (Study 5).

Suggested Citation

  • Schaerer, Michael & Loschelder, David D. & Swaab, Roderick I., 2016. "Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 156-171.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:137:y:2016:i:c:p:156-171
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597815301503
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.09.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blount, Sally & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C. & Neale, Margaret A., 1996. "The Price Is Right--Or Is It? A Reference Point Model of Two-Party Price Negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Pinkley, Robin L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Bennett, Rebecca J., 1994. "The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 97-116, January.
    3. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    4. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    5. White, Sally Blount & Neale, Margaret A., 1994. "The Role of Negotiator Aspirations and Settlement Expectancies in Bargaining Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 303-317, February.
    6. Swaab, Roderick I. & Phillips, Katherine W. & Schaerer, Michael, 2016. "Secret conversation opportunities facilitate minority influence in virtual groups: The influence on majority power, information processing, and decision quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 17-32.
    7. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.
    8. Rebecca J. Wolfe & Kathleen L. Mcginn, 2005. "Perceived Relative Power and its Influence on Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 3-20, January.
    9. Mussweiler, Thomas & Strack, Fritz, 2001. "The Semantics of Anchoring," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 234-255, November.
    10. Joydeep Srivastava & Dipankar Chakravarti & Amnon Rapoport, 2000. "Price and Margin Negotiations in Marketing Channels: An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining Under One-sided Uncertainty and Opportunity Cost of Delay," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 163-184, October.
    11. Brooks, Alison Wood & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2011. "Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 43-54, May.
    12. Tripp, Thomas M. & Sondak, Harris, 1992. "An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Alice J. & Loschelder, David D. & Schweinsberg, Martin & Mason, Malia F. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2018. "Too precise to pursue: How precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiations and markets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 87-100.
    2. Wolfram E. Lipp & Remigiusz Smolinski & Peter Kesting, 2023. "Beyond the First Offer: Decoding Negotiation Openings and Their Impact on Economic and Subjective Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 395-433, April.
    3. Yossi Maaravi & Aharon Levy, 2017. "When your anchor sinks your boat: Information asymmetry in distributive negotiations and the disadvantage of making the first offer," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 420-429, September.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:420-429 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Brady, Garrett L. & Inesi, M. Ena & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2021. "The power of lost alternatives in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 59-80.
    6. Wiltermuth, Scott S. & Raj, Medha & Wood, Adam, 2018. "How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 14-30.
    7. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    8. Bhatia, Nazlı & Gunia, Brian C., 2018. "“I was going to offer $10,000 but…”: The effects of phantom anchors in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 70-86.
    9. Tey, Kian Siong & Schaerer, Michael & Madan, Nikhil & Swaab, Roderick I., 2021. "The Impact of Concession Patterns on Negotiations: When and Why Decreasing Concessions Lead to a Distributive Disadvantage," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 153-166.
    10. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Yap, Andy J. & Thau, Stefan, 2018. "Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 73-96.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brady, Garrett L. & Inesi, M. Ena & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2021. "The power of lost alternatives in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 59-80.
    2. Tey, Kian Siong & Schaerer, Michael & Madan, Nikhil & Swaab, Roderick I., 2021. "The Impact of Concession Patterns on Negotiations: When and Why Decreasing Concessions Lead to a Distributive Disadvantage," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 153-166.
    3. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    4. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2012. "Negotiating when outnumbered: Agenda strategies for bargaining with buying teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 280-291.
    5. Adam J. L. Harris & Maarten Speekenbrink, 2016. "Semantic cross-scale numerical anchoring," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(6), pages 572-581, November.
    6. Vairam Arunachalam & William Dilla & Marjorie Shelley & Chris Chan, 1998. "Market Alternatives, Third Party Intervention, and Third Party Informedness in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 81-107, March.
    7. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    8. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    9. Van Poucke, Dirk & Buelens, Marc, 2002. "Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: Contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-76, February.
    10. McCarter, Matthew W. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Kamal, Darcy K. Fudge & Bang, H. Min & Hyde, Steven J. & Maredia, Reshma, 2020. "Models of intragroup conflict in management: A literature review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 925-946.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:6:p:572-581 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    13. Valenzuela, Ana & Srivastava, Joydeep & Lee, Seonsu, 2005. "The role of cultural orientation in bargaining under incomplete information: Differences in causal attributions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 72-88, January.
    14. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    15. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Fernandes, Catarina R. & Yu, Siyu & Howell, Taeya M. & Wood Brooks, Alison & Kilduff, Gavin J. & Pettit, Nathan C., 2021. "What is your status portfolio? Higher status variance across groups increases interpersonal helping but decreases intrapersonal well-being," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 56-75.
    17. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    18. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    19. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "Determinants of buyers' aspiration and reservation price," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 487-503, September.
    20. Dunne, Timothy C. & Clark, Brent B. & Berns, John P. & McDowell, William C., 2019. "The technology bias in entrepreneur-investor negotiations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 258-269.
    21. Michael Ahearne & Yashar Atefi & Son K. Lam & Mohsen Pourmasoudi, 2022. "The future of buyer–seller interactions: a conceptual framework and research agenda," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 22-45, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:137:y:2016:i:c:p:156-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.