IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v152y2019icp64-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardelli, Geoffrey J.
  • Gu, Jun
  • McRuer, Geordie
  • Medvec, Victoria Husted
  • Galinsky, Adam D.

Abstract

The tension that negotiators face between claiming and creating value is particularly apparent when exchanging offers. We tested whether presenting a choice among first offers (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers; MESOs) reduces this negotiator dilemma and increases economic and relational outcomes. Six experiments comparing MESOs to a single package-offer revealed three effects. First, MESOs produced stronger anchors and better outcomes for the offerer because recipients perceived MESOs as a more sincere attempt at reaching an agreement (agreement sincerity). Second, MESOs yielded greater joint outcomes because they were probabilistically more likely to include an economically attractive starting point for recipients (initial recipient-value). Third, MESOs allowed the offerer to secure a cooperative reputation and created a more cooperative negotiation climate. Negotiators who offered MESOs were able to claim and create more economic and relational value. MESOs reduced the negotiator dilemma for offerers by also reducing it for recipients. Weblinks in the appendix give access to supplementary materials, analyses, and data.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:152:y:2019:i:c:p:64-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781630557X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.007?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. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Whyte, Glen & Sebenius, James K., 1997. "The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 74-85, January.
    4. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "The Effects of Anchor Points and Reference Points on Negotiation Process and Outcome," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 85-94, July.
    5. Robert R. Blake & Jane Srygley Mouton, 1961. "Reactions to Intergroup Competition Under Win-Lose Conditions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 420-435, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. "Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 175-186, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Marc Pilisuk & Paul Potter & Anatol Rapoport & J. Alan Winter, 1965. "War Hawks and Peace Doves: alternate resolutions of experimental conflicts," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 9(4), pages 491-508, December.
    12. Jiwoong Shin & Dan Ariely, 2004. "Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 575-586, May.
    13. Marc Pilisuk & Paul Skolnick & Kenneth Thomas & Reuben Chapman, 1967. "Boredom vs. cognitive reappraisal in the development of cooperative strategy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(1), pages 110-116, March.
    14. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    15. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, 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. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Yao, Jingjing & Brett, Jeanne M. & Zhang, Zhi-Xue & Ramirez-Marin, Jimena, 2021. "Multi-issue offers strategy and joint gains in negotiations: How low-trust negotiators get things done," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 9-23.
    3. Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.

    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. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    4. Cardella, Eric & Seiler, Michael J., 2016. "The effect of listing price strategy on real estate negotiations: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-90.
    5. Rhode, Alexander & Schönbohm, Avo & van Vliet, Jacobus, 2014. "The tactical utilization of cognitive biases in negotiations," Working Papers 80, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute of Management Berlin (IMB).
    6. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    7. Andrzej Kozina, 2017. "Negotiation Competences of an Entrepreneur," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(65), pages 209-225.
    8. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    9. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "Determinants of buyers' aspiration and reservation price," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 487-503, September.
    10. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    11. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    12. 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.
    13. Copeland, Phyllis V. & Cuccia, Andrew D., 2002. "Multiple Determinants of Framing Referents in Tax Reporting and Compliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 499-526, May.
    14. Yossi Maaravi & Orly Idan & Guy Hochman, 2019. "And sympathy is what we need my friend—Polite requests improve negotiation results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    15. Wang, Jingguo & Zionts, Stanley, 2008. "Negotiating wisely: Considerations based on MCDM/MAUT," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 191-205, July.
    16. Oza, Shweta S. & Srivastava, Joydeep & Koukova, Nevena T., 2010. "How suspicion mitigates the effect of influence tactics," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 1-10, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Porter, David & Schneider, Mark, 2021. "Reference dependent prices in bargaining: An experimental examination of precise first offers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Justyna Zygmunt, 2017. "Enterprises’ Development in Peripheral Regions: Patterns and Determinants," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(65), pages 226-236.

    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:152:y:2019:i:c:p:64-83. 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.