IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v32y2022i1d10.1007_s12525-021-00473-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental examination of credible information disclosure, perception of fairness, and intention to do business in online multi-bilateral negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Yu

    (Dalhousie University)

  • Gregory E. Kersten

    (Concordia University)

  • Rustam Vahidov

    (Concordia University)

Abstract

Inter-firm negotiations are often non-discrete: they are not isolated exchange episodes, but part of an ongoing process of building strategic relationships between the firms. This view posits a challenge to the design and application of negotiation mechanisms in e-markets supporting business-to-business exchanges. The assessment of the mechanisms needs to include both the impacts within each discrete exchange episode and those shaping the future of the inter-firm relationships. We argue that strategies of information revelation implemented with negotiation mechanisms can influence participants’ fairness perceptions, which can further affect business relationships. The paper examines both substantive and subjective measures in an experiment involving two multi-bilateral negotiations with distinct information disclosure strategies. The results show that the revelation of the best offer affects participants’ perceived fairness which, in turn, positively influences intention to do business. The findings have implications for both the design and use of negotiation mechanisms where inter-firm relationships are concerned.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Yu & Gregory E. Kersten & Rustam Vahidov, 2022. "An experimental examination of credible information disclosure, perception of fairness, and intention to do business in online multi-bilateral negotiations," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 217-237, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:32:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s12525-021-00473-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-021-00473-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-021-00473-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-021-00473-4?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. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    3. Daniel Druckman & Lynn Wagner, 2017. "Justice and Fairness in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 9-17, January.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Ofir Turel & Yufei Yuan, 2008. "You can’t shake hands with clenched fists: potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 141-155, March.
    6. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    7. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    8. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-1095, December.
    9. Gueth, W. & van Damme, E.E.C., 1994. "Information, strategic behavior and fairness in ultimatum bargaining : An experimental study," Other publications TiSEM 84951aae-31ab-46fc-85f5-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Mohamed Charki & Emmanuel Josserand & Nabila Charki, 2011. "Toward an Ethical Understanding of the Controversial Technology of Online Reverse Auctions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 17-37, January.
    11. Chris Arnot & Peter C. Boxall & Sean B. Cash, 2006. "Do Ethical Consumers Care About Price? A Revealed Preference Analysis of Fair Trade Coffee Purchases," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 555-565, December.
    12. Rainer Alt, 2018. "Electronic Markets on digitalization," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(4), pages 397-402, November.
    13. Kim, Tae-Yeol & Leung, Kwok, 2007. "Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 83-95, September.
    14. repec:feb:natura:0061 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Laura T. Raynolds & Douglas Murray & Peter Leigh Taylor, 2004. "Fair trade coffee: building producer capacity via global networks," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 1109-1121.
    16. Tony Haitao Cui & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2007. "Fairness and Channel Coordination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(8), pages 1303-1314, August.
    17. Charles J. Thomas & Bart J. Wilson, 2005. "Verifiable Offers and the Relationship Between Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 1016-1031, October.
    18. Huang, Jen-Hung & Chang, Ching-Te & Chen, Cathy Yi-Hsuan, 2005. "Perceived fairness of pricing on the Internet," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 343-361, June.
    19. Florence de Ferran & Klaus Grunert, 2007. "French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: An exploratory study using means-end chains analysis," Post-Print hal-02539044, HAL.
    20. Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
    21. Yilmaz, Cengiz & Sezen, Bulent & Kabadayi, Ebru Tumer, 2004. "Supplier fairness as a mediating factor in the supplier performance-reseller satisfaction relationship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(8), pages 854-863, August.
    22. Fabian Ocker, 2018. "“Bid more, pay less” – overbidding and the Bidder’s curse in teleshopping auctions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 28(4), pages 491-508, November.
    23. Straub, Paul G. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1995. "An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 345-364, August.
    24. Charles J. Thomas & Bart J. Wilson, 2002. "A Comparison of Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 140-155, Spring.
    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. Rainer Alt, 2022. "Electronic Markets on platform dualities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 1-10, March.

    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. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    2. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    4. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    6. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    7. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    8. Ernesto Reuben & Frans van Winden, 2005. "Negative Reciprocity and the Interaction of Emotions and Fairness Norms," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 05-014/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Iris Bohnet & Richard Zeckhauser, 2004. "Social Comparisons in Ultimatum Bargaining," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 495-510, October.
    10. Peter Bußwolder & Swetlana Dregert & Peter Letmathe, 2019. "Consequences of Unfair Job Promotions in Organizations," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    11. Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Thomas Riechmann & Joachim Weimann, 2017. "The dynamics of behavior in modified dictator games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    13. Timo Heinrich, 2019. "Discussion of “Consequences of Unfair Job Promotions in Organizations”," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(1), pages 27-33, February.
    14. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    15. Eckel, Catherine & Gintis, Herbert, 2010. "Blaming the messenger: Notes on the current state of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 109-119, January.
    16. Mertins Vanessa & Albert Max, 2015. "Does Participation Increase Outcome Acceptance? Evidence from a Power-to-take Experiment," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(6), pages 584-607, December.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    18. Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2004. "Relying on a man's word?: An experimental study on non-binding contracts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 299-332, September.
    19. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Halevy, Yoram & Peters, Michael, 2007. "Other Regarding Preferences: Outcomes, Intentions, or Interdependence," Microeconomics.ca working papers peters-07-03-31-11-46-48, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 24 Jun 2009.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    perceived fairness; multi-bilateral negotiations; business relationship;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:elmark:v:32:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s12525-021-00473-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.