IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v10y2001i6d10.1023_a1012256222803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory E. Kersten

    (Concordia University)

Abstract

The development of user-friendly negotiation support systems enabled negotiators to obtain advice directly from the system rather than via an intermediary. The emergence of e-commerce and the development of negotiating software agents further contributed to the automation of negotiation activities. These developments exposed inconsistencies in the descriptions of integrative and distributed negotiations. They also showed limitations of the existing modeling methods. These methods were designed to support negotiation experts who themselves had to make distinctions between distributive and integrative processes. Inconsistent descriptions and the lack of formal models that could be embedded in systems often contribute to a mechanical approach to negotiations compounding the difficulty in the design and development of software that can be used in real-life situations. The contradictions between the characteristics of integrative and distributive negotiations are discussed and assumptions for these two types as well as qualitative differences between them are proposed. Negotiation literature suggests that it is the negotiators' perception of the problem that leads to the their focus on either distributive or integrative conflict resolution. This may be the case for negotiations that are not supported with software. In case of the latter it is the design principles and information processing that that differentiates these two types of negotiations. Negotiation representation based on the information requirements for different types of conflict is proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory E. Kersten, 2001. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 493-514, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1012256222803
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1012256222803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1012256222803
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1012256222803?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. Clyman, Dana R., 1995. "Measures of Joint Performance in Dyadic Mixed-Motive Negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 38-48, October.
    2. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    3. Katia P. Sycara, 1991. "Problem Restructuring in Negotiation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1248-1268, October.
    4. Clyde W. Holsapple & Hsiangchu Lai & Andrew B. Whinston, 1998. "A Formal Basis for Negotiation Support System Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 203-227, May.
    5. Arvind Rangaswamy & G. Richard Shell, 1997. "Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an "Electronic Bargaining Table"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1147-1163, August.
    6. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Pirja Heiskanen & Jeffrey Teich & Markku Verkama & Stanley Zionts, 1999. "Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-Party Setting: Constraint Proposal Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1697-1709, December.
    7. Dana R. Clyman & Thomas M. Tripp, 2000. "Discrepant Values and Measures of Negotiator Performance," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 251-274, July.
    8. Sunil Gupta, 1989. "Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(7), pages 788-806, July.
    9. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Kuula, Markku & Zionts, Stanley, 1995. "A decision support approach for negotiation with an application to agricultural income policy negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 76-87, February.
    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. Brooke Abrahams & Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow, 2012. "Incorporating Fairness into Development of an Integrated Multi-agent Online Dispute Resolution Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 3-28, January.
    2. Gomez, J. & Insua, D. Rios & Alfaro, C., 2016. "A participatory budget model under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(1), pages 351-358.
    3. Marc T. P. Adam & Timm Teubner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "No Rage Against the Machine: How Computer Agents Mitigate Human Emotional Processes in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 543-571, August.
    4. Andreas Dür & Gemma Mateo, 2010. "Bargaining Power and Negotiation Tactics: The Negotiations on the EU's Financial Perspective, 2007-13," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 557-578, June.
    5. Van den Abbeele, Alexandra & Roodhooft, Filip & Warlop, Luk, 2009. "The effect of cost information on buyer-supplier negotiations in different power settings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 245-266, February.
    6. Blaufus, Kay & Lorenz, Daniela & Milde, Michael & Peuthert, Benjamin & Schwäbe, Alexander N., 2022. "Negotiating with the tax auditor: Determinants of tax auditors' negotiation strategy choice and the effect on firms’ tax adjustments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Andreas Dür & Gemma Mateo, 2010. "Bargaining Power and Negotiation Tactics: The Negotiations on the EU's Financial Perspective, 2007–13," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 557-578, June.
    8. Ogliastri, Enrique & Quintanilla, Carlos & Benetti, Sara, 2023. "International negotiation prototypes: The impact of culture," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    9. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2009. "Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 452-463, April.
    10. Fisher, Joseph G. & Frederickson, James R. & Peffer, Sean A., 2006. "Budget negotiations in multi-period settings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 511-528, August.
    11. Wesley Douglas Oliveira Silva & Danielle Costa Morais & Marcella Maia Urtiga, 2022. "An integrative negotiation model to deal with conflicts toward water resources management: a case study in Brazil," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 10443-10469, August.
    12. Tung Bui & Jerome Yen & Jiuru Hu & Siva Sankaran, 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Negotiation Support System with Market Signaling for Electronic Markets," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 515-537, November.
    13. An Pan & Tsan-Ming Choi, 2016. "An agent-based negotiation model on price and delivery date in a fashion supply chain," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 242(2), pages 529-557, July.
    14. Ewa Roszkowska & Tom R. Burns, 2010. "Fuzzy Bargaining Games: Conditions of Agreement, Satisfaction, and Equilibrium," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 421-440, September.

    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. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    2. Heiskanen, Pirja & Ehtamo, Harri & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Constraint proposal method for computing Pareto solutions in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 44-61, August.
    3. Lou, Youcheng & Wang, Shouyang, 2016. "Approximate representation of the Pareto frontier in multiparty negotiations: Decentralized methods and privacy preservation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 968-976.
    4. Gregory Kersten & Sunil Noronha, 1999. "Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-cultural Study of Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 251-279, May.
    5. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Samaras, Andreas P., 2001. "MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 414-429, April.
    6. Ehtamo, Harri & Kettunen, Eero & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 54-69, April.
    7. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    9. Heiskanen, Pirja, 1999. "Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 578-590, September.
    10. Raith, Matthias G., 2017. "Fair negotiation procedures," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 300, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    11. Johannes S. Timmermans & Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2004. "An Experimental Assessment of Coleman's Linear System of Action for Supporting Policy Negotiations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 267-285, November.
    12. Guoming Lai & Katia Sycara, 2009. "A Generic Framework for Automated Multi-attribute Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 169-187, March.
    13. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Pirja Heiskanen & Jeffrey Teich & Markku Verkama & Stanley Zionts, 1999. "Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-Party Setting: Constraint Proposal Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1697-1709, December.
    14. Raith, Matthias G., 2000. "Fair-negotiation procedures," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 303-322, May.
    15. Angur, Madhukar G. & Lotfi, Vahid & Sarkis, Joseph, 1996. "A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 195-206, September.
    16. Kitti, Mitri & Ehtamo, Harri, 2007. "Analysis of the constraint proposal method for two-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 817-827, September.
    17. Nicolas Quérou & Patrick Rio & Mabel Tidball, 2007. "Multi-Party Negotiation When Agents Have Subjective Estimates of Bargaining Powers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 417-436, September.
    18. Pirja Heiskanen, 2001. "Generating Pareto‐optimal boundary points in multiparty negotiations using constraint proposal method," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 210-225, April.
    19. Martin Bichler & Gregory Kersten & Stefan Strecker, 2003. "Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 311-335, July.
    20. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.

    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:grdene:v:10:y:2001:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1012256222803. 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.