IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v23y2014i4d10.1007_s10726-012-9319-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Gettinger

    (University of Hohenheim)

  • Sabine T. Koeszegi

    (Vienna University of Technology)

Abstract

Information is probably the most relevant element upon which decision makers base their judgments. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the way information is presented inevitably influences human cognition and, consequently, the (electronically supported) decision making process. Presently, we lack an analytical approach of studying graphical decision aids implemented in electronic negotiation support systems (NSS). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify relevant factors for graphical decision aids in NSS, which provides negotiators with an analytical support approach. Secondly, based on a developed framework, we intend to categorize and analyze existing and newly developed graphical decision aids. Last, we develop research propositions showing avenues for future investigations in the field of graphical decision aids.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Gettinger & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 787-817, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9319-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9319-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9319-1
    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/s10726-012-9319-1?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. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    2. Edward J. Lusk & Michael Kersnick, 1979. "The Effect of Cognitive Style and Report Format on Task Performance: The MIS Design Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(8), pages 787-798, August.
    3. Michael Ströbel & Christof Weinhardt, 2003. "The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 143-164, March.
    4. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, 1989. "The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information Processing Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 285-303, March.
    5. Daniel Druckman & James N. Druckman & Tatsushi Arai, 2004. "e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 481-511, November.
    6. Inderst, Roman, 2000. "Multi-issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 64-82, January.
    7. Martin Jones & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 59-99, February.
    8. Flamini, Francesca, 2007. "First things first? The agenda formation problem for multi-issue committees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 138-157, May.
    9. William Remus, 1987. "A Study of Graphical and Tabular Displays and Their Interaction with Environmental Complexity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(9), pages 1200-1204, September.
    10. Elmar Kiesling & Johannes Gettinger & Christian Stummer & Rudolf Vetschera, 2011. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Interactive Visualization Methods for Multicriteria Portfolio Selection," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Ahti Salo & Jeffrey Keisler & Alec Morton (ed.), Portfolio Decision Analysis, chapter 0, pages 187-209, Springer.
    11. Mareike Schoop & Frank Köhne & Dirk Staskiewicz & Markus Voeth & Uta Herbst, 2008. "The antecedents of renegotiations in practice—an exploratory analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 127-139, March.
    12. Weinberger, Catherine J., 2000. "Selective Acceptance and Inefficiency in a Two-Issue Complete Information Bargaining Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 262-293, May.
    13. Davide Pietroni & Gerben A. Kleef & Carsten K. W. Dreu, 2008. "Response modes in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    14. Izak Benbasat & Albert S. Dexter, 1985. "An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(11), pages 1348-1364, November.
    15. Mara Olekalns, 2002. "Negotiation as Social Interaction," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 27(1_suppl), pages 39-46, June.
    16. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Shanteau, James, 1992. "Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 252-266, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    21. 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.
    22. Iris Vessey & Dennis Galletta, 1991. "Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 63-84, March.
    23. Henry C. Lucas, Jr., 1981. "An Experimental Investigation of the Use of Computer-Based Graphics in Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(7), pages 757-768, July.
    24. Alan R. Dennis & Traci A. Carte, 1998. "Using Geographical Information Systems for Decision Making: Extending Cognitive Fit Theory to Map-Based Presentations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 194-203, June.
    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. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.

    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. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    2. Marimo, Pricilla & Kaplan, Todd R & Mylne, Ken & Sharpe, Martin, 2012. "Communication of uncertainty in weather forecasts," MPRA Paper 38287, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Tim-Benjamin Lembcke & Mathias Willnat & Henrik Lechte & Maike Greve & Julia Heinsohn & Alfred Benedikt Brendel, 2021. "Mobility Need-Adaptive Housing Platforms: The Benefit of a Commute Time Search Feature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Debby Damen & Per Wijst & Marije Amelsvoort & Emiel Krahmer, 2020. "The Effect of Perspective-Taking on Trust and Understanding in Online and Face-to-Face Mediations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1121-1156, December.
    6. Mareike Schoop & Marije Amelsvoort & Johannes Gettinger & Michael Koerner & Sabine T. Koeszegi & Per Wijst, 2014. "The Interplay of Communication and Decisions in Electronic Negotiations: Communicative Decisions or Decisive Communication?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 167-192, March.
    7. Dunn, Cheryl L. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2017. "The combined effects of user schemas and degree of cognitive fit on data retrieval performance," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 46-67.
    8. Marie-Claire Villeval & Manfred Konigstein, 2005. "The Choice of the Agenda in Labor Negotiations: efficiency and behavioral considerations," Working Papers 0508, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    9. Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Horstmann, Ignatius J., 2002. "The game of negotiations: ordering issues and implementing agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 169-191, November.
    10. Dilla, William N. & Raschke, Robyn L., 2015. "Data visualization for fraud detection: Practice implications and a call for future research," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-22.
    11. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.
    12. Younghwan In & Roberto Serrano, 2000. "Agenda Restrictions in Multi-Issue Bargaining," Working Papers 2000-08, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    15. Canidio, Andrea & Karle, Heiko, 2022. "The focusing effect in negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 1-20.
    16. Oun-Joung Park & Jong-hyun Ryu, 2019. "Cognitive fit effects of online reviews on tourists’ information search," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 313-335, September.
    17. Tim Schröder & Lars-Peter Lauven & Beatriz Beyer & Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2019. "Using PROMETHEE to assess bioenergy pathways," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-309, June.
    18. Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano & David Urbano, 2009. "Overview of Collaborative Entrepreneurship: An Integrated Approach Between Business Decisions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 419-430, September.
    19. Ricardo Ernst & Jose Ignacio López-Sánchez & David Urbano, 2009. "A Negotiation Model for Inducing Higher Service in a Distribution Channel," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 499-517, September.
    20. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.

    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:23:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9319-1. 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.