IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v194y2009i2p452-463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method

Author

Listed:
  • Vetschera, Rudolf

Abstract

To create an integrative solution in a bargaining problem, negotiators need to have information about each other's preferences. Empirical negotiation research therefore requires methods to measure the extent to which information about preferences is available during a negotiation. We propose such a method based on Starr's domain criterion, which was originally developed for sensitivity analysis in decision making. Our method provides indices for the amount of preference information that can be inferred both in negotiations reaching an agreement and negotiations where an agreement was not (yet) reached. To test the external validity of our proposed measures, we conduct an empirical study which shows that the proposed measures exhibit positive relationships to the success of negotiations as well as to the efficiency of outcomes that would be expected according to negotiation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:2:p:452-463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(07)01214-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Wolters, W. T. M. & Mareschal, B., 1995. "Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 281-290, March.
    2. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    3. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    4. Eiselt, H. A. & Laporte, Gilbert, 1992. "The use of domains in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 292-298, September.
    5. Mareschal, Bertrand, 1988. "Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 54-64, January.
    6. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2000. "A multi-criteria agency model with incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 152-165, October.
    7. Janice Nadler & Leigh Thompson & Leaf Van Boven, 2003. "Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 529-540, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    10. Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 1997. "LP-metric sensitivity analysis for single and multi-attribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 563-570, May.
    11. Stanley Zionts & Jyrki Wallenius, 1976. "An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 652-663, February.
    12. Thompson, Leigh & DeHarpport, Terri, 1994. "Social Judgment, Feedback, and Interpersonal Learning in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 327-345, June.
    13. Arunachalam, Vairam & Dilla, William N., 1995. "Judgment Accuracy and Outcomes in Negotiation: A Causal Modeling Analysis of Decision-Aiding Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 289-304, March.
    14. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki & Zionts, Stanley, 1996. "Identifying Pareto-optimal settlements for two-party resource allocation negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 536-549, September.
    15. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    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. Vetschera, Rudolf & Chen, Ye & Hipel, Keith W. & Marc Kilgour, D., 2010. "Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 841-852, May.
    2. repec:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9329-z is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    4. repec:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9319-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    6. Christoph Graf & Magdalena Six, 2014. "The effect of information on the quality of decisions," 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. 22(4), pages 647-662, December.
    7. repec:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-013-9357-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9283-9 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:2:p:452-463. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.