Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bertrand Mareschal & Wihelmus Theodorus Marie Wolters, 1995.
"Novel types of sensitivity analysis for additive MCDM methods,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/9363, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bertrand Mareschal, 1988.
"Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/9317, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Mareschal, Bertrand, 1988. "Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 54-64, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
- James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.