IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

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

  • Vetschera, Rudolf
Registered author(s):

    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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCT-4RDS1P4-2/2/35e8c52fa42f403dbf794647786ddb09
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal European Journal of Operational Research.

    Volume (Year): 194 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 2 (April)
    Pages: 452-463

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:194:y:2009:i:2:p:452-463
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Bertrand Mareschal, 1988. "Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9317, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    11. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.