IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v28y1984i3p420-450.html

Modeling the Role of Conflict and Conciliation in Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Saraydar

    (Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario)

Abstract

So as to provide a more general framework for an analysis of those factors that can influence the outcome of bargaining under a situation of uncertainty, this article develops an adaptive-expectations multisized-concession paradigm of bargaining. The firmness with which bargainers hold to their positions is a function of the expected utility of the potential payoffs associated with alternative moves, and the size of alternative concession prospects is considered implicitly in relationship to the differential effect on subjective probability distributions. The construct permits the development of the role of bargaining as a communicative device, designed to transmit and receive information, create and dispel uncertainty. Bluff and notbluff are discussed as tactics of conflict and conciliation, within the context of a relationship between the manifest bargaining stance of bargainers and their actual commitment to their current demand. The “loss of face†factor involved in concession moves is explored, as well as the role of time and timing as bargaining tactics. Finally, quid pro quo is discussed as a tactic of conciliation, together with the constituents of what might be termed an optimum bargaining behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Saraydar, 1984. "Modeling the Role of Conflict and Conciliation in Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(3), pages 420-450, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:28:y:1984:i:3:p:420-450
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002784028003003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002784028003003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002784028003003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "A Theory of Disagreement in Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 607-637, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    2. Feltovich, Nick & Swierzbinski, Joe, 2011. "The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 554-574, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Giovanni Righetto & Paolo Vanin, 2025. "Political power, conflict and backlash: theory and evidence from Italy," Working Papers wp1213, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    5. Konstantin Chatziathanasiou & Svenja Hippel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2020. "Property, Redistribution, and the Status Quo," Munich Papers in Political Economy 02, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    6. Böhringer, Christoph & Helm, Carsten & Schürer, Laura, 2025. "How to boost countries’ climate ambitions: Turning gains from emissions trading into gains for climate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Hadjikhani, Amjad & Lee, Joong-Woo & Ghauri, Pervez N., 2008. "Network view of MNCs' socio-political behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 912-924, September.
    8. Nobel Prize Committee, 2005. "Robert Aumann's and Thomas Schelling's Contributions to Game Theory: Analyses of Conflict and Cooperation," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2005-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    9. Miettinen, Topi & Vanberg, Christoph, 2020. "Commitment and Conflict in Multilateral Bargaining," Working Papers 0679, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    11. Kalyan Chatterjee & Gary L. Lilien, 1984. "Efficiency of Alternative Bargaining Procedures," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 270-295, June.
    12. Chowdhury, Prabal Roy, 1998. "Externalities and bargaining disagreement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 61-65, October.
    13. Dutta, Rohan, 2012. "Bargaining with revoking costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 144-153.
    14. Schotter, Andrew & Zheng, Wei & Snyder, Blaine, 2000. "Bargaining Through Agents: An Experimental Study of Delegation and Commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 248-292, February.
    15. Sigifredo Laengle & Gino Loyola & David Tobón-Orozco, 2020. "Bargaining under polarization: The case of the Colombian armed conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(4), pages 551-563, July.
    16. Segendorff, Bjorn, 1998. "Delegation and Threat in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 266-283, May.
    17. Paolo Balduzzi, 2004. "Delegation Games with Full Commitment," Working Papers 70, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2004.
    18. Daniel Cardona-Coll, 2003. "Bargaining and Strategic Demand Commitment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 357-374, June.
    19. Ahmet Ozkardas & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2014. "Holdout threats of the union during wage bargaining," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01112402, HAL.
    20. Alberto Casagrande & Marco Spallone, 2007. "Investigating the determinants of pretrial settlement rates: contingent versus non-contingent lawyers’ fees," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-13, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:jocore:v:28:y:1984:i:3:p:420-450. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.