IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurjdp/v7y2019i1d10.1007_s40070-018-0093-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Filzmoser

    (TU Wien)

  • Johannes R. Gettinger

    (TU Wien)

Abstract

Negotiation by veto is introduced as a novel negotiation approach and as an alternative to the exchange of offers. Rather than proposing offers, negotiators following the negotiation by veto approach eliminate unfavorable settlement options from the set of possible agreements until they eventually achieve a mutual acceptable solution. It is argued that this approach could lead to superior negotiation outcomes and improve negotiators’ satisfaction. In an experiment with student participants the performance of offer and veto negotiation procedures is compared. In simple negotiation problems both negotiation procedures reach similar outcomes. In complex negotiation problems negotiation by veto achieves fewer but better agreements. However, participants were more satisfied with the negotiation process, outcome and their opponent’s behavior when exchanging offers rather than vetoing alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurjdp:v:7:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40070-018-0093-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40070-018-0093-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40070-018-0093-4
    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/s40070-018-0093-4?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. William Zartman, 1977. "Negotiation as a Joint Decision-Making Process," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 619-638, December.
    2. Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1986. "Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 305-317, December.
    3. George Abonyi, 1983. "Filtering: An Approach to Generating the Information Base for Collective Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 409-418, April.
    4. Jeryl L. Mumpower, 1991. "The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1304-1324, October.
    5. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    6. Michael Filzmoser & Rudolf Vetschera, 2008. "A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 421-443, September.
    7. Moulin, Herve, 1979. "Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1137-1151, November.
    8. Arvind Rangaswamy & G. Richard Shell, 1997. "Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an "Electronic Bargaining Table"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1147-1163, August.
    9. Otomar J. Bartos, 1977. "Simple Model of Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 565-579, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Mark Klein & Peyman Faratin & Hiroki Sayama & Yaneer Bar-Yam, 2003. "Negotiating Complex Contracts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 111-125, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Fany Yuval, 2002. "Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto 1," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 343-369, December.
    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. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2023. "Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Daniel Druckman & Lin Adrian & Malene Flensborg Damholdt & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koszegi & Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard, 2021. "Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 395-426, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    3. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Preston, Jared N. & Neale, Margaret A. & Kim, Peter H. & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C., 1998. "Non-linear Preference Functions and Negotiated Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 54-75, January.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2023. "Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Stephen E. Weiss, 2012. "Negotiators’ Effectiveness with Mixed Agendas: An Empirical Exploration of Tasks, Decisions and Performance Criteria," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-290, May.
    8. Andreas Schmid & Mareike Schoop, 2022. "Gamification of Electronic Negotiation Training: Effects on Motivation, Behaviour and Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 649-681, June.
    9. Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
    10. Lang, Fabian & Fink, Andreas & Brandt, Tobias, 2016. "Design of automated negotiation mechanisms for decentralized heterogeneous machine scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 192-203.
    11. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Mary Kay Stevenson, 1997. "Using Policy Modeling to Describe the Negotiation Exchange," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 317-337, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    17. Kaushal Chari & Manish Agrawal, 2007. "Multi-Issue Automated Negotiations Using Agents," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 588-595, November.
    18. Ivan Marsa-Maestre & Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona & Juan A. Carral & Guillermo Ibanez, 2013. "A Recursive Protocol for Negotiating Contracts Under Non-monotonic Preference Structures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-43, January.
    19. Muhammed-Fatih Kaya, 2022. "Pattern Labelling of Business Communication Data," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1203-1234, December.
    20. Michael Filzmoser & Rudolf Vetschera, 2008. "A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 421-443, 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:eurjdp:v:7:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40070-018-0093-4. 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.