IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v13y2004i3d10.1023_bgrup.0000031089.91654.26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Accuracy of Post-Negotiation Estimates of the Other Negotiator's Payoff

Author

Listed:
  • Jeryl L. Mumpower

    (University at Albany, State University of New York, UAB 417)

  • Jim Sheffield

    (University of Auckland)

  • Thomas A. Darling

    (University of Baltimore)

  • Richard G. Milter

    (Ohio University)

Abstract

This paper describes two empirical studies of interpersonal understanding in negotiations. In the first study, the accuracy of post-negotiation estimates of the other negotiator's payoff was assessed after a role-playing simulation. Only a minority of participants exhibited evidence of the fixed pie bias, in which negotiators view all negotiations as distributive, fixed-sum situations. Participants' estimates of the other negotiator's payoff were generally better fit by the equal payoffs model, which presumes that participants believe the other negotiator's payoff is the same as one's own. This held true for both distributive task structures in which the fixed-pie view is descriptively appropriate and integrative negotiation task structures in which the fixed-pied view is inaccurate. The results did not support the hypothesis that superior understanding about the other negotiator's interests helps negotiators to achieve better outcomes for themselves; the correlation between predictive accuracy and the value of participants' own payoffs was generally low. A second study was conducted to test the hypothesis that negotiators typically see negotiations as fundamentally a distributive, fixed pie problem, but believe their own negotiated agreements yield roughly equal payoffs to both negotiators. The results supported this hypothesis. In this second study, participants estimated the other negotiator's payoffs over a sample of hypothetical contracts. The payoff schedule estimation procedure, which has been widely used in previous research, was not used in the present research because it was shown to have serious methodological, conceptual, and procedural problems in the context of the present study.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeryl L. Mumpower & Jim Sheffield & Thomas A. Darling & Richard G. Milter, 2004. "The Accuracy of Post-Negotiation Estimates of the Other Negotiator's Payoff," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 259-290, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:3:d:10.1023_b:grup.0000031089.91654.26
    DOI: 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000031089.91654.26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000031089.91654.26
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000031089.91654.26?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. Bazerman, Max H. & Magliozzi, Thomas & Neale, Margaret A., 1985. "Integrative bargaining in a competitive market," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 294-313, June.
    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. 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.
    4. Neale, Margaret A. & Huber, Vandra L. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1987. "The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 228-241, April.
    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. Mandeep K. Dhami & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2018. "Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:1-22 is not listed 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. Bereby-Meyer, Yoella & Moran, Simone & Unger-Aviram, Esther, 2004. "When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 142-154, March.
    2. Phillips, Owen R. & Nagler, Amy M. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Huang, Shanshan & Bastian, Christopher T., 2014. "Trading partner choice and bargaining culture in negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 178-190.
    3. 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.
    4. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    5. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    6. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    9. Terry E. Daniel & James E. Parco, 2005. "Fair, Efficient and Envy-Free Bargaining: An Experimental Test of the Brams-Taylor Adjusted Winner Mechanism," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 241-264, May.
    10. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "Determinants of buyers' aspiration and reservation price," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 487-503, September.
    11. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Victoria Gilliland & John C. Dunn, 2008. "Decision making in civil disputes: The effects of legal role, frame, and perceived chance of winning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 512-527, October.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:512-527 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    16. Maura A. Belliveau, 2012. "Engendering Inequity? How Social Accounts Create vs. Merely Explain Unfavorable Pay Outcomes for Women," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1154-1174, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Daniel Druckman, 1994. "Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(3), pages 507-556, September.
    19. Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Concessions Dynamics in Electronic Negotiations: A Cross-Lagged Regression Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 245-265, March.
    20. 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.
    21. Victor Manuel Bennett, 2013. "Organization and Bargaining: Sales Process Choice at Auto Dealerships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2003-2018, 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:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:3:d:10.1023_b:grup.0000031089.91654.26. 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.