IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v32y2023i2d10.1007_s10726-023-09813-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the First Offer: Decoding Negotiation Openings and Their Impact on Economic and Subjective Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfram E. Lipp

    (Technical University of Munich)

  • Remigiusz Smolinski

    (HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management)

  • Peter Kesting

    (Aarhus University)

Abstract

First offers play a significant role in negotiations as they anchor negotiators’ perceptions and influence negotiation outcomes in favor of the first-offer proposer. However, negotiation is a joint decision-making process in which a first offer is typically succeeded by a counteroffer. The impact of a counteroffer has not yet been systematically researched. We propose that a counteroffer influences negotiation outcomes like a first offer. In addition, we conceptualize the “anchor zone” as the distance between the first offer and the counteroffer. We theorize that the anchor zone influences negotiation outcomes because it captures additional information compared to a single offer. To test our hypotheses, we conducted two studies: Study 1 was a vignette study (n = 190) in which participants reacted to a counteroffer that they received based on their first offer as part of a simulated negotiation. Study 2 was an online experiment (n = 212) in which participants negotiated by exchanging offers with no further communication. Our analysis suggests that the counteroffer is a significant predictor of economic outcomes. Thus, it works like a first offer, but with a lower impact. In addition, the anchor zone predicted how far the final agreement was from the first offer. Furthermore, we found that the third offer, the average concessions, and the number of offers mediated the effects of the counteroffer and anchor zone on economic outcomes. Finally, we discovered that a more aggressive counteroffer reduced the subjective value of both negotiators.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfram E. Lipp & Remigiusz Smolinski & Peter Kesting, 2023. "Beyond the First Offer: Decoding Negotiation Openings and Their Impact on Economic and Subjective Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 395-433, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09813-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09813-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09813-5
    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/s10726-023-09813-5?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. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Whyte, Glen & Sebenius, James K., 1997. "The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 74-85, January.
    3. Schaerer, Michael & Loschelder, David D. & Swaab, Roderick I., 2016. "Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: The elusive power of multiple alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 156-171.
    4. Mussweiler, Thomas & Strack, Fritz, 2001. "The Semantics of Anchoring," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 234-255, November.
    5. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    6. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    7. William P. Bottom & Paul W. Paese, 1999. "Judgment Accuracy and the Asymmetric Cost of Errors in Distributive Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 349-364, July.
    8. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    9. Yossi Maaravi & Boaz Hameiri, 2019. "Deep Pockets and Poor Results: The Effect of Wealth Cues on First Offers in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 43-62, February.
    10. Ritov, Ilana, 1996. "Anchoring in Simulated Competitive Market Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 16-25, July.
    11. Neil E. Fassina & Glen R. Whyte, 2014. "“I am Disgusted by Your Proposal”: The Effects of a Strategic Flinch in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 901-920, July.
    12. Van Poucke, Dirk & Buelens, Marc, 2002. "Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: Contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-76, February.
    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. Yossi Maaravi & Aharon Levy, 2017. "When your anchor sinks your boat: Information asymmetry in distributive negotiations and the disadvantage of making the first offer," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 420-429, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:420-429 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Brady, Garrett L. & Inesi, M. Ena & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2021. "The power of lost alternatives in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 59-80.
    4. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "Anchoring in project duration estimation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 49-65.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:41-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    7. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    8. Qian Wang & Michael Chau & Chih-Hung Peng & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2022. "Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1451-1463, October.
    9. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    10. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    11. Birte Englich & Kirsten Soder, 2009. "Moody experts --- How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 41-50, February.
    12. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2016. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    13. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Shavin Malhotra & Pengcheng Zhu & Taco H. Reus, 2015. "Anchoring on the acquisition premium decisions of others," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(12), pages 1866-1876, December.
    15. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. António Osório, 2020. "On the first-offer dilemma in bargaining and negotiations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 179-202, September.
    17. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    18. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Francesca Gioia, 2017. "Peer effects on risk behaviour: the importance of group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 100-129, March.
    20. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Hoeffler, Steve & Ariely, Dan & West, Pat, 2006. "Path dependent preferences: The role of early experience and biased search in preference development," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 215-229, November.
    23. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    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:32:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09813-5. 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.