Author
Listed:
- Ali Fehmi Ünal
(Uludag University, Department of Business Administration)
- Gül Gökay Emel
(Uludag University, Department of Business Administration)
Abstract
Summary Negotiation can be defined as a joint decision making process where two or more parties are trying to inuence the other about the allocation of resources or division of gains for the purpose of achieving own or mutual interests [2]; [16]. Negotiators often fail to reach Pareto optimal solutions when there is integrative potential that expand the pie and yield higher joint outcomes [2]; [16]; [19]. Literature showed that framing of conicts and power relations are two widely acknowledged factors that affect the negotiation process and outcomes. According to Emerson \the power of A over B is equal to and based upon the dependence of B upon A" [7]. The power imbalance empirically manifests when high-power and low-power parties initialize a supply-demand relationship in which these demands are contradictory to supplier‘s desires [7]. Nevertheless, decision makers -therefore negotiators- systematically violate the requirements of rational choice and deviate from rationality because of imperfections of human perception and decisions [9]; [14]; [18]. One of the hidden traps in decision making is reference framing which was first introduced by Prospect theory [9]; [18]. It is proposed that people normally perceive outcomes as gains and losses rather than final states of outcomes and valuation of any outcome, defined as gains or losses, depends on its location relative to the reference point which is assigned a value of zero. Further, they stated that people are more risk averse for positive but risk-seeking for negative outcomes. Thus, the way a problem is framed can dramatically inuence our choices
Suggested Citation
Ali Fehmi Ünal & Gül Gökay Emel, 2009.
"The Effect of Framing and Power Imbalance on Negotiation Behaviors and Outcomes,"
Springer Books, in: Bernhard Fleischmann & Karl-Heinz Borgwardt & Robert Klein & Axel Tuma (ed.), Operations Research Proceedings 2008, chapter 66, pages 407-412,
Springer.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-642-00142-0_66
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00142-0_66
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
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:sprchp:978-3-642-00142-0_66. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.