IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/88288.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Precious property or magnificent money? How money salience but not temperature priming affects first-offer anchors in economic transactions

Author

Listed:
  • Leusch, Yannik M.
  • Loschelder, David D.
  • Basso, Frédéric

Abstract

The present study aims for a better understanding of how individuals’ behavior in monetary price negotiations differs from their behavior in bartering situations. Two contrasting hypotheses were derived from endowment theory and current negotiation research to examine whether negotiators are more susceptible to anchoring in price negotiations versus in bartering transactions. In addition, past research found that cues of coldness enhance cognitive control and reduce anchoring effects. We attempted to replicate these coldness findings for price anchors in a distributive negotiations scenario and to illuminate the potential interplay of coldness priming with a price versus bartering manipulation. Participants (N=219) were recruited for a 2 × 2 between-subjects negotiation experiment manipulating (1) monetary focus and (2) temperature priming. Our data show a higher anchoring susceptibility in price negotiations than in bartering transactions. Despite a successful priming manipulation check, coldness priming did not enhance cognitive control (nor interact with the price/bartering manipulation). Our findings improve our theoretical understanding of how the focus on negotiation resources frames economic transactions as either unidirectional or bidirectional, and how this focus shapes parties’ susceptibility for the anchoring bias and negotiation behavior. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Leusch, Yannik M. & Loschelder, David D. & Basso, Frédéric, 2018. "Precious property or magnificent money? How money salience but not temperature priming affects first-offer anchors in economic transactions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88288, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:88288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88288/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ori Heffetz & John A. List, 2014. "Is The Endowment Effect An Expectations Effect?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(5), pages 1396-1422, October.
    2. Mussweiler, Thomas & Strack, Fritz, 2001. "The Semantics of Anchoring," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 234-255, November.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    3. Wesemann, Henrik & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "A whole new world: Counterintuitive crowdfunding insights for female founders," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 15(C).
    4. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    5. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    7. Fugger, Nicolas & Gillen, Philippe & Riehm, Tobias, 2019. "Procurement design with loss averse bidders," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Tova Levin & Steven Levitt & John List, 2015. "A Glimpse into the World of High Capacity Givers: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign," Natural Field Experiments 00409, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    10. Sickar, Michael J. & Highhouse, Scott, 1998. "Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 75-91, July.
    11. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    12. Anbarci, Nejat & Arin, K. Peren & Kuhlenkasper, Torben & Zenker, Christina, 2018. "Revisiting loss aversion: Evidence from professional tennis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-18.
    13. 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.
    14. Clemens Puppe & Stephanie Rosenkranz, 2011. "Why Suggest Non‐Binding Retail Prices?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(310), pages 317-329, April.
    15. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    16. Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia & Bulte, Erwin & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Tran, Nhuong, 2021. "The Formation of Reference Points in Consumer Choice Behavior: Experimental Evidence from a Fish Market in Nigeria," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314964, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Rothman, Naomi B., 2011. "Steering sheep: How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making contexts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 66-82, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    20. Giacoletti, Marco & Parsons, Christopher A., 2022. "Peak-Bust rental spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 504-526.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    anchoring; loss aversion; resource framing; money; embodiment; temperature priming; Bartering;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:88288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.