IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/1601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dynamic Valuation: Preference Changes in the Context of Face-to-face Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Neale, Maragaret
  • Ross, Lee
  • Curhan, Jared

Abstract

This study examines the dynamics of preference change in the context of face-to-face negotiation. Participants playing the role of ?student? or ?financial aid officer? exchanged proposals regarding the terms of a student loan. In accord with dissonance theory, participants increased their liking for proposals they offered and/or ultimately accepted. The reactance theory prediction that participants would devalue proposals received from their counterparts was confirmed for loan officers, but not for students. A pair of experimental manipulations involving pre-rating of proposals and the opportunity for participants to engage in brief discussions prior to the initial exchange of offers mediated these effects and influenced subsequent rates of agreement as well as post-settlement satisfaction. Underlying attributional mechanisms and implications of these findings for facilitating agreements are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Neale, Maragaret & Ross, Lee & Curhan, Jared, 2002. "Dynamic Valuation: Preference Changes in the Context of Face-to-face Negotiation," Working papers 4253-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1601
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    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. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    2. Lohse, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Diederich , Johannes, 2014. "Giving is a question of time: Response times and contributions to a real world public good," Working Papers 0566, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    4. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    5. John List & Jason Shogren, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss from Christmas: Comment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00531, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    7. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.
    8. Khalil, Elias L., 2010. "The Bayesian fallacy: Distinguishing internal motivations and religious beliefs from other beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 268-280, August.
    9. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Experiments in economics: should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-30.
    11. Jesper Breinbjerg & Alexander Sebald & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2016. "Strategic behavior and social outcomes in a bottleneck queue: experimental evidence," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(3), pages 207-236, September.
    12. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    13. Courgeau, Daniel, 2012. "Probability and social science : methodologial relationships between the two approaches ?," MPRA Paper 43102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    16. Miroslav Svoboda, 2014. "Fenomenologie jako základ ekonomické metody [Phenomenology as a Foundation of Economic Method]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2014(3), pages 400-417.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1464-1484 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    19. Kim, Younjun, 2015. "Essays on firm location decisions, regional development and choices under risk," ISU General Staff Papers 201501010800005579, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Gerasímou, Georgios, 2010. "Consumer theory with bounded rational preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 708-714, 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:mit:sloanp:1601. 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: None (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssmitus.html .

    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.