IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/18234.html

What do People Value when they Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Curhan, Jared R.
  • Elfenbein, Hillary Anger
  • Xu, Heng

Abstract

Four studies provide support for the development and validation of a framework for understanding the range of social psychological outcomes valued subjectively as consequences of negotiations. Study 1 inductively elicited and coded elements of subjective value among students, community members, and negotiation practitioners, revealing 20 categories that negotiation theorists in Study 2 sorted to reveal four underlying dimensions: Feelings about Instrumental Outcomes, the Self, Process, and Relationship. Study 3 proposed a new Subjective Value Inventory (SVI) questionnaire and confirmed its 4-factor structure, and Study 4 presents convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity data for this SVI. Results suggest the SVI is a promising tool to systematize and encourage research on the subjective outcomes of negotiation.

Suggested Citation

  • Curhan, Jared R. & Elfenbein, Hillary Anger & Xu, Heng, 2005. "What do People Value when they Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation," Working papers 18234, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:18234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/18234
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Oliver, Richard L. & Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar) & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 252-275, November.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Straub, Paul G. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1995. "An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 345-364, August.
    6. Mannix, Elizabeth A. & Tinsley, Catherine H. & Bazerman, Max, 1995. "Negotiating over Time: Impediments to Integrative Solutions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 241-251, June.
    7. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Brodt, Susan E. & Neale, Margaret A., 1995. "Negotiating with Nonlinear Subjective Utilities: Why Some Concessions Are More Equal Than Others," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 298-310, September.
    8. Bonomo, Vittorio A & Johnson, Dana J & Thompson, G Rodney, 1995. "The Impact of the," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 30(1), pages 23-40, February.
    9. White, Judith B. & Tynan, Renee & Galinsky, Adam D. & Thompson, Leigh, 2004. "Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 102-124, July.
    10. Novemsky, Nathan & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2004. "What makes negotiators happy? The differential effects of internal and external social comparisons on negotiator satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 186-197, November.
    11. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    12. Tinsley, Catherine H. & O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Sullivan, Brandon A., 2002. "Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 621-642, July.
    13. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    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. Manfred Königstein & Marie Claire Villeval, 2005. "The Choice of the Agenda in Labor Negotiations: Efficiency and Behavioral Considerations," Post-Print halshs-00175021, HAL.

    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. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    2. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    3. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: The economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    4. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    5. Anca Maria CLIPA, 2018. "Employment Contract Negotiations For Romanian It Employees And Their Willingness For Future (Re)Negotiations," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 18, pages 307-312, December.
    6. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    7. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    8. Fischer, Sven & Guth, Werner & Pull, Kerstin, 2007. "Is there as-if bargaining?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 546-560, August.
    9. Wentao Yi & Chunqiao Tan, 2019. "Bertrand Game with Nash Bargaining Fairness Concern," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-22, August.
    10. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    11. Christoph Zott, 2002. "When Adaptation Fails," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 727-753, December.
    12. Slosse, Wannes & Mutuku, Kennedy Vaati & de Clercq, Michaël & D’Haese, Marijke & Schoors, Koen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2025. "Uncertainty and inequality preferences in the Ultimatum Game: A case study on Kenyan smallholder farmers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A prospect theory Nash bargaining solution and its stochastic stability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 692-711.
    14. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2013. "Reference dependent altruism in demand bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 127-140.
    15. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    16. Anca-Maria Clipa & Cătălin-Ioan Clipa & Magdalena Danileț & Andreia Gabriela Andrei, 2019. "Enhancing Sustainable Employment Relationships: An Empirical Investigation of the Influence of Trust in Employer and Subjective Value in Employment Contract Negotiations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Damien Bol & Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez, 2022. "Two Person Bargaining Mechanisms: A Laboratory Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1145-1177, December.
    18. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    19. Ken Binmore, 2010. "Social norms or social preferences?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 9(2), pages 139-157, December.
    20. van Damme, E.E.C., 2015. "Game theory : Noncooperative games," Other publications TiSEM ff518f2b-501f-4d99-817b-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:mit:sloanp:18234. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask None to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.