Negotiating Inefficient Compromises: Is Less Better than More?
Significant efforts are made to design and implement decision and negotiation support systems to identify efficient alternatives. The underlying assumption is that decision-makers prefer an efficient alternative over an inefficient one. Experimental studies indicate that people often accept inefficient compromises and are unwilling to improve them even if prompted to do so. This report presents preliminary results for the analysis of 605 bilateral negotiations in which only 20.8% of negotiators who achieved an inefficient compromise entered the post-settlement phase in an attempt to improve the compromise.
|Date of creation:||Jul 1999|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Catalog/PUB_ONLINE.html
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- V. Prasnikar & A. Roth, 1998.
"Considerations of fairness and strategy: experimental data from sequential games,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
451, David K. Levine.
- Prasnikar, Vesna & Roth, Alvin E, 1992. "Considerations of Fairness and Strategy: Experimental Data from Sequential Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(3), pages 865-88, August.
- Nancy J Adler & John L Graham, 1989. "Cross-Cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(3), pages 515-537, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir99022. 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: (Thomas Krichel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.