IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/iasawp/ir99022.html

Negotiating Inefficient Compromises: Is Less Better than More?

Author

Listed:
  • D. Cray
  • G.E. Kersten

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Cray & G.E. Kersten, 1999. "Negotiating Inefficient Compromises: Is Less Better than More?," Working Papers ir99022, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir99022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-99-022.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-99-022.ps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClennen,Edward F., 1990. "Rationality and Dynamic Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521360470, January.
    2. Nancy J Adler & John L Graham, 1989. "Cross-Cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 20(3), pages 515-537, September.
    3. Vesna Prasnikar & Alvin E. Roth, 1992. "Considerations of Fairness and Strategy: Experimental Data from Sequential Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(3), pages 865-888.
    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. G.E. Kersten & G.R. Mallory, 1998. "Rational Inefficient Compromises in Negotiation," Working Papers ir98024, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    2. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
    3. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo, 2008. "Where are you from? Cultural differences in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2319-2329, December.
    4. Werner G³th & Judit Kovßcs, 2001. "Why do people veto? An experimental analysis of the evaluation and the consequences of varying degrees of veto power," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 277-302.
    5. Christian Koboldt, 1996. "Consistent planning, backwards induction, and rule-governed behavior," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-48, March.
    6. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "On the Nature of Fair Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 20-26, January.
    7. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Jeffrey P. Carpenter, 2005. "Endogenous Social Preferences," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 63-84, March.
    9. Leroux, Isabelle, 2000. "The Role Of Negotiation In The Structuring Of Territory: The Case Of Biotechnologies In Toulouse," ERSA conference papers ersa00p71, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    11. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    12. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    13. Oczkowski, Edward, 1998. "An econometric analysis of the bilateral monopoly model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 53-69, January.
    14. Nathalie Etchart, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-28, February.
    15. Eran Hanany & Peter Klibanoff, 2008. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," Discussion Papers 1468, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. Yi, Kang-Oh, 2005. "Quantal-response equilibrium models of the ultimatum bargaining game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 324-348, May.
    17. David K. Levine, 1998. "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(3), pages 593-622, July.
    18. Volinskiy, Dmitriy & Bergstrom, John C. & Cornwell, Christopher M. & Holmes, Thomas P., 2010. "A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 9-21, February.
    19. Abbink, Klaus & Darziv, Ron & Gilula, Zohar & Goren, Harel & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Keren, Arnon & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & Selten, Reinhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 2003. "The Fisherman's Problem: Exploring the tension between cooperative and non-cooperative concepts in a simple game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 425-445, August.
    20. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.

    More about this item

    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:wop:iasawp:ir99022. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiasaat.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.