Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures

IF 2.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT EURO Journal on Decision Processes Pub Date : 2019-05-01 DOI:10.1007/s40070-018-0093-4
Michael Filzmoser , JohannesR. Gettinger
{"title":"Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures","authors":"Michael Filzmoser ,&nbsp;JohannesR. Gettinger","doi":"10.1007/s40070-018-0093-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Negotiation by veto is introduced as a novel negotiation approach and as an alternative to the exchange of offers. Rather than proposing offers, negotiators following the negotiation by veto approach eliminate unfavorable settlement options from the set of possible agreements until they eventually achieve a mutual acceptable solution. It is argued that this approach could lead to superior negotiation outcomes and improve negotiators’ satisfaction. In an experiment with student participants the performance of offer and veto negotiation procedures is compared. In simple negotiation problems both negotiation procedures reach similar outcomes. In complex negotiation problems negotiation by veto achieves fewer but better agreements. However, participants were more satisfied with the negotiation process, outcome and their opponent’s behavior when exchanging offers rather than vetoing alternatives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44104,"journal":{"name":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40070-018-0093-4","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S219394382100100X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Negotiation by veto is introduced as a novel negotiation approach and as an alternative to the exchange of offers. Rather than proposing offers, negotiators following the negotiation by veto approach eliminate unfavorable settlement options from the set of possible agreements until they eventually achieve a mutual acceptable solution. It is argued that this approach could lead to superior negotiation outcomes and improve negotiators’ satisfaction. In an experiment with student participants the performance of offer and veto negotiation procedures is compared. In simple negotiation problems both negotiation procedures reach similar outcomes. In complex negotiation problems negotiation by veto achieves fewer but better agreements. However, participants were more satisfied with the negotiation process, outcome and their opponent’s behavior when exchanging offers rather than vetoing alternatives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提议与否决:两种谈判程序的实验比较
否决权谈判是一种新的谈判方式,是交换提议的另一种选择。在谈判之后,谈判者不是提出提议,而是通过否决的方式从可能达成的协议中排除不利的解决方案,直到最终达成双方都能接受的解决方案。研究认为,这种方法可以带来更好的谈判结果,提高谈判者的满意度。在一个有学生参与的实验中,比较了要约和否决谈判过程的表现。在简单的谈判问题中,两种谈判程序的结果相似。在复杂的谈判问题中,通过否决权谈判达成的协议虽然少但效果好。然而,在交换提议时,参与者对谈判过程、结果和对手的行为更满意,而不是否决替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Feature Issue on Fair and Explainable Decision Support Systems Editorial: Feature issue on fair and explainable decision support systems Corrigendum to “Multi-objective optimization in real-time operation of rainwater harvesting systems” [EURO Journal on Decision Processes Volume 11 (2023) 100039] Multiobjective combinatorial optimization with interactive evolutionary algorithms: The case of facility location problems Performance assessment of waste sorting: Component-based approach to incorporate quality into data envelopment analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1