Integrative bargaining in a competitive market

Bazerman, Max H.; Magliozzi, Thomas; Neale, Margaret A.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90026-3

Cited by 357 publications

(254 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

236

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, negotiation tasks used in previous negotiation research have typically been comparatively low in semantic content (e.g., Bazerman et al, 1985;Neale & Northcraft, 1986;Thompson, 1990aThompson, , 1990b. Given the differences in both negotiation behavior and joint outcome due to the task content in this study, we should be concerned with the generalizability of results from semantically lean tasks to tasks with semantically rich components, such as those found in most real world situations.…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As is typical with naive problem solvers, if the task is perceived as novel, experiences in other relevant tasks may not help, as the transfer of knowledge may not yield an approach that leads to a solution (e.g., Bassok & Holyoak, 1989;Novick, 1988). Therefore, if naive negotiators do not have (or cannot access) the knowledge relevant to achieving the particular orienting goal of the negotiation (e.g., maximizing the joint value of the agreement), then other knowledge may be triggered, such as heuristics, analogies or assumptions, leading to the engagement of processes that guide the negotiator away from achieving the orienting goal (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987;Bazerman, Magliozzi, & Neale, 1985;Neale, Huber, & Northcraft, 1987;Neale & Northcraft, 1986;. This other knowledge can impede an effective search for solutions.…”

Section: The Role Of Knowledge In Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Getting to best: efficiency versus optimality in negotiation

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiation between two individuals is a common task that typically involves two goals: maximize individual outcomes and obtain an agreement. However, research on the simplest negotiation tasks demonstrates that although naive subjects can be induced to improve their performance, they are often no more likely to achieve fully optimal solutions. The present study tested the prediction that a decrease in a particular type of argumentative behavior, substantiation, would result in an increase in optimal agreements. As substantiation behaviors depend primarily on supplied content of the negotiation task, it was also predicted that substantiation behavior would be reduced by curtailing the content. A 2 ϫ 2 experimental design was employed, where both negotiation tactics (list of tactics present versus absent) and negotiation task content (high versus low) were varied to determine the processes leading beyond solution improvement to solution optimality. Sixty-one dyads engaged in a two-party, four-issue negotiation task. All negotiations were videotaped and analyzed. Although the list of negotiation tactics resulted in improved performance, only the content manipulation resulted in a significant increase in dyads achieving optimal solutions. Analyses of the coded protocols indicated that the key difference in achieving optimality was a reduction in persistent substantiation-related operators (substantiation, along with single-issue preferences and procedures) and an increase in a complex macro-operator, multi-issue offers that reduced the problem space, facilitating the search for optimality.

show abstract

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Knowledge In Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting to best: efficiency versus optimality in negotiation

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies have found that negotiators instructed to "minimize losses" rather than "maximize gains" were less likely to make concessions, reach agreement, and view the resulting agreement as fair (Bazerman, Magliozzi, and Neale, 1985;Neale and Northcraft, 1986;Neale, Huber, and Northcraft, 1987).…”

Section: The Power Of Framingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art Foundations for the Future

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE DEC 20062 Same as Report (SAR)18 About the Intelligence Science Board MissionThe Intelligence Science Board was chartered in August 2002 and advises the Offi ce of the Director of National Intelligence and senior Intelligence Community leaders on emerging scientifi c and technical issues of special importance to the Intelligence Community. The mission of the Board is to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community. The Board also creates linkages between the Intelligence Community and the scientifi c and technical communities. ImpactBoard members initiate studies and assessments in topic areas where they believe that the Board's interdisciplinary expertise and experience could benefi t the Intelligence Community. In addition, the Board responds to tasking from the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology and from the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community. All ISB tasks are mutually agreed to by the ISB and by the Associate Director of National Intelligence for Science and Technology. The Board's procedures for developing and communicating its fi ndings and advice will remain as fl exible and informal as is possible, consistent with the mission. MembershipThe Board is composed of approximately 25 members whose range of expertise encompasses the physical and biological sciences, information technology and communications, information policy, and the law, among others. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not refl ect the offi cial policy or position of the Department of Defense, the National Foreign Intelligence Community or the U.S. Government EDUCING INFORMATION Interrogation: Science and Art The National Defense Intelligence College supports and encourages research on intelligence issues that distills lessons and improves Intelligence Community capabilities for policy-level and operational consumersEducing Information: Interrogatio...

show abstract

“…A broad range of reference points and their framing have been found to be relevant with regard to price negotiation outcomes (Bazerman, Magliozzi, & Neale, 1985;Nagel & Mills, 1989). We investigate the negotiation of price changes in annual reviews of B2B relationships.…”

Section: Negotiations In a Business-to-business Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%