Sellers' Objectives in E-Procurement Auction and Negotiation Experiments

The impact of negotiators’ motivation on the use of decision support tools in preparation for negotiations

“…It is related to the possibility of learning, that is, getting a new experience in conducting negotiations, using decision support tools and NSSs. Taking this into account, Kersten et al (2013) extended the Subjective Value Inventory proposed by Curhan et al (2006) by adding learning goals to the analysis of identity motivation.…”

“…Social motivation is operationalized by means of accommodating, avoiding, compromising, competitive and collaborating intentions determined by the TKI instrument. Substantive, relational, and learning (SRL) goals are inferred from the modification of SVI test proposed by Kersten et al (2013). Finally, the quality of negotiation preparation will be measured using the notion of ordinal accuracy operationalized by a new variable ACCURACY = {OA,OI}.…”

“…However, different factors may impact an agents’ accuracy in determining the scoring systems. As behavioral agency theory posits, agents can have various motivations and goals that do not fully reflect their principals’ goals (Kersten et al., 2013; Pepper and Gore, 2015). Despite the fact that the importance of preparation has been stated unequivocally (e.g., Raiffa et al., 2002; Lax and Sebenius, 2007), there is a lack of experimental studies on the preparation and its antecedents (Jang et al., 2018).…”

“…The second is the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974), which allows measuring negotiators' attitudes in conflict situations; it describes the bargaining profiles that implement the dual concern concept and the dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness and thus can be used to measure social motivation. Finally, the negotiation's substantive, relational, and learning goals are measured by the modified Subjective Value Inventory (SVI), that is, the test for substantive, relational, learning (SRL) goals (Kersten et al., 2013). Since gender is often raised as a factor that differentiates negotiation approaches, processes, and outcomes (Kray and Thompson, 2005; Kolb, 2009; Stuhlmacher and Linnabery, 2013), we will also look at its impact on prenegotiation preparation.…”

Design science research approach in studying e-negotiations: models, systems, experiments

“…Following the design science research approach, the design of these artifacts can be evaluated through various methods (e.g., experiments). Experimental studies have been conducted to assess the systems, to compare the mechanisms, and to examine the participants' behavior and outcomes (e.g., Bellantuono et al, 2014;Kersten, Gimon and ShiKui, 2013;Kersten, Vahidov and Gimon, 2013;Wu and Kersten, 2017;Yu, Kersten and Vahidov, 2015). Note that auctions and negotiations can be considered as a class or type of mechanisms, and each type may contain a number of instantiations of these mechanisms (i.e., variants of mechanisms) (Wu, Kersten and Vahidov, 2014).…”