IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v38y2013icp40-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Shalvi, Shaul
  • Reijseger, Gaby
  • Handgraaf, Michel J.J.
  • Appelt, Kirstin C.
  • ten Velden, Femke S.
  • Giacomantonio, Mauro
  • De Dreu, Carsten K.W.

Abstract

In bargaining, buyers aim to spend as little money as they can on the items they seek to purchase. Compared to promotion-oriented people, prevention-oriented people seek to avoid losses rather than to secure gains. Employing different negotiation scenarios, three lab experiments tested the prediction that prevention-oriented buyers would thus display higher negotiation aversion than promotion-oriented buyers. Results showed that prevention-oriented people in the role of a potential buyer were willing to accept lower monetary compensation to refrain from entering the negotiation and were more likely to exit the negotiation when such an opportunity was presented to them. We discuss these findings and their contribution to our understanding of how regulatory focus influences consumers’ economic decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Shalvi, Shaul & Reijseger, Gaby & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & ten Velden, Femke S. & Giacomantonio, Mauro & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2013. "Pay to walk away: Prevention buyers prefer to avoid negotiation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 40-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:40-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487012000426
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lundquist, Tobias & Ellingsen, Tore & Gribbe, Erik & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "The aversion to lying," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 81-92, May.
    2. Lewis, Alan & Bardis, Alexander & Flint, Chloe & Mason, Claire & Smith, Natalya & Tickle, Charlotte & Zinser, Jennifer, 2012. "Drawing the line somewhere: An experimental study of moral compromise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 718-725.
    3. van de Ven, Niels & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2011. "Regret aversion and the reluctance to exchange lottery tickets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 194-200, February.
    4. Urs Fischbacher & Franziska Föllmi-Heusi, 2013. "Lies In Disguise—An Experimental Study On Cheating," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 525-547, June.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    7. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1995. "Outcome Knowledge, Regret, and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 119-127, November.
    8. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    9. Ritov, Ilana, 1996. "Probability of Regret: Anticipation of Uncertainty Resolution in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 228-236, May.
    10. Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision-making," Other publications TiSEM 38371d1b-31fd-45b0-860f-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Manstead, A.S.R. & van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D., 1998. "Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decision : The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret," Other publications TiSEM eafc28f9-18d6-4b76-b70f-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
    13. Brooks, Alison Wood & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2011. "Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 43-54, May.
    14. Zeelenberg, Marcel & Beattie, Jane & van der Pligt, Joop & de Vries, Nanne K., 1996. "Consequences of Regret Aversion: Effects of Expected Feedback on Risky Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 148-158, February.
    15. Zeelenberg, Marcel & van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop & Manstead, Antony S. R. & van Empelen, Pepijn & Reinderman, Dimitri, 1998. "Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Decisions: The Role of Counterfactual Thought in the Experience of Regret and Disappointment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 117-141, August.
    16. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    17. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    18. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Manstead, A.S.R. & van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D., 1998. "Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions : The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment," Other publications TiSEM 5968cf3c-de93-4bbf-8445-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    20. Schweitzer, Maurice E & Hsee, Christopher K, 2002. "Stretching the Truth: Elastic Justification and Motivated Communication of Uncertain Information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 185-201, September.
    21. Neale, Margaret A. & Huber, Vandra L. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1987. "The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 228-241, April.
    22. Carmon, Ziv & Ariely, Dan, 2000. "Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 360-370, December.
    23. de Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Emans, Ben J. M. & van de Vliert, Evert, 1994. "Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 90-107, October.
    24. Atanasov, Pavel & Dana, Jason, 2011. "Leveling the playing field: Dishonesty in the face of threat," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 809-817.
    25. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.
    26. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Manstead, A.S.R. & van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D., 1998. "Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions : The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment," Discussion Paper 1998-35, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    27. Dana, Jason & Cain, Daylian M. & Dawes, Robyn M., 2006. "What you don't know won't hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 193-201, July.
    28. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Majer, Johann M. & Zhang, Kai & Zhang, Hong & Höhne, Benjamin P. & Trötschel, Roman, 2022. "Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Hart, Einav & Bear, Julia B. & Ren, Zhiying (Bella), 2024. "But what if I lose the offer? Negotiators’ inflated perception of their likelihood of jeopardizing a deal," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    2. Shaul Shalvi, 2012. "Dishonestly increasing the likelihood of winning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 292-303, May.
    3. Jiwoong Shin & Dan Ariely, 2004. "Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 575-586, May.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:292-303 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    6. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    7. Koehler, Jonathan J. & Gershoff, Andrew D., 2003. "Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 244-261, March.
    8. Zeelenberg, Marcel & van Dijk, Wilco W. & Manstead, Antony S. R., 2000. "Regret and Responsibility Resolved? Evaluating Ordonez and Connolly's (2000) Conclusions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 143-154, January.
    9. Catrine Jacobsen & Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & David Pascual†Ezama, 2018. "Why Do We Lie? A Practical Guide To The Dishonesty Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 357-387, April.
    10. Maria Teresa Garcia & João Pedro Vargues Simões, 2023. "O desempenho financeiro das empresas e o desdobramento de ações – o caso das empresas do índice S&P500," Working Papers Department of Economics 2023/03, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    11. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    12. Shalvi, Shaul & Leiser, David, 2013. "Moral firmness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 400-407.
    13. Carlos Lourenco & Sandra Maximiano & Camilla Zallot, 2022. "The effect of range of outcomes and magnitude of rewards on lying behavior in anonymous dice-under-cup trials," Working Papers Department of Economics 2022/03, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    14. Sven Hoeppner, 2014. "The unintended consequence of doorstep consumer protection: surprise, reciprocation, and consistency," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 247-276, October.
    15. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    16. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    17. Aksoy, Billur & Palma, Marco A., 2019. "The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 100-117.
    18. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Beatriz & Rin-Sánchez, Francisco Daniel & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2014. "Economists: cheaters with altruistic instincts," MPRA Paper 60678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Zheng, Jiakun, 2021. "Willingness to pay for reductions in health risks under anticipated regret," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:275-286 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Joshua Buchanan & Amy Summerville & Jennifer Lehmann & Jochen Reb, 2016. "The Regret Elements Scale: Distinguishing the affective and cognitive components of regret," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 275-286, May.
    22. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Negotiation; Regulatory focus; Endowment effect;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:eee:joepsy:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:40-49. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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.