IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v38y1994i3p507-556.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Druckman

    (National Research Council)

Abstract

Effects of nine variables on compromising behavior and time to resolution were evaluated by a meta-analysis of published bargaining experiments reported over a 25-year period. The strongest effect sizes were obtained for the variables of negotiator's orientation, prenegotiation experience, time pressure, and the initial distance between positions. The orientation effect was particularly strong when it was communicated to bargainers by constituents or by the experimenter; the position distance effect was stronger for cognitive than for interest conflicts. Significantly weaker effect sizes were shown for opponent's concession strategy, representation, and accountability. The weakest effects occurred for the large versus small issues and visibility variables. These results challenge the assertion that group representation is a key determinant of competitive behavior in bargaining. Strong pressures on representatives to be accountable to their constituents did not increase the size of the effects. Analyses of differences in procedures used in the strongest and weakest effect size studies in each category suggest a number of conditions under which bargainers are likely to be intransigent.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Druckman, 1994. "Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(3), pages 507-556, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:38:y:1994:i:3:p:507-556
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002794038003007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002794038003007
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002794038003007?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bazerman, Max H. & Magliozzi, Thomas & Neale, Margaret A., 1985. "Integrative bargaining in a competitive market," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 294-313, June.
    2. Robert R. Blake & Jane Srygley Mouton, 1961. "Reactions to Intergroup Competition Under Win-Lose Conditions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 420-435, July.
    3. 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.
    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. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    2. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    3. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.
    4. Michael J. Hine & Steven A. Murphy & Michael Weber & Gregory Kersten, 2009. "The Role of Emotion and Language in Dyadic E-negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 193-211, May.
    5. Daniel Druckman, 1997. "Dimensions of International Negotiations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(5), pages 395-420, September.
    6. Peter J. Carnevale, 2008. "Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 51-63, January.
    7. Emin Karagözoğlu & Martin G. Kocher, 2019. "Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 419-440, June.
    8. Erik Hoelzl & Luise Hahn & Maria Pollai & Jan Masak, 2013. "The Effect of Feedback on Process and Outcome of Loan Negotiations: Consequences on Risk Aversion and the Willingness to Compromise," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 541-559, May.
    9. Daniel Druckman & Mara Olekalns, 2008. "Emotions in negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, January.
    10. David W. Lehman & Jungpil Hahn & Rangaraj Ramanujam & Bradley J. Alge, 2011. "The Dynamics of the Performance--Risk Relationship Within a Performance Period: The Moderating Role of Deadline Proximity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1613-1630, December.
    11. Daniel Druckman & Ronald Mitterhofer & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Resolving Impasses in e-Negotiation: Does e-Mediation Work?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210, March.
    12. Cecilia Albin & Daniel Druckman, 2017. "Negotiating Effectively: Justice in International Environmental Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 93-113, January.
    13. Daniel Druckman & Bennett Ramberg & Richard Harris, 2002. "Computer-Assisted International Negotiation: A Tool for Research and Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 231-256, May.
    14. Theresa M. Welbourne & Manuela Pardo-del-Val, 2009. "Relational Capital: Strategic Advantage for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SMEs) Through Negotiation and Collaboration," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 483-497, September.
    15. Rothman, Naomi B. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2015. "Unlocking integrative potential: Expressed emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 65-76.
    16. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.

    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. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    2. Bereby-Meyer, Yoella & Moran, Simone & Unger-Aviram, Esther, 2004. "When performance goals deter performance: Transfer of skills in integrative negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 142-154, March.
    3. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    4. Kristensen, Henrik & Garling, Tommy, 1997. "Determinants of buyers' aspiration and reservation price," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 487-503, September.
    5. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.
    6. Victoria Gilliland & John C. Dunn, 2008. "Decision making in civil disputes: The effects of legal role, frame, and perceived chance of winning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 512-527, October.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:512-527 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    9. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Jim Sheffield & Thomas A. Darling & Richard G. Milter, 2004. "The Accuracy of Post-Negotiation Estimates of the Other Negotiator's Payoff," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 259-290, May.
    10. Phillips, Owen R. & Nagler, Amy M. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Huang, Shanshan & Bastian, Christopher T., 2014. "Trading partner choice and bargaining culture in negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 178-190.
    11. Chavanne, David & McCabe, Kevin & Paganelli, Maria Pia, 2011. "Whose money is it anyway? Ingroups and distributive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 31-39, January.
    12. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    13. Victor Manuel Bennett, 2013. "Organization and Bargaining: Sales Process Choice at Auto Dealerships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2003-2018, September.
    14. 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).
    15. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    16. Carroll, John S., 1948-, 1990. "Improving negotiators' cognitions," Working papers 3116-90., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    18. Peter Sheldon & Nancy Kohn, 2007. "AWAs and Individual Bargaining in the Era of WorkChoices: A Critical Evaluation Using Negotiation Theory," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 18(1), pages 115-142, November.
    19. Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert & Larner, Jeremy, 2014. "Chinese values and negotiation behaviour: A bargaining experiment," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1203-1211.
    20. Terry E. Daniel & James E. Parco, 2005. "Fair, Efficient and Envy-Free Bargaining: An Experimental Test of the Brams-Taylor Adjusted Winner Mechanism," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 241-264, May.
    21. Nels Christiansen & John H. Kagel, 2019. "Reference point effects in legislative bargaining: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 735-752, September.

    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:sae:jocore:v:38:y:1994:i:3:p:507-556. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.