IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v15y2006i2d10.1007_s10726-006-9028-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concession Curve Analysis for Inspire Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Vivi Nastase

    (University of Ottawa)

Abstract

In the course of a negotiation it is often the case that the participants exchange packages of offers, which have, at least in the mind of the negotiators, a certain utility for them. We want to test whether the behaviour of the negotiators is reflected in the topology of the concession curve that plots each offer's utility value in the course of a negotiation. In order to do this, we use data collected with the Inspire electronic negotiation support system, which records utility preference values for all issues under discussion, for each negotiator. We abstract the concession curves using a set of features, such as number of minima and maxima, slope of curve at the beginning and end, and then we use machine learning techniques to test whether we can predict negotiation outcome based on these concessions curve descriptions. We find that there are certain features of this curve, such as the number of minima and maxima, frequency of offers exchanged, that predict with high precision and recall the outcome of negotiations conducted with Inspire.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivi Nastase, 2006. "Concession Curve Analysis for Inspire Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 185-193, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9028-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-006-9028-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-006-9028-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-006-9028-8?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. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    2. Kimbrough, Steven O. & Weber, Martin, 1994. "An empirical comparison of utility assessment programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 617-633, June.
    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. Rudolf Vetschera, 2016. "Concessions Dynamics in Electronic Negotiations: A Cross-Lagged Regression Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 245-265, March.
    2. Lukasz W. Jochemczyk & Andrzej Nowak, 2010. "Constructing a Network of Shared Agreement: A Model of Communication Processes in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 591-620, November.

    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. Alarie, Yves & Dionne, Georges, 2005. "Testing explanations of preference reversal: A model," Working Papers 05-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    2. Eric Johnson & Simon Gaechter & Andreas Herrmann, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," Discussion Papers 2006-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
    5. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    6. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    7. Miljkovic, Dragan & Gong, Jian & Lehrke, Linda, 2009. "The Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice of Food Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 142-152, October.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    9. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    10. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    11. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    12. Robert E. Krider & Priya Raghubir & Aradhna Krishna, 2001. "Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Comparisons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 405-425, March.
    13. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    14. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    15. Ioannis Evangelidis & Jonathan Levav & Itamar Simonson, 2023. "A Reexamination of the Impact of Decision Conflict on Choice Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2691-2712, May.
    16. Irwin, Julie R. & Baron, Jonathan, 2001. "Response Mode Effects and Moral Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 177-197, March.
    17. Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
    18. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip, 2004. "Strategic Risk Management Behavior: What Can Utility Functions Tell Us?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20388, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2002. "Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 643-666, July.
    20. Fox, Craig R. & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Familiarity Bias and Belief Reversal in Relative Likelihood Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 268-292, July.

    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:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9028-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.