IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v33y2024i4d10.1007_s10726-024-09886-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confidence and Outcome Expectations in Bilateral Negotiations–A Dynamic Model

Author

Listed:
  • Rudolf Vetschera

    (University of Vienna)

  • Luis C. Dias

    (University of Coimbra)

Abstract

This work proposes and studies a dynamic model of two bargaining parties exchanging offers over time, considering their confidence about the share of the “pie” they obtain, which translates into expectations regarding the outcome of the bargaining process. The model predicts the sequence of offers as well as the final agreement for given confidence parameters. A mathematical analysis of the model shows the outcome is an Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Solution with exponents determined by the bargainers’ confidence. Moreover, a compensation effect can be found between confidence and risk aversion. This work also considers that confidence levels of bargainers might change during the negotiation, and we conduct a comprehensive simulation study to analyze the effect of such changes. Through Monte-Carlo simulation, we show that a bargainer is better off if its confidence increases, but the advantage is lost if the other party’s confidence increases in a similar way. In that case, concessions are smaller and negotiations last longer. Changing confidence parameters make the outcome harder to predict, as it will depend more on the final confidence than the initial one. The simulations also show that the average size of concessions, and therefore the final agreement, depend not only on whether confidence increases or decreases, but also on the change rate, with stronger effects observed when change accelerates towards the end of the process.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudolf Vetschera & Luis C. Dias, 2024. "Confidence and Outcome Expectations in Bilateral Negotiations–A Dynamic Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 775-803, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09886-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-024-09886-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-024-09886-w
    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/s10726-024-09886-w?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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Volkema, Roger J., 2009. "Why Dick and Jane don't ask: Getting past initiation barriers in negotiations," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 595-604, November.
    3. Soldà, Alice & Ke, Changxia & von Hippel, William & Page, Lionel, 2021. "Absolute vs. relative success: Why overconfidence is an inefficient equilibrium," Working Papers 0700, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Jaime Ramirez-Fernandez & Jimena Y. Ramirez-Marin & Lourdes Munduate, 2018. "I Expected More from You: The Influence of Close Relationships and Perspective Taking on Negotiation Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 85-105, February.
    5. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    6. 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.
    7. John Sutton, 1986. "Non-Cooperative Bargaining Theory: An Introduction," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(5), pages 709-724.
    8. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, January.
    9. P. V. (Sundar) Balakrishnan & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 1995. "An Analytical Process Model of Two-Party Negotiations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 226-243, February.
    10. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    11. Otomar J. Bartos, 1995. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 542(1), pages 48-60, November.
    12. Galasso, Alberto, 2010. "Over-confidence may reduce negotiation delay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 716-733, December.
    13. Ortner, Juan, 2019. "A continuous-time model of bilateral bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 720-733.
    14. Andrea Graf & Sabine T. Koeszegi & Eva-Maria Pesendorfer & Johannes Gettinger, 2012. "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in e-Negotiations: Myth or Reality?," International Journal of Decision Support System Technology (IJDSST), IGI Global, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Ward, Hugh, 1979. "A Behavioural Model of Bargaining," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 201-218, April.
    16. Francesco Angelini & Massimiliano Castellani & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2022. "Overconfidence in the art market: a bargaining pricing model with asymmetric disinformation," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 961-988, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Camiña, Ester & Porteiro, Nicolás, 2009. "The role of mediation in peacemaking and peacekeeping negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 73-92, January.
    2. Alejandro Caparrós & Jean-Christophe Péreau, 2017. "Multilateral versus sequential negotiations over climate change," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 365-387.
    3. Sang-Chul Suh & Quan Wen, 2003. "Multi-Agent Bilateral Bargaining with Endogenous Protocol," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0305, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    4. Dan Usher, 2001. "Mysterious Bargaining," Working Paper 1001, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    5. Smirnov, Vladimir & Wait, Andrew, 2004. "Timing of investments, holdup and total welfare," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 413-425, March.
    6. Christopher Tyson, 2010. "Dominance solvability of dynamic bargaining games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(3), pages 457-477, June.
    7. May, Frank Christian & Münster, Johannes, 2013. "Centralized Bargaining in Press Wholesale," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79984, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    8. P. Jean-Jacques Herings & Harold Houba, 2022. "Costless delay in negotiations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(1), pages 69-93, July.
    9. Suh, Sang-Chul & Wen, Quan, 2006. "Multi-agent bilateral bargaining and the Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 61-73, February.
    10. Paolo Balduzzi, 2004. "Delegation Games with Full Commitment," Working Papers 70, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2004.
    11. Alejandro Caparrós, 2016. "Bargaining and International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 5-31, September.
    12. Knabe, Andreas, 2009. "Implementing endogenous inside options in Nash wage bargaining models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 161-176, March.
    13. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    14. Dan Usher, 2012. "Bargaining unexplained," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 23-41, April.
    15. Caparrós, By Alejandro & Pereau, Jean-Christophe, 2021. "Inefficient coasean negotiations over emissions and transfers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 359-378.
    16. Houba, Harold & Li, Duozhe & Wen, Quan, 2022. "Bargaining with costly competition for the right to propose," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    17. Sang-Chul Suh & Quan Wen, 2009. "A multi-agent bilateral bargaining model with endogenous protocol," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(2), pages 203-226, August.
    18. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.
    19. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2005. "Alliances and negotiations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 128-141, March.
    20. Mohr, Ernst, 1990. "Courts of appeal, bureaucracies and conditional project permits: The role of negotiating non-exclusive property rights over the environment," Kiel Working Papers 408, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    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:33:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09886-w. 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.