IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v8y1999i6d10.1023_a1008627224343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accessibility of Computer-based Simulation Models in Inherently Conflict-Laden Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Ilze Zigurs

    (College of Business and Administration, University of Colorado)

  • Rene Reitsma

    (University of St. Francis Xavier)

  • Clayton Lewis

    (University of Colorado)

  • Roland Hübscher

    (University of Colorado)

  • Cynthia Hayes

    (University of Colorado)

Abstract

The use of computer-based simulation models has a long history in areas such as environmental planning and policy-making, and particularly in water management. Policy making in these areas is often characterized by inherent conflict among diverse stakeholders with divergent interests. Although simulation models have been shown to be helpful for such problems, they are typically under the control of a technical analyst or governmental agency and are not available to negotiators in real time. Recent trends in computer technology and user expectations raise the possibility of real-time, user-controlled models for supporting negotiation. But is such accessibility likely to be helpful? This study used a "compressed" longitudinal experiment to investigate the impacts of different scenarios of accessibility of computer-based simulation models. The task was based on a real-life problem in Colorado River water management. Results revealed no significant differences among conditions for either solution quality or satisfaction. These results suggest that the common notion of "more is better" may be inappropriate, and resources for improving computer support of negotiation might best be focused elsewhere.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilze Zigurs & Rene Reitsma & Clayton Lewis & Roland Hübscher & Cynthia Hayes, 1999. "Accessibility of Computer-based Simulation Models in Inherently Conflict-Laden Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 511-533, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1008627224343
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008627224343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008627224343
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008627224343?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. Frederick W. Winter, 1985. "An Application of Computerized Decision Tree Models in Management-Union Bargaining," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 74-80, April.
    2. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    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. Bruce A. Reinig & Ira Horowitz & G. E. Whittenburg, 2011. "A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction with Group Work," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 215-237, March.
    2. Scott Miles, 2011. "Participatory model assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard models," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 56(3), pages 749-766, March.

    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. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    2. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    3. Anca Maria CLIPA, 2018. "Employment Contract Negotiations For Romanian It Employees And Their Willingness For Future (Re)Negotiations," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 18, pages 307-312, December.
    4. Kopelman, Shirli & Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby & Thompson, Leigh, 2006. "The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 81-101, January.
    5. Jessica Bregant & Alex Shaw & Katherine D. Kinzler, 2016. "Intuitive Jurisprudence: Early Reasoning About the Functions of Punishment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 693-717, December.
    6. Joanna Różycka-Tran & Guido Alessandri & Paweł Jurek & Michał Olech, 2018. "A test of construct isomorphism of the Belief in a Zero-Sum Game scale: A multilevel 43-nation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Karine Lamiraud & Julien Patris & Radu Vranceanu, 2023. "Experimental evidence on the value of time and structure in market negotiations," Working Papers hal-03989514, HAL.
    8. Gelfand, Michele J. & Christakopoulou, Sophia, 1999. "Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 248-269, September.
    9. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.
    10. Bendoly, Elliot & van Wezel, Wout & Bachrach, Daniel G. (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management: Social and Psychological Dynamics in Production and Service Settings," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199357222.
    11. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. 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).
    15. Song, Fei, 2008. "Trust and reciprocity behavior and behavioral forecasts: Individuals versus group-representatives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 675-696, March.
    16. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    17. Daniel Druckman & Fieke Harinck, 2022. "Trust Matters in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1179-1202, December.
    18. Beuk, Frederik & Rubin, Eran, 2021. "Data-based negotiator allocation management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 537-552.
    19. Reina, Livia, 2003. "Negotiators' cognition: An experimental study on bilateral, integrative negotiation," Dresden Discussion Paper Series in Economics 05/03, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics.
    20. Chmielecki Michał, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 31-52, June.

    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:8:y:1999:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1008627224343. 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.