IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jbecon/v86y2016i4d10.1007_s11573-016-0809-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Gettinger

    (University of Hohenheim)

  • Michael Filzmoser

    (Vienna University of Technology)

  • Sabine T. Koeszegi

    (Vienna University of Technology)

Abstract

Negotiators often settle for inefficient agreements and therefore potentially leave substantial value at the bargaining table. Scholars recommend the use of a post-settlement negotiation and its support to give negotiators the opportunity to engage in Pareto-improvement steps. While negotiators can only benefit from reaching a post-settlement agreement, prior research reports low agreement-rates in post-settlement negotiations. This study identifies factors that potentially influence the likelihood of reaching a post-settlement agreement. Based on a laboratory experiment, we show that the prospects of reaching a post-settlement agreement depend on the gender of the negotiators, their mutual understanding in terms of language proficiency, their engagement in the post-settlement phase and the ‘integrativeness’ of the initial agreement. Furthermore, our results show that during post-settlement activities, negotiators seem to focus rather on an extension than on a reallocation of welfare gains. The results of this study provide a better understanding of negotiation behavior, theoretical and practical implications and assistance to designers of negotiation support systems for improving the fit between users’ requirements and available support functionalities.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jbecon:v:86:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11573-016-0809-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11573-016-0809-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11573-016-0809-5
    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/s11573-016-0809-5?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. Michael P. Cohen, 2000. "Note on the Odds Ratio and the Probability Ratio," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 25(2), pages 249-252, June.
    2. Wendi L. Adair & Jeanne M. Brett, 2005. "The Negotiation Dance: Time, Culture, and Behavioral Sequences in Negotiation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 33-51, February.
    3. Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "A Theory of Disagreement in Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 607-637, May.
    4. Diamond, Peter & Rothschild, Michael (ed.), 1978. "Uncertainty in Economics," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780122148507.
    5. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    6. Arvind Rangaswamy & G. Richard Shell, 1997. "Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an "Electronic Bargaining Table"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1147-1163, August.
    7. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    8. Johannes Gettinger & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2014. "Far from Eye, Far from Heart: Analysis of Graphical Decision Aids in Electronic Negotiation Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 787-817, July.
    9. Tripp, Thomas M. & Sondak, Harris, 1992. "An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, March.
    10. Walters, Amy E. & Stuhlmacher, Alice F. & Meyer, Lia L., 1998. "Gender and Negotiator Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 1-29, October.
    11. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    12. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    13. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    14. Daniel Druckman, 1994. "Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(3), pages 507-556, September.
    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. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2023. "Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the Adjusted Winner Algorithm," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.
    3. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    4. Andreas Schmid & Mareike Schoop, 2022. "Gamification of Electronic Negotiation Training: Effects on Motivation, Behaviour and Learning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 649-681, June.

    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. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Cruickshank, Amy & Sbai, Erwann, 2015. "Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-32.
    2. Chen, Zhuoqiong & Wang, Ruixin & Zong, Jichuan, 2024. "Pre-commitment in bargaining with endogenous credibility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    3. Jason R. Pierce & Leigh Thompson, 2022. "Feeling Competitiveness or Empathy Towards Negotiation Counterparts Mitigates Sex Differences in Lying," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 71-87, June.
    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. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    6. Fang,Sheng & Goh,Chorching & Roberts,Mark & Xu,L. Colin & Zeufack,Albert G., 2020. "Female Business Leaders, Business and Cultural Environment, and Productivity around the World," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9275, The World Bank.
    7. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    8. Heinz, Matthias & Juranek, Steffen & Rau, Holger A., 2012. "Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 105-110.
    9. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    10. Nhat Minh Tran & Thu Thuy Nguyen & Thi Phuong Linh Nguyen & Anh Trong Vu & Thi Thanh Hoa Phan & Thi Hong Tham Nguyen & Ngoc Diep Do & Anh Tuan Phan, 2022. "Female Managers and Corruption in SMEs: A Comparison Between Family and Nonfamily SMEs in Vietnam," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    11. Hiromasa Takahashi & Junyi Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa, 2020. "Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 25-38, January.
    12. Inés P. Murillo & Hipólito Simón, 2014. "La Gran Recesión y el diferencial salarial por género en España," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 39-76, March.
    13. Detlefsen, Lena & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina & Schmidt, Ulrich & Sutter, Matthias, 2018. "Are Economic Preferences Shaped by the Family Context? The Impact of Birth Order and Siblings' Sex Composition on Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 11949, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Selim Jürgen Ergun & Teresa García-Muñoz & M.Fernanda Rivas, 2010. "Gender Differences in Economic Experiments," ThE Papers 10/14, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    15. Uwe Jirjahn & Vanessa Lange, 2015. "Reciprocity and Workers’ Tastes for Representation," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 188-209, June.
    16. Michael Breen & Robert Gillanders & Gemma Mcnulty & Akisato Suzuki, 2017. "Gender and Corruption in Business," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1486-1501, September.
    17. Halvarsson, Daniel & Lark, Olga & Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2022. "Bargaining for Trade: When Exporting Becomes Detrimental for Female Wages," Working Paper Series 1437, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    18. van den Berg, Gerard J. & Kesternich, Iris & Müller, Gerrit & Siflinger, Bettina M., 2024. "Reciprocity and the interaction between the unemployed and the caseworker," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    19. Lena Detlefsen & Andreas Friedl & Katharina Lima Miranda & Ulrich Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2024. "Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 1-31, August.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Negotiation; Post-settlement phase; Post-settlement agreement; Process analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C88 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Other Computer Software
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:jbecon:v:86:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11573-016-0809-5. 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.