Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 541–559 | Cite as

The Effect of Feedback on Process and Outcome of Loan Negotiations: Consequences on Risk Aversion and the Willingness to Compromise

  • Erik Hoelzl
  • Luise HahnEmail author
  • Maria Pollai
  • Jan Masak


We examined the influence of feedback regarding alternatives on risk aversion and willingness to compromise in student loan negotiations. In a simulated negotiation, participants in the roles of bank advisors and clients received feedback about alternative offers either only after an impasse of the negotiation, or regardless of outcome. When receiving feedback only after an impasse, participants tried to avoid the regret-eliciting feedback and therefore set less ambitious goals and showed higher willingness to compromise. In particular, they set a less ambitious reservation price and estimated a less beneficial ‘best alternative to negotiated agreement’. When analyzing the process of the negotiation, we found that they made less favorable offers more quickly and arrived at less favorable final offers. They sacrificed their previously set goals by violating their reservation prices and underbidding their estimated ‘best alternative to negotiated agreement’ more often. Therefore, they showed a higher potential for agreement with the other party, but at the cost of less favorable outcomes. Results indicate that anticipated regret could contribute to suboptimal negotiation outcomes in the context of student loans, which might lead to long term dissatisfaction.


Loan use Negotiation Anticipated regret Feedback Willingness to compromise 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Autio M, Wilska TA, Kaartinen R, Lähteenmaa J (2009) The use of small instant loans among young adults—a gateway to consumer insolvency. Int J Consum Stud 33: 407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry B (2008) Negotiator affect: the state of the art (and the science). Group Decis Negot 17: 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry B, Oliver RL (1996) Affect in dyadic negotiation: a model and propositions. Organ Behav Hum Dec 67: 127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 5: 960–981Google Scholar
  5. Brendl CM, Higgins ET (1996) Principles of judging valence: what makes events positive or negative?. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 28. Academic Press, New York, pp 95–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown S, Taylor K, Price SW (2005) Debt and distress: evaluating the psychological cost of credit. J Econ Psychol 26: 624–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen H, Volpe RP (1998) An analysis of personal financial literacy among college students. Financ Services Rev 7: 107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connolly T, Reb J (2003) Omission bias in vaccination decisions: where’s the “omission”? Where’s the “bias”?. Organ Behav Hum Dec 91: 186–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies E, Lea SEG (1995) Student attitudes to student debt. J Econ Psychol 16: 663–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Dreu DKW, Weingart LR, Kwon S (2000) Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a metaanalytic review and test of two theories. J Pers Soc Psychol 78: 889–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Druckman D (1994) Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation. J Conflict Resolut 28: 507–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druckman D, Olekalns M (2008) Emotions in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 17: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mills, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Flint TA (1997) Predicting student loan defaults. J High Educ 68: 322–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol 74: 565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gruder CL (1971) Relations with opponent and partner in mixed-motive bargaining. J Conflict Resolut 15: 403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haultain S, Kemp S, Chernyshenko OS (2010) The structure of attitudes to student debt. J Econ Psychol 31: 322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayhoe CR, Leach L, Turner PR (1999) Discriminating the number of credit cards held by college students using credit and money attitudes. J Econ Psychol 20: 643–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayhoe CR, Leach L, Allen MW, Edwards R (2005) Credit cards held by college students. Financ Counsel Plan 16(1): 1–10Google Scholar
  20. Hetts JJ, Boninger DS, Armor DA, Gleicher F, Nathanson A (2000) The influence of anticipated counterfactual regret on behavior. Psychol Market 17: 345–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoelzl E, Pollai M, Kamleitner B (2009) Experience, prediction and recollection of loan burden. J Econ Psychol 30: 446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Josephs RA, Larrick RP, Steele CM, Nisbett RE (1992) Protecting the self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. J Pers Soc Psychol 62: 26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones JE (2005) College students’ knowledge and use of credit. Finan Counsel Plan 16(2): 9–16Google Scholar
  24. Kardes FR (1994) Consumer judgment and decision processes. In: Wyer RS, Srull TK (eds) Handbook of social cognition, vol 2, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 399–466Google Scholar
  25. Larrick RP (1993) Motivational factors in decision theories: the role of self-protection. Psychol Bull 113: 440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larrick RP, Boles TL (1995) Avoiding regret in decisions with feedback: a negotiation example. Organ Behav Hum Dec 63: 87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemon KN, White TB, Winer RS (2002) Dynamic customer relationships: incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision. J Market 66: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis A, van Venrooij M (1995) A note on the perceptions of loan duration and repayment. J Econ Psychol 16: 161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92: 805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magee JC, Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH (2007) Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33: 200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pieters R, Zeelenberg M (2005) On bad decisions and deciding badly: when intention-behavior inconsistency is regrettable. Organ Behav Hum Dec 97: 18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Reb J (2008) Regret aversion and decision process quality: effects of regret salience on decision process carefulness. Organ Behav Hum Dec 105: 169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard R, Vander Pligt J, De Vries NK (1996) Anticipated regret and time perspective: changing sexual risk-taking behavior. J Behav Decis Making 9: 185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritov L, Baron J (1995) Outcome knowledge, regret and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Dec 64: 119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts JA, Jones E (2001) Money attitudes, credit card use, and compulsive buying among American college students. J Consum Aff 35: 213–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simonson I (1992) The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. J Consum Res 19: 105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stuhlmacher AF, Champagne MV (2000) The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and outcome. Group Decis Negot 9: 471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson LL, Wang J, Gunia BC (2010) Negotiation. Annu Rev Psychol 61: 491–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Lange P, Schippers M, Balliet D (in press) Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Pers Indiv Differ doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.038
  41. Wang J, Xiao JJ (2009) Buying behaviour, social support and credit card indebtedness of college students. Int J Consum Stud 33: 2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warwick J, Mansfield P (2000) Credit card consumers: college students’ knowledge and attitude. J Consum Mark 17: 617–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. White TB, Lemon KN, Hogan JE (2007) Customer retention when the customer’s future usage is uncertain. Psychol Market 24: 849–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeelenberg M, Beattie J (1997) Consequences of regret aversion 2: additional evidence for effects of feedback on decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec 72: 63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeelenberg M, Pieters R (2004) Consequences of regret aversion in real life: the case of the Dutch postcode lottery. Organ Behav Hum Dec 93: 155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeelenberg M, Pieters R (2007) A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J Consum Psychol 17: 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeelenberg M, Beattie J, Vander Pligt J, De Vries NK (1996) Consequences of regret aversion: effects of expected feedback on risky decision making. Organ Behav Hum Dec 65: 148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Hoelzl
    • 1
  • Luise Hahn
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maria Pollai
    • 2
  • Jan Masak
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Economic Psychology, Education Psychology and Evaluation, Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Volkswagen Sarajevo d.o.o.VogoscaBosnia and Herzegovina

Personalised recommendations