Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concessions Dynamics in Electronic Negotiations: A Cross-Lagged Regression Analysis

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze concession patterns in electronic negotiations using a modified version of the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Our extension of the APIM takes into account that concessions in negotiations can only be evaluated in terms of utilities of the receiving side. We show that actor and partner effects in that model can directly be related to central concepts of negotiation theory such as cooperative versus distributive bargaining tactics and reciprocity. Based on this connection, we formulate hypotheses on the differences of actor and partner effects between successful and failed negotiations. We test these hypotheses on two existing data sets. Results show consistent and strong actor effects, while partner effects are only present in specific settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adair W, Brett J (2005) The negotiation dance: time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organ Sci 16(1):33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Magliozzi T, Neale MA (1985) Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 35:294–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton AA, Kelley HH, Liebling B (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. J Personal Soc Psychol 24(1):73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett JM, Shapiro DL, Lytle AL (1998) Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Acad Manag J 41(4):410–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt AN, Choi JN, Jaeger AM (2005) The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. J Organ Behav 26:681–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonneau R, Vahidov R (2012) Deriving concession curve patterns from human-to-agent negotiations. In: Almeida A (ed) Proceedings, Group decision and negotiation 2012, Recife, Brazil, pp 142–144

  • Carbonneau RA, Vahidov RM (2014) A utility concession curve data fitting model for quantitative analysis of negotiation styles. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4035–4042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale PJ, Pruitt DG (1992) Negotiation and mediation. Ann Rev Psychol 43:531–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chertkoff JM, Conley M (1967) Opening offer and frequency of concession as bargaining strategies. J Personal Soc Psychol 7(2):181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Ascani K (1976) Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. J Appl Psychol 61(3):295–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper RB, Johnson NA (2014) So close yet no agreement: the effects of threats to self-esteem when using instant messaging and audio during seller–buyer negotiations. Decis Support Syst 57:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donohue WA, Taylor PJ (2007) Role effects in negotiation: the one-down phenomenon. Negot J 23(3):307–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman D, Mitterhofer R, Filzmoser M, Koeszegi S (2014) Resolving impasses in e-negotiation: does e-mediation work? Group Decis Negot 23(2):193–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54:293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot Auton Syst 24:159–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faure GO (2011) Dumb barter: a seminal form of negotiation. Negot J 27(4):403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. J Econ Perspect 14(3): 159–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filzmoser M, Vetschera R (2008) A classification of bargaining steps and their impact on negotiation outcomes. Group Decis Negot 17:421–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger JR, Dannenmann A, Druckman D, Filzmoser M, Mitterhofer R, Reiser A, Schoop M, Vetschera R, van der Wijst P, Koeszegi ST (2012) Impact of and interaction between behavioral and economic decision support in electronic negotiations. In: Hernández JE, Zaraté P, Dargam F, Delibašić B, Liu S, Ribeiro R (eds) Collaboration in real environments, Lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, London, pp 151–165

  • Gimpel H (2007) Preferences in negotiations—the attachment effect. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25(2):161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendon DW, Roy MH, Ahmed ZU (2003) Negotiation concession patterns: a multi-country, multiperiod study. Am Bus Rev 21(1):75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Tykhonov D (2007) Negotiation dynamics: analysis, concession tactics, and outcomes. In: Lin TYT, Bradshaw JM, Klusch M, Zhang C, Broder A, Ho H (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, IEEE computer society, Washington, pp 427–433

  • Hinton BI, Hamner WC, Pohlen MF (1974) The influence of reward magnitude, opening bid and concession rate on profit earned in a managerial negotiation game. Behav Sci 19:197–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes ME (1992) Phase structures in negotiation. In: Putnam LL, Roloff ME (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 83–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson NA, Cooper RB (2009) Power and concession in computer-mediated negotiations: an examination of first offers. MIS Q 33(1):147–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten G, Noronha S (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25(2):135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE, Gimon D, Vahidov R (2012) Concession patterns in multi-issue negotiations and reverse auctions. In: Kauffman RJ (ed) International conference on electronic commerce, ICEC 2012, Singapore, pp 127–133

  • Kilmann RH, Thomas KW (1977) Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the “mode” instrument. Educ Psychol Meas 37(2):309–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koeszegi S, Vetschera R (2010) Analysis of negotiation processes. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, New York, pp 121–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koeszegi S, Srnka K, Pesendorfer EM (2006) Electronic negotiations: a comparison of different support systems. Die Betriebswirtschaft 66(4):441–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Komorita SS, Brenner AR (1968) Bargaining and concession making under bilateral monopoly. J Personal Soc Psychol 9(1):15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig S (2008) Agent-based assistant for e-negotiations. In: An A, Matwin S, Ras ZW, Slczak D (eds) ISMIS’08 proceedings of the 17th international conference on foundations of intelligent systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 514–524

  • Ludwig SA, Kersten G, Huang X (2006) Towards a behavioral agent-based assistant for e-negotiations. Tech. Rep. INR 08/06, Interneg Research Center

  • Maxwell S, Nye P, Maxwell N (2003) The wrath of the fairness-primed negotiator when the reciprocity norm is violated. J Bus Res 56(5):399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RL, Seligman C, Clark NT, Bush M (1976) Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance. Can J Behav Sci 8(4):401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintu-Wimsatt A, Calantone RJ (1996) Exploring factors that affect negotiators’ problem-solving orientation. J Bus Ind Mark 11(6):61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintu-Wimsatt A, Graham JL (2004) Testing a negotiation model on Canadian anglophone and Mexican exporters. J Acad Mark Sci 32(3):345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitterhofer R, Druckman D, Filzmoser M, Gettinger J, Schoop M, Koeszegi S (2012) Integration of behavioral and analytic decision support in electronic negotiations. In: Sprague RJ (ed) 45th annual Hawaii International conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos California, pp 610–617

  • Nastase V (2006) Concession curve analysis for Inspire negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15:185–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale MA, Northcraft GB (1986) Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38:305–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns M, Smith PL (2000) Understanding optimal outcomes: the role of strategy in competitive negotiations. Hum Commun Res 26(4):527–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks CD, Komorita SS (1998) Reciprocity research and its implications for the negotiation process. Int Negot 3:151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) NLME: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-109

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/

  • Sanchez MH, Agoglia CP, Hatfield RC (2007) The effect of auditors’ use of a reciprocity-based strategy on auditor-client negotiations. Acc Rev 82(1):241–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M, Amelsvoort M, Gettinger J, Koerner M, Koeszegi S, van der Wijst P (2014) The interplay of communication and decisions in electronic negotiations: communicative decisions or decisive communication? Group Decis Negot 23(2):167–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DL, Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJD (1982) Matching and mismatching: the effect of own limit, other’s toughness, and time pressure on concession rate in negotiation. J Personal Soc Psychol 42(5):876–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolova M, Szpakowicz S (2007) Strategies and language trends in learning success and failure of negotiation. Group Decis Negot 16:469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher AF, Champagne MV (2000) The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decis Negot 9:471–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teich J, Wallenius H, Wallenius J (1994) Advances in negotiation science. Trans Oper Res 6:55–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Turan N, Dai T, Sycara K, Weingart L (2009) Toward a unified negotiation framework: leveraging strengths in behavioral and computational communities. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1999 workshop on modeling intercultural collaboration and negotiation, pp 94–111

  • Turel O (2010) Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decis Negot 19:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutzauer F (1992) The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In: Putnam L, Roloff ME (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 67–82

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tutzauer F (1993) Toughness in integrative bargaining. J Commun 43(1):46–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R (2007) Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis Support Syst 44(1):135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R (2013) Negotiation processes: an integrated perspective. Eur J Decis Process 1(1–2):135–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R, Filzmoser M (2012) Standardized interpolated path analysis of offer processes in e-negotiations. In: Kauffman RJ (ed) International conference on electronic commerce ICEC 2012, Singapore, pp 134–140

  • Wall JA (1981) An investigation of reciprocity and reinforcement theories of bargaining behavior. Organ Behav Hum Perform 27:367–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart LR, Prietula MJ, Hyder EB, Genovese CR (1999) Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: a Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. J Exp Soc Psychol 35:366–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Vienna, Oskar Morgenstern Platz 1, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Rudolf Vetschera

Authors
  1. Rudolf Vetschera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rudolf Vetschera.

Additional information

I would like to thank Gregory Kersten for granting me access to the Inspire database, and Patrick Hippmann for many helpful discussions of the statistical analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vetschera, R. Concessions Dynamics in Electronic Negotiations: A Cross-Lagged Regression Analysis. Group Decis Negot 25, 245–265 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9441-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9441-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation