Skip to main content
Log in

Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization

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

Abstract

The development of user-friendly negotiation support systems enabled negotiators to obtain advice directly from the system rather than via an intermediary. The emergence of e-commerce and the development of negotiating software agents further contributed to the automation of negotiation activities. These developments exposed inconsistencies in the descriptions of integrative and distributed negotiations. They also showed limitations of the existing modeling methods. These methods were designed to support negotiation experts who themselves had to make distinctions between distributive and integrative processes. Inconsistent descriptions and the lack of formal models that could be embedded in systems often contribute to a mechanical approach to negotiations compounding the difficulty in the design and development of software that can be used in real-life situations. The contradictions between the characteristics of integrative and distributive negotiations are discussed and assumptions for these two types as well as qualitative differences between them are proposed. Negotiation literature suggests that it is the negotiators' perception of the problem that leads to the their focus on either distributive or integrative conflict resolution. This may be the case for negotiations that are not supported with software. In case of the latter it is the design principles and information processing that that differentiates these two types of negotiations. Negotiation representation based on the information requirements for different types of conflict is proposed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alemi, F., and P. Fos et al. (1990). “A Demonstration of Methods for Studying Negotiations Between Physicians and Health Care Managers, ” Decision Sciences 21(3), 633–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. (1998). Judgement in Managerial Decision Making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. A., and M. A. Neale. (1991). “Negotiator Rationality and Negotiator Cognition: The Interactive Roles of Prescriptive and Prescriptive Research, ” in H. P Young (ed.), Negotiation Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichler, M. (2000). “Trading Financial Derivatives on the Web. An Approach Towards Automating Negotiations on the OTC Markets, ” Information systems Frontiers 1(4).

  • Bui, T. (1994). “Evaluating Negotiation Support Systems: A Conceptualization, ” Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 316–324.

  • Bui, T. (1994). “Software Architectures for Negotiator Support: Co-op and Negotiator, ” Proceedings of the Computer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium.

  • Clyman, D. R. (1995). “Measures of Joint Performance in Dyadic Mixed-Motive Negotiations, ” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64(1), 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clyman, D. R. (1996). “Measuring Cooperation in Negotiations: The Impossible Dream, ” in R. J. Zeckhauser, R. L. Keeney, and J. K. Sebenius, (eds.), Wise Choices: Decisions, games, and Negotiations. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 388–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clyman, D. R., and T. M. Trip. (2000). “Discrepant values and Measures of Negotiator Performance, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 9(4), 251–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., and R.P Hämäläinenet al. (1999). “Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-party Setting: Constraint Proposal Method, ” Management Science 45(12), 1697–1709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., and E. Kopelmanet al. (1994). Beyond Machiavelli. Tools for Coping with Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., and W. Ury. (1983). Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S. (1989). “Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining, ” Management Science 35(7), 788–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, R. H., and P. Maes. (1998). “Cooperative vs. Competitive Multi-Agent Negotiations in Retail Electronic Commerce, ” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents (CIA'98), (http://ecommerce.media.mit.edu/papers/cia98.pdf).

  • Guttman, R. H., and A. G. Moukas et al. (1998). “Agent-mediated Electronic Commerce: A Survey, ” Knowledge Engineering Review 13(3).

  • Holsapple, C. W., and H. Lai et al. (1991). “Negotiation Support Systems: Roots, Progress, and Needs, ” Journal of Information Systems 1(4), 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple, C. W., and H. Lai et al. (1998). “A Formal Basis for Negotiation Support System Research, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 7(3), 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelassi, M. T., and B. H. Jones. (1988). “Getting to Yes with NSS: How Computers Can Support Negotiation, ” in A. M. M. R. M. Lee, and P. Migliarese (eds.), Organizational Decision Support Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1966). “A Classroom Study of the Dilemmas in Interpersonal Negotiation, ” in D. Archibald (ed.), Strategic Interaction and Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E. (1997). “Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations. An Overview, ” in J. Climaco(ed.), Multicriteria Analysis. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 332–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and G. R. Mallory. (1999). “Rational Inefficient Compromises in Negotiations, ” Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 8(2), 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and W. Michalowski et al. (1991). “An Analytic Basis for Decision Support in Negotiations, ” Naval Logistic Research 38, 743–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and W. Michalowski et al. (1991). “Restructurable Representations of Negotiation, ” Management Science 37(10), 1269–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha. (1998). “Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Non-Efficient Compromises, ” IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 28(3), 326–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha. (1999). “WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation, and Use, ” Decision Support Systems 25, 135–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha et al. (1999). Are All E-Commerce Negotiations Auctions? InterNeg.org, INR08/ 99, http://interneg.org/interneg/research/papers/1999/08.html. Accessed: Dec.

  • Kersten, G. E., and S. Szpakowicz. (1998). “Modelling Business Negotiations for Electronic Commerce”. in A. M. M. Klopotek, and Z. W. Ras (eds.), Proceedings of the Intelligent Information Systems, IPI PAN. VII, 17–28.

  • Kettunen, E., and H. Ehtamo et al. (1999). Joint Gains Negotiation Support in the Internet. System Analysis Laboratory, http://www.jointgains.hut.fi. Accessed: Nov.

  • Lax, D. A., and J. Sebenius. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., and J. A. Litterer. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., and D. M. Saunders et al. (1999). Negotiation. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matwin, S., and S. Szpakowicz et al. (1987). “Logic-Based System for Negotiation Support, ” Proceedings of the 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming. IEEE Computer Society Press, 499–506.

  • Matwin, S., and T. Szapiro et al. (1991). “Genetic Algorithms Approach to a Negotiation Support System, ”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 21(1), 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumpower, J. L., and J. W. Rohrbaugh. (1996). “Negotiation and Design: Supporting Resource Allocation Negotiations and Implications for Negotiation Support System design, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4,5,6), 385–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. F. (1954). “The Bargaining Problem, ” Econometrica 19, 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrula, M. J., and L. R. Weingart. (1994). “Negotiation as Problem Solving, ” Advances in Managerial Cognition and Organizational Information Processing. JAI Press.

  • Pruit, D. G., and J. Z. Rubin. (1986). Social Conflict. Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G., and P. J. Carnevale et al. (1983). “Incentives For Cooperation in Integrative Bargaining, ” in R. Tietz (ed.), Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making. New York: Springer-Verlag, 213: 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1996). Lectures on Negotiation Analysis. Cambridge, MA: PON Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangaswamy, A., and G. R. Shell. (1997). “Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an Electronic Bargaining Table, ” Management Science 43(8), 1147–1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, D. M., and B. N. Grosof et al. (1999). Toward a Declarative Language for Negotiating Executable Contracts. IBM Research Report: RC 21476 Yorktown Heights, IBM T.J. Watson Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm, T. (1999). “Automated Negotiation. The Best for All Concerned, ” Communication of the ACM 42(3), 84–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebenius, J. K. (1992). “Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review, ” Management Science 38(1), 18–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segev, A., and C. Beam. (1999). A New Market-based Negotiation Paradigm. Accessed: http://haas.berkeley.edu/ ~citm/nego/newnego.html.

  • Shakun, M. F. (1996). “Negotiation Processes – Modeling Frameworks and Information Technology – Introduction, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 301–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. (1991). “Problem Restructuring in Negotiation, ” Management Science 37(10), 1248–1268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J., and H. Wallenius et al. (1995). “A Decision Support Approach for Negotiation with an Application to Agricultural Income Policy Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 81, 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J., and H. Wallenius et al. (1999). “Multiple Issue Auction and Market Algorithms for the World Wide Web, ” Decision Support Systems 26, 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. E. (1996). “Identifying Pareto-optimal Settlements for 2-party Resource-Allocation Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 93(3), 536–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (1996). “Lose-lose Agreements in Interdependent Decision-Making, ” Psychological Bulletin 120(3), 396–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (1998). Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ury, W. (1993). Getting Past No. Negotiating your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., and R. B. McKersie. (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R. (1996). “Knowledge Matters – the Effect of Tactical Descriptions on Negotiation Behavior and Outcome, ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(6), 1205–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetlaufer, G. B. (1996). “The Limits of Integrative Bargaining, ” Georgetown Law Journal 85, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (ed.). (1991). Negotiation Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P., and J. M. Parks. (1994). “Negotiation Analysis, ” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(3), 289–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlotkin, G. (1996). “Compromise in Negotiation – Exploiting Worth Functions over States, ” Artificial Intelligence 84(1–2), 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kersten, G.E. Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 493–514 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012256222803

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012256222803

Navigation