走向拒绝:工具性谈判的理论与证据

Krishnan S. Anand, P. Feldman, M. Schweitzer
{"title":"走向拒绝:工具性谈判的理论与证据","authors":"Krishnan S. Anand, P. Feldman, M. Schweitzer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1127882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A substantial literature has examined negotiation problems. Throughout this literature, scholars have assumed that participants approach negotiations with the intent of reaching a deal and that negotiation participants cannot be significantly harmed by the negotiation process. In this paper, we challenge these assumptions. We define situations in which negotiators use the negotiation process to achieve goals other than reaching a potential agreement as instrumental negotiations. We explore the implications of this broader conceptualization of negotiations both theoretically and experimentally. We demonstrate that the mere possibility of encountering an instrumental negotiator significantly changes Nash equilibria and actual behavior; some negotiators are harmed by instrumental negotiators and other negotiators reject sincere overtures to negotiate. The possibility of instrumental negotiations significantly harms profits. We consider theoretical, prescriptive, and policy implications of these results.","PeriodicalId":264966,"journal":{"name":"Two-Party Negotiations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting to NO: Theory and Evidence for Instrumental Negotiations\",\"authors\":\"Krishnan S. Anand, P. Feldman, M. Schweitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1127882\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A substantial literature has examined negotiation problems. Throughout this literature, scholars have assumed that participants approach negotiations with the intent of reaching a deal and that negotiation participants cannot be significantly harmed by the negotiation process. In this paper, we challenge these assumptions. We define situations in which negotiators use the negotiation process to achieve goals other than reaching a potential agreement as instrumental negotiations. We explore the implications of this broader conceptualization of negotiations both theoretically and experimentally. We demonstrate that the mere possibility of encountering an instrumental negotiator significantly changes Nash equilibria and actual behavior; some negotiators are harmed by instrumental negotiators and other negotiators reject sincere overtures to negotiate. The possibility of instrumental negotiations significantly harms profits. We consider theoretical, prescriptive, and policy implications of these results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":264966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Two-Party Negotiations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Two-Party Negotiations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1127882\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Two-Party Negotiations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1127882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

大量文献研究了谈判问题。在这篇文献中,学者们假设参与者以达成协议的目的进行谈判,并且谈判参与者不会在谈判过程中受到重大伤害。在本文中,我们挑战这些假设。我们将谈判者利用谈判过程实现目标而不是达成潜在协议的情况定义为工具性谈判。我们从理论上和实验上探讨了这种更广泛的谈判概念的含义。我们证明,仅仅遇到工具性谈判者的可能性就会显著改变纳什均衡和实际行为;一些谈判者受到工具性谈判者的伤害,另一些谈判者拒绝真诚的谈判提议。工具性谈判的可能性严重损害了利润。我们考虑这些结果的理论、规范和政策含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Getting to NO: Theory and Evidence for Instrumental Negotiations
A substantial literature has examined negotiation problems. Throughout this literature, scholars have assumed that participants approach negotiations with the intent of reaching a deal and that negotiation participants cannot be significantly harmed by the negotiation process. In this paper, we challenge these assumptions. We define situations in which negotiators use the negotiation process to achieve goals other than reaching a potential agreement as instrumental negotiations. We explore the implications of this broader conceptualization of negotiations both theoretically and experimentally. We demonstrate that the mere possibility of encountering an instrumental negotiator significantly changes Nash equilibria and actual behavior; some negotiators are harmed by instrumental negotiators and other negotiators reject sincere overtures to negotiate. The possibility of instrumental negotiations significantly harms profits. We consider theoretical, prescriptive, and policy implications of these results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信