Inconsistent Behaviour in Electronic Negotiations - An Exploratory Analysis

Using data from about 2,900 users of the experimental Negotiation Support System Inspire, we study whether the actual behaviour of negotiators is consistent with their preferences as encoded in the utility functions elicited by the system. The results indicate a considerable number of inconsistencies. In a second step of the analysis, we study factors that might influence the level of inconsistency. While demographic characteristics of users exhibit only a weak relationship to consistency, there is a considerable impact of the role (buyer or seller) in the bargaining experiment, and of variables related to the utility elicitation process and the structure of the utility function.

[1]  Philippe Delquié,et al.  Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases , 1993 .

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[3]  Gregory E. Kersten,et al.  WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[4]  Harri Ehtamo,et al.  Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION , 1992 .

[6]  John Lai Huat Lim.  Multi-stage negotiation support: a conceptual framework , 1999, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[7]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Negotiating with Nonlinear Subjective Utilities: Why Some Concessions Are More Equal Than Others , 1995 .

[8]  William C. Perkins,et al.  An empirical study of the efficacy of a computerized negotiation support system (NSS) , 1997, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[10]  James Corner,et al.  The effects of anchoring in interactive MCDM solution methods , 1997, Comput. Oper. Res..

[11]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[12]  Ale Smidts,et al.  The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[13]  W. C. Perkins,et al.  Can a Negotiation Support System Help a Purchasing Manager , 1996 .

[14]  Beth H. Jones,et al.  The effect of computer intervention and task structure on bargaining outcome , 1990 .

[15]  D. Winterfeldt,et al.  The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement , 1988 .

[16]  Andrzej P. Wierzbicki,et al.  Towards Interactive Solutions in a Bargaining Problem , 1989 .

[17]  Morad Benyoucef,et al.  Combined Negotiations in E-Commerce: Concepts and Architecture , 2001, Electron. Commer. Res..

[18]  Jeryl L. Mumpower,et al.  The judgement policies of negotiators and the structure of negotiation problems , 1991 .

[19]  W. C. Perkins,et al.  An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS) , 1990 .

[20]  Arvind Rangaswamy,et al.  Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an , 1997 .

[21]  J. Cross,et al.  A theory of the bargaining process , 1965 .

[22]  M. Shakun,et al.  Mediator: Towards a Negotiation Support System , 1985 .

[23]  Martin Weber,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements , 1993 .

[24]  Rudolf Vetschera,et al.  Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[25]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Kasbah: An Agent Marketplace for Buying and Selling Goods , 1996, PAAM.

[26]  Bruno Contini,et al.  RESTRICTED BARGAINING FOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES , 1968 .