Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures

Negotiation by veto is introduced as a novel negotiation approach and as an alternative to the exchange of offers. Rather than proposing offers, negotiators following the negotiation by veto approach eliminate unfavorable settlement options from the set of possible agreements until they eventually achieve a mutual acceptable solution. It is argued that this approach could lead to superior negotiation outcomes and improve negotiators’ satisfaction. In an experiment with student participants the performance of offer and veto negotiation procedures is compared. In simple negotiation problems both negotiation procedures reach similar outcomes. In complex negotiation problems negotiation by veto achieves fewer but better agreements. However, participants were more satisfied with the negotiation process, outcome and their opponent’s behavior when exchanging offers rather than vetoing alternatives.

[1]  William I. Zartman,et al.  Negotiation as a Joint Decision-Making Process , 1977 .

[2]  D. Mueller.  Voting by veto , 1978 .

[3]  T. M. Tripp,et al.  An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency☆ , 1992 .

[4]  Michael Filzmoser,et al.  Automated vs. Human Negotiation , 2010 .

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

[6]  Frank Tutzauer.  The Communication of Offers in Dyadic Bargaining , 1992 .

[7]  William L. Ury,et al.  Getting to Yes , 2019, Boy on the Bridge.

[8]  O. Bartos,et al.  Simple Model of Negotiation , 1977 .

[9]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: Comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task , 1986 .

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

[11]  Hillary Anger Elfenbein,et al.  What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  Fany Yuval,et al.  Sophisticated Voting Under the Sequential Voting by Veto1 , 2002 .

[13]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  Advances in Negotiation Science , 1994 .

[14]  S. Koeszegi,et al.  Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase , 2016 .

[15]  H. Moulin.  Dominance Solvable Voting Schemes , 1979 .

[16]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Post-settlement settlements , 1985 .

[17]  Hiroki Sayama,et al.  Negotiating Complex Contracts , 2003 .

[18]  Elaine K. Yakura,et al.  Post-settlement settlements in two-party negotiations , 1987 .

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

[20]  R. Vetschera,et al.  A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes , 2008 .

[21]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents , 1998, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[22]  Uta Herbst,et al.  How Valid Is Negotiation Research Based on Student Sample Groups? New Insights into a Long‐Standing Controversy , 2011 .

[23]  Michael Filzmoser.  Simulation of Automated Negotiation , 2010 .

[24]  N. R. Jennings,et al.  To appear in: Int Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation GDN2000 Keynote Paper Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges , 2022 .

[25]  George Abonyi,et al.  Filtering: An Approach to Generating the Information Base for Collective Choice , 1983 .