Language effects on bargaining

Abstract

Language is critical to coordination in groups. Though, how language affects coordination in groups is not well understood. We prime distributive and integrative language in a bargaining experiment to better understand the links between group outcomes and communication. We accomplish this by priming interests or positions language in randomized groups. We find that priming positions as opposed to interests language leads to agreements where controllers, subjects with unilateral authority over the group outcome, receive a larger share of the benefits but where the total benefits to the group are unaffected. In contrast to common justifications for the use of integrative language in bargaining, our experimental approach revealed no significant differences between priming interests and positions language in regards to increasing joint outcomes for the groups. Across treatments, we find subjects that use gain frames and make reference to visuals aids during bargaining experience larger gains for the group, while loss frames and pro-self language experience larger gains for the individual through side payments. This finding suggests a bargainer's dilemma: whether to employ language that claims a larger share of group's assets or employ language to increase joint gains.

Visual representations in a choice experiment: valuing preferences for a local dam

“…Moreover, alterations to dams, including removing the dams, can involve large, semi-permanent alterations to the riverine landscape, creating a complex decision context for the public. To the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have examined the preferences for alternative dam management other than dam removal (Song et al 2019, Weir et al 2020). To assist with this decision-making process, we test different modes of information to obtain valuations for multiple dam choice alternatives.…”

Words beyond the Partial Deed: Prosocial Framing of a Partial-Trust Act Promotes Reciprocation between Strangers

“…Motive framing differs from outcome-focused framing (Tversky and Kahneman 1981) and can reduce attributional ambiguity in motive interpretation (Simpson and Willer 2015). Therefore, motive framing can promote strangers' reciprocation in various forms (León, Noguera, and Tena-Sá nchez 2012;Liberman, Samuels, and Ross 2004;Lindenberg 2006;Weir et al 2020). We focus on prosocial framing, which is a strategic presentation of information highlighting a cooperative (mutually beneficial) motive in a social setting.…”