The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames

Neale, Margaret A.; Huber, Vandra L.; Northcraft, Gregory B.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90039-2

Cited by 169 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The buyers' advantage, often observed in previous studies (e.g. Bazerman et al, 1985;Neale et al, 1987), reversed when their profit schedule sequence was inverted. The second anchoring effect involved initial offers: as indicated earlier, initial offer values for both the initiator and the non-initiator significantly affected final profit.…”

Section: S Moran and I Ritov Initial Offers In Negotiation 103mentioning

confidence: 78%

Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers

Moran

Ritov

2002

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In negotiations, where several issues are under consideration and parties have different priorities among these issues, integrative agreements can be reached through 'logrolling': concessions on low priority issues in exchange for gains on higher priority issues. The present research focuses on the potential role of initial offers in the development of integrative agreements. We show first, that in a simulated competitive market the specific composition of initial offers influences the final agreements, beyond the effect predicted by their overall value. In order to obtain some insight into the judgmental processes that might play a role, we explore the way in which inexperienced negotiators presented with a hypothetical negotiation context evaluate and respond to logrolling versus distributive initial offers. Three hypotheses were tested: logrolling offers convey an implicit message of cooperation, logrolling offers promote understanding of the mutual interest structure of the task, and, finally, logrolling offers establish within-issue anchors. Results do not support the first two hypotheses: logrolling offers were not necessarily judged more attractive than distributive ones, and they did not seem to affect the deeply rooted fixed-pie assumption. However, initial offers did establish within-issue anchors: counter-offers were affected by the specific composition of the initial offers beyond the effect of their overall value. This anchoring process resulted in logrolling offers yielding a higher profit for their initiator, as well as higher combined profits for both parties.

show abstract

Section: S Moran and I Ritov Initial Offers In Negotiation 103mentioning

confidence: 78%

Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers

Moran

Ritov

2002

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Manipulating decision frames has been found to affect choices in domains as varied as medicine (Banks et al, 1995;Levin et al, 1988b;McNeil et al, 1982McNeil et al, , 1988, negotiation Neale et al, 1987;Neale & Northcraft, 1986), labor contracts (Shafir et al, 1997), voting (Quattrone & Tversky, 1988, public goods allocation (Andreoni, 1995;McDaniel & Sistrunk, 1991), gambling (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, consumer judgment (Levin, 1987;Levin et al, 1985), and persuasion (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990;Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987;Rothman et al, 1993). , 16: 77-92 (2003) In view of the significance and persistence of framing effects, a natural question is whether they can be avoided.…”

Section: Negative Framementioning

confidence: 98%

Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects

LeBoeuf

Shafir

2003

Behavioral Decision Making

198

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the occurrence of framing effects when more thought is given to problems. In Study 1, participants were presented with one of two frames of several decision problems. Participants' Need for Cognition (NC) scores were obtained, and half the participants were asked to justify their choices. Substantial framing effects were observed, but the amount of thought purportedly given to a problem, whether manipulated by justification elicitation or measured by NC scores, did not reduce the incidence of framing effects. In Study 2, participants responded to both frames of problems in a within-subjects design. Again, NC scores were unrelated to responses on the first frame encountered. However, high-NC, compared to low-NC, participants were more consistent across frames of a problem. More thought, as indexed here, does not reduce the proclivity to be framed, but does promote adherence to normative principles when the applicability of those principles is detectable. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. key words framing effects; decision making; choice; need for cognition; justificationprovisionThe familiar conundrum of the glass that is either half full or half empty captures a fundamental fact about perception: different mental representations of a stimulus can be formed from different perspectives and in different contexts. Thus, a line appears longer when vertical than when horizontal; the moon looks large on the horizon but small overhead; and the prospects of an operation that appears promising in light of an 80% chance of success seem more bleak given its 20% chance of failure. In decision-making situations, the dependence of mental representation on context entails that choices can sometimes be affected by immaterial changes in perspective. In particular, 'framing effects' are said to occur whenever alternative descriptions of what is essentially the same decision problem give rise to predictably different choices (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).Framing effects have been documented in dozens of studies. Because they seem to arise from shallow reactions to superficial cues, and because they violate the assumption of well-ordered preferences, it has been suggested that these effects are largely attributable to a lack of attention and would occur less frequently if people thought more carefully about their choices (e.g. Sieck & Yates, 1997;Smith, 1985;Smith & Levin, 1996). This paper attempts a systematic examination of this proposition. FRAMING EFFECTSA framing effect is said to occur whenever different descriptions of the same decision situation lead to different preferences, despite the fact that the 'acts, outcomes, and contingencies' associated with the decision remain invariant across the descriptions, as in the now-classic Asian Disease problem (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, p. 453): Imagine that the USA is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the ex...

show abstract

“…As is typical with naive problem solvers, if the task is perceived as novel, experiences in other relevant tasks may not help, as the transfer of knowledge may not yield an approach that leads to a solution (e.g., Bassok & Holyoak, 1989;Novick, 1988). Therefore, if naive negotiators do not have (or cannot access) the knowledge relevant to achieving the particular orienting goal of the negotiation (e.g., maximizing the joint value of the agreement), then other knowledge may be triggered, such as heuristics, analogies or assumptions, leading to the engagement of processes that guide the negotiator away from achieving the orienting goal (Bazerman & Carroll, 1987;Bazerman, Magliozzi, & Neale, 1985;Neale, Huber, & Northcraft, 1987;Neale & Northcraft, 1986;. This other knowledge can impede an effective search for solutions.…”

Section: The Role Of Knowledge In Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting to Best: Efficiency versus Optimality in Negotiation

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiation between two individuals is a common task that typically involves two goals: maximize individual outcomes and obtain an agreement. However, research on the simplest negotiation tasks demonstrates that although naive subjects can be induced to improve their performance, they are often no more likely to achieve fully optimal solutions. The present study tested the prediction that a decrease in a particular type of argumentative behavior, substantiation, would result in an increase in optimal agreements. As substantiation behaviors depend primarily on supplied content of the negotiation task, it was also predicted that substantiation behavior would be reduced by curtailing the content. A 2 ϫ 2 experimental design was employed, where both negotiation tactics (list of tactics present versus absent) and negotiation task content (high versus low) were varied to determine the processes leading beyond solution improvement to solution optimality. Sixty-one dyads engaged in a two-party, four-issue negotiation task. All negotiations were videotaped and analyzed. Although the list of negotiation tactics resulted in improved performance, only the content manipulation resulted in a significant increase in dyads achieving optimal solutions. Analyses of the coded protocols indicated that the key difference in achieving optimality was a reduction in persistent substantiation-related operators (substantiation, along with single-issue preferences and procedures) and an increase in a complex macro-operator, multi-issue offers that reduced the problem space, facilitating the search for optimality.

show abstract

The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames

Cited by 169 publications

References 17 publications

Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers

Initial perceptions in negotiations: evaluation and response to ‘logrolling’ offers

Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects

Getting to Best: Efficiency versus Optimality in Negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About