Three models for resolving a cooperative, dyadic choice problem are formulated and solved. Solutions are presented in n-dimensional attribute space (versus the utility plane) to focus on cognitive conflict between decision makers rather than on goal conflict. Forecasts from the models are compared in a choice experiment. All three models outperform chance in predicting a dyad's first choice, but the nonzero reference point model best predicts second through nth places—a desirable feature for product positioning applications. Recommendations for incorporating the model into choice simulators and expert negotiating systems are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArrowKenneth J. (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2.
BazermanMax H., MannixElizabeth A., and HondakHarris, and ThompsonLeigh (1990), “Negotiator Behavior and Decision Processes in Dyads, Groups, and Markets,” in Advances in Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 4, CarrollJ. S., ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
3.
BraithwaiteR. B. (1955), Theory of Games as a Tool for the Moral Philosopher.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BüyükkurtB. Kemal, and BüyükkurtMeral Demirbag (1990), “Robustness and Small-Sample Properties of the Estimators of Probabilistic Multidimensional Scaling,”Journal of Marketing Research, 27(May), 139–49.
5.
CoombsClyde H., and AvruninGeorge S. (1977), “Single-Peaked Functions and the Theory of Preference,”Psychological Review, 84(March), 216–30.
6.
CorfmanKim P., and LehmannDonald R. (1987), “Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14(June), 1–13.
7.
CurryDavid J., and MenascoMichael B. (1979), “Some Effects of Differing Information Processing Strategies on Husband-Wife Joint Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6(September), 192–203.
8.
DavisHarry L., HochStephen J., and Easton RagsdaleE. K. (1986), “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 25–37.
9.
DiamondPeter A. (1967), “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparison of Utility: Comment,”Journal of Political Economy, 75(October), 765–6.
10.
DyerJames S., and SarinRakesh K. (1979), “Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference,”Management Science, 25(September), 822–32.
11.
EliashbergJehoshua, LaTourStephen A., and RangaswamyArvind, and SternLouis W. (1986), “Assessing the Predictive Accuracy of Two Utility-Based Theories in a Marketing Channel Negotiation Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23(May), 101–10.
12.
EliashbergJehoshua, and WinklerRobert L. (1981), “Risk Sharing and Group Decision Making,”Management Science, 27(November), 1221–35.
13.
FarquharPeter H., and RaoVithala R. (1976), “A Balance Model for Evaluating Subsets of Multiattributed Items,”Management Science, 22(January), 528–39.
14.
FinkbinerCarl T. (1988), “Comparison of Conjoint Choice Simulators,” in Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing.Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 75–100.
15.
GaskiJohn F., and NevinJohn R. (1985), “The Different Effects of Exercised and Unexercised Power Sources in a Marketing Channel, Journal of Marketing Research, 22(May), 130–42.
16.
GiordanoJ. L., and Jacquet-LagrézeE., and ShakunM. F. (1985), “A Decision Support System for Design and Negotiation of New Products,” Graduate School of Business, New York University.
17.
GreenPaul E. (1984), “Hybrid Models for Conjoint Analysis: An Expository Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 21(May), 155–69.
18.
GreenPaul E., and Douglas CarrollJ., and GoldbergStephen M. (1981), “A General Approach to Product Design Optimization via Conjoint Analysis,”Journal of Marketing, 45(Summer), 17–37.
19.
GuptaSunil, and LivneZvi A. (1988), “Resolving a Conflict Situation With a Reference Outcome: An Axiomatic Model,”Management Science, 34(November), 1303–14.
20.
GuptaSunil, and LivneZvi A. (1989), “Testing the Emergence and Effect of the Reference Outcome in an Integrative Situation,”Marketing Letters, 1(2), 103–12.
21.
HammondKenneth, and AdelmanLeonard (1976), “Science, Values and Human Judgment,”Science, 194(October), 389–96.
22.
HammondKenneth, McClellandGary H., and MumpowerJ. (1980), Human Judgements and Decision Making: Theories, Methods and Procedures.New York: Praeger Publishers.
23.
HarsanyiJohn C. (1955), “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,”Journal of Political Economy, 63(August), 309–21.
24.
HenigMordechai I., and RitzSvi (1987), “Multiplicative Decision Rules for Multiobjective Decision Problems,”European Journal of Operational Research, 31, 134–41.
25.
JarkeMatthias, and Tawfik JelassiM., and ShakunMelvin F. (1987), “MEDIATOR: Towards a Negotiation Support System,”European Journal of Operational Research, 31, 314–34.
26.
JohnsonRichard M., ShockerAllan D., and WittinkDick R. (1990), “The Effect of Design and Estimation Program on Conjoint Utility Limits: A Comment,” working paper (July), 1–7.
KalaiEhud, and SmorodinskyMein (1975), “Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem,”Econometrica, 43(May), 513–18.
29.
KeeneyRalph L., and RaiffaHoward (1976), Decisions With Multiple Objectives.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
30.
LancasterKelvin J. (1980), “Competition and Product Variety,”Journal of Business, 53(July), S79–S103.
31.
McAlisterLeigh, BazermanMax H., and FaderPeter (1986), “Power and Goal Setting in Channel Negotiations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23(August), 228–36.
32.
NashJohn F. (1950), “The Bargaining Problem,”Econometrica, 18(April), 155–62.
33.
NashJohn F. (1953), “Two-Person Cooperative Games,”Econometrica, 21(January), 128–40.
34.
NeslinScott A., and GreenhalghLeonard (1983), “Nash's Theory of Cooperative Games as a Predictor of the Outcomes of Buyer-Seller Negotiations: An Experiment in Media Purchasing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(November), 368–79.
35.
NeslinScott A., and GreenhalghLeonard (1986), “The Ability of Nash's Theory of Competitive Games to Predict the Outcomes of Buyer-Seller Negotiations: A Dyad Level Test,”Management Science, 32(April), 480–98.
36.
ParkerBarnett R., and SrinivasanV. (1976), “Consumer Preference Approach to the Planning of Rural Primary Health-Care Facilities,”Operations Research, 24(September-October), 991–1025.
37.
RaiffaHoward (1953), “Arbitration Schemes for Generalized Two-Person Games,” in Contributions to the Theory of Games II (Annals of Mathematics Studies, Vol. 28), KuhnH. W., and TuckerA. W., eds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 361–87.
38.
SenAmartya K. (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare.San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc.
39.
ShapleyLloyd S. (1953), “A Value for n-Person Games,” in Contributions to the Theory of Games II (Annals of Mathematics Studies, Vol. 28), KuhnH. W., and TuckerA. W., eds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 307–17.
40.
von WinterfeldtD., and EdwardsW. (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
