Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article describes a computer system being developed to support two-party negotiation. It is currently used for classroom instruction; eventually it could be used by one and/or both parties in real-world negotiation situations. In using the software, the negotiator enters his/her weights for each issue, function forms, and estimates of the partner's importance weightings. The system will then generate a graph depicting the utility for each side of all possible negotiation agreements. A click on the mouse allows users to see what contract(s) each dot in the graph represents, or where a specific contract would appear on the graph. At any time weights or estimates can be easily manipulated. The system helps teach the decision-analytic approach to negotiation and demonstrates how changes in preferences on the issues being negotiated affect the possible outcomes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bazerman

M. H.

Neale

, Heuristic in Negotiation: Limitations to Effective Dispute Resolution, in Negotiating in Organizations, Bazerman

Lewicki

(eds.), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1983.

Brown

B. R.

, Face-saving Following Experimentally Induced Embarrassment, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, pp. 255–271, 1970.

Hiltrop

J. M.

Rubin

J. Z.

, Position Loss and Image Loss in Bargaining, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, pp. 521–534, 1981.

Hiltrop

J. M.

Rubin

J. Z.

, Effects of Intervention Mode and Conflict of Interest on Dispute Resolution, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 4, pp. 665–672, 1982.

Jones

B. H.

Jelassi

M. T.

, The Effects of Computer Intervention and Task Structures on Bargaining Outcome, Theory and Decision, 28, pp. 355–377, 1990.

Neale

M. A.

, The Effect of Negotiation and Arbitration Cost Salience on Bargainer Behavior: The Role of Arbitrator and Constituency in Negotiator Judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, pp. 97–111, 1984.

Neale

M. A.

Bazerman

M. H.

, Perspectives for Understanding Negotiation: Viewing Negotiation as a Judgmental Process, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29, pp. 33–55, 1985a.

Neale

M. A.

Bazerman

M. H.

, The Effects of Framing and Negotiator, Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, 28, pp. 34–49, 1985b.

Darling

Mumpower

J. L.

, Modeling Cognitive Influences on the Dynamics of Negotiation, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Emerging Technologies and Applications Track, Kona, Hawaii, pp. 22–30, January 1990.

10.

Fisher

Ury

, Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1982.

11.

Mumpower

J. L.

, The Judgement Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems, Management Science, 17: 10, pp. 1304–1324, 1991.

12.

Raiffa

, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982.

13.

Ulvila

, Decision with Multiple Objectives in Integrative Bargaining, Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1979.

14.

Eliashberg

, Arbitrating a Dispute: A Decision Analytic Approach, Management Science, 32: 8, pp. 963–974, 1986.

15.

Nash

J. F.

, The Bargaining Problem, Econometrica, 19, pp. 155–162, 1950.

16.

Nash

J. F.

, Two-person Cooperative Games, Econometrica, 21, pp. 129–140, 1953.

17.

Raiffa

, Arbitration Schemes for Generalized Two-person Games, in Annals of Mathematics Studies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1953.

Computer-Aided Negotiation for Classroom Instruction

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References