Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 245–265 | Cite as

Concessions Dynamics in Electronic Negotiations: A Cross-Lagged Regression Analysis

  • Rudolf Vetschera


We analyze concession patterns in electronic negotiations using a modified version of the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Our extension of the APIM takes into account that concessions in negotiations can only be evaluated in terms of utilities of the receiving side. We show that actor and partner effects in that model can directly be related to central concepts of negotiation theory such as cooperative versus distributive bargaining tactics and reciprocity. Based on this connection, we formulate hypotheses on the differences of actor and partner effects between successful and failed negotiations. We test these hypotheses on two existing data sets. Results show consistent and strong actor effects, while partner effects are only present in specific settings.


Electronic negotiations Concessions Actor–Partner Interdependence Model 


  1. Adair W, Brett J (2005) The negotiation dance: time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organ Sci 16(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazerman MH, Magliozzi T, Neale MA (1985) Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 35:294–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benton AA, Kelley HH, Liebling B (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. J Personal Soc Psychol 24(1):73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brett JM, Shapiro DL, Lytle AL (1998) Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Acad Manag J 41(4):410–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butt AN, Choi JN, Jaeger AM (2005) The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. J Organ Behav 26:681–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbonneau R, Vahidov R (2012) Deriving concession curve patterns from human-to-agent negotiations. In: Almeida A (ed) Proceedings, Group decision and negotiation 2012, Recife, Brazil, pp 142–144Google Scholar
  7. Carbonneau RA, Vahidov RM (2014) A utility concession curve data fitting model for quantitative analysis of negotiation styles. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4035–4042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnevale PJ, Pruitt DG (1992) Negotiation and mediation. Ann Rev Psychol 43:531–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chertkoff JM, Conley M (1967) Opening offer and frequency of concession as bargaining strategies. J Personal Soc Psychol 7(2):181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cialdini RB, Ascani K (1976) Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. J Appl Psychol 61(3):295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper RB, Johnson NA (2014) So close yet no agreement: the effects of threats to self-esteem when using instant messaging and audio during seller–buyer negotiations. Decis Support Syst 57:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donohue WA, Taylor PJ (2007) Role effects in negotiation: the one-down phenomenon. Negot J 23(3):307–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druckman D, Mitterhofer R, Filzmoser M, Koeszegi S (2014) Resolving impasses in e-negotiation: does e-mediation work? Group Decis Negot 23(2):193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54:293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot Auton Syst 24:159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faure GO (2011) Dumb barter: a seminal form of negotiation. Negot J 27(4):403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. J Econ Perspect 14(3): 159–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filzmoser M, Vetschera R (2008) A classification of bargaining steps and their impact on negotiation outcomes. Group Decis Negot 17:421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gettinger JR, Dannenmann A, Druckman D, Filzmoser M, Mitterhofer R, Reiser A, Schoop M, Vetschera R, van der Wijst P, Koeszegi ST (2012) Impact of and interaction between behavioral and economic decision support in electronic negotiations. In: Hernández JE, Zaraté P, Dargam F, Delibašić B, Liu S, Ribeiro R (eds) Collaboration in real environments, Lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, London, pp 151–165Google Scholar
  20. Gimpel H (2007) Preferences in negotiations—the attachment effect. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25(2):161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hendon DW, Roy MH, Ahmed ZU (2003) Negotiation concession patterns: a multi-country, multiperiod study. Am Bus Rev 21(1):75–83Google Scholar
  23. Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Tykhonov D (2007) Negotiation dynamics: analysis, concession tactics, and outcomes. In: Lin TYT, Bradshaw JM, Klusch M, Zhang C, Broder A, Ho H (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, IEEE computer society, Washington, pp 427–433Google Scholar
  24. Hinton BI, Hamner WC, Pohlen MF (1974) The influence of reward magnitude, opening bid and concession rate on profit earned in a managerial negotiation game. Behav Sci 19:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes ME (1992) Phase structures in negotiation. In: Putnam LL, Roloff ME (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson NA, Cooper RB (2009) Power and concession in computer-mediated negotiations: an examination of first offers. MIS Q 33(1):147–170Google Scholar
  27. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Kersten G, Noronha S (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25(2):135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kersten GE, Gimon D, Vahidov R (2012) Concession patterns in multi-issue negotiations and reverse auctions. In: Kauffman RJ (ed) International conference on electronic commerce, ICEC 2012, Singapore, pp 127–133Google Scholar
  30. Kilmann RH, Thomas KW (1977) Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the “mode” instrument. Educ Psychol Meas 37(2):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koeszegi S, Vetschera R (2010) Analysis of negotiation processes. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, New York, pp 121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koeszegi S, Srnka K, Pesendorfer EM (2006) Electronic negotiations: a comparison of different support systems. Die Betriebswirtschaft 66(4):441–463Google Scholar
  33. Komorita SS, Brenner AR (1968) Bargaining and concession making under bilateral monopoly. J Personal Soc Psychol 9(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ludwig S (2008) Agent-based assistant for e-negotiations. In: An A, Matwin S, Ras ZW, Slczak D (eds) ISMIS’08 proceedings of the 17th international conference on foundations of intelligent systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 514–524Google Scholar
  35. Ludwig SA, Kersten G, Huang X (2006) Towards a behavioral agent-based assistant for e-negotiations. Tech. Rep. INR 08/06, Interneg Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  36. Maxwell S, Nye P, Maxwell N (2003) The wrath of the fairness-primed negotiator when the reciprocity norm is violated. J Bus Res 56(5):399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller RL, Seligman C, Clark NT, Bush M (1976) Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance. Can J Behav Sci 8(4):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mintu-Wimsatt A, Calantone RJ (1996) Exploring factors that affect negotiators’ problem-solving orientation. J Bus Ind Mark 11(6):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mintu-Wimsatt A, Graham JL (2004) Testing a negotiation model on Canadian anglophone and Mexican exporters. J Acad Mark Sci 32(3):345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitterhofer R, Druckman D, Filzmoser M, Gettinger J, Schoop M, Koeszegi S (2012) Integration of behavioral and analytic decision support in electronic negotiations. In: Sprague RJ (ed) 45th annual Hawaii International conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos California, pp 610–617Google Scholar
  41. Nastase V (2006) Concession curve analysis for Inspire negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neale MA, Northcraft GB (1986) Experts, amateurs, and refrigerators: comparing expert and amateur negotiators in a novel task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olekalns M, Smith PL (2000) Understanding optimal outcomes: the role of strategy in competitive negotiations. Hum Commun Res 26(4):527–557Google Scholar
  44. Parks CD, Komorita SS (1998) Reciprocity research and its implications for the negotiation process. Int Negot 3:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) NLME: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-109Google Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  47. Sanchez MH, Agoglia CP, Hatfield RC (2007) The effect of auditors’ use of a reciprocity-based strategy on auditor-client negotiations. Acc Rev 82(1):241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoop M, Amelsvoort M, Gettinger J, Koerner M, Koeszegi S, van der Wijst P (2014) The interplay of communication and decisions in electronic negotiations: communicative decisions or decisive communication? Group Decis Negot 23(2):167–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith DL, Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJD (1982) Matching and mismatching: the effect of own limit, other’s toughness, and time pressure on concession rate in negotiation. J Personal Soc Psychol 42(5):876–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sokolova M, Szpakowicz S (2007) Strategies and language trends in learning success and failure of negotiation. Group Decis Negot 16:469–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stuhlmacher AF, Champagne MV (2000) The impact of time pressure and information on negotiation process and decisions. Group Decis Negot 9:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teich J, Wallenius H, Wallenius J (1994) Advances in negotiation science. Trans Oper Res 6:55–94Google Scholar
  53. Turan N, Dai T, Sycara K, Weingart L (2009) Toward a unified negotiation framework: leveraging strengths in behavioral and computational communities. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1999 workshop on modeling intercultural collaboration and negotiation, pp 94–111Google Scholar
  54. Turel O (2010) Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decis Negot 19:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tutzauer F (1992) The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In: Putnam L, Roloff ME (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tutzauer F (1993) Toughness in integrative bargaining. J Commun 43(1):46–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vetschera R (2007) Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis Support Syst 44(1):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vetschera R (2013) Negotiation processes: an integrated perspective. Eur J Decis Process 1(1–2):135–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vetschera R, Filzmoser M (2012) Standardized interpolated path analysis of offer processes in e-negotiations. In: Kauffman RJ (ed) International conference on electronic commerce ICEC 2012, Singapore, pp 134–140Google Scholar
  60. Wall JA (1981) An investigation of reciprocity and reinforcement theories of bargaining behavior. Organ Behav Hum Perform 27:367–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weingart LR, Prietula MJ, Hyder EB, Genovese CR (1999) Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: a Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. J Exp Soc Psychol 35:366–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations