Advertisement

Fairness in Bargaining: How Self-selected Frames Affect the Fairness of Negotiation Outcomes

  • Helena Hagauer
  • Bernhard Kittel
  • Manuel SchwaningerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie book series (JAHAEN)

Abstract

We investigate whether fair behavior in negotiations depends on the frame given by an actor to a situation. To test this proposition, we study secondary data from bargaining experiments. In the experiments, subjects were asked what they thought the situation was about. We compare this perception with their behavior in the negotiations. The results show that subjects with a prosocial frame were more likely to distribute the resource equally than those with a proself frame. Investigating the factors that lead to the adoption of a prosocial or proself frame, we find that minor situational differences do not influence the choice of a frame, whereas factors which can be traced back to socialization exert considerable influence on the selection of a frame.

References

  1. Bock, Olaf, Ingmar Baetge, and Andreas Nicklisch. 2014. Hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool, European Economic Review 71: 117–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo. 2007. Promoting Helping Behavior with Framing in Dictator Games, Journal of Economic Psychology 28 (4): 543–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchan, Nancy R., Rachel T. A. Croson, and Eric J. Johnson. 2004. When Do Fair Beliefs Influence Bargaining Behavior? Experimental Bargaining in Japan and the United States, Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing Theory, Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, Karen S., and Richard Emerson. 1978. Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks, American Sociological Review 43 (5): 721–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, Karen S., and Mary R. Gillmore. 1984. Power, Dependence, and Coalitions. In Advances in Group Processes, Volume 1, edited by Edward J. Lawler, 27–58. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cookson, Richard. 2000. Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments, Experimental Economics 3 (1): 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckhard, Jan. 2014. Theoretical Explanations of Increasing Childlessness - Divergent Approaches and the Integrating Potential of the Frame Selection Theory, Comparative Populations Studies 39 (1): 49–72.Google Scholar
  9. Egloff, Rainer. 2015. Definition of the Situation: History of the Concept. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by James D. Wright, 19–23. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellingsen, Tore, Magnus Johannesson, Johanna Mollerstrom, and Sara Munkhammar. 2012. Social Framing Effects: Preferences or Beliefs?, Games and Economic Behavior 76 (1): 117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emerson, Richard. 1972. Exchange Theory, Part II: Exchange Relations and Networks. In Sociological Theories in Progress, Volume 2, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch Jr., and Bo Anderson, 58–87. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Engel, Christoph, and David G. Rand. 2014. What Does ‘Clean’ Really Mean? The Implicit Framing of Decontextualized Experiments, Economics Letters 122 (3): 386–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson, Kimmo, and Pontus Strimling. 2014. Spontaneous Associations and Label Framing Have Similar Effects in the Public Goods Game, Judgment and Decision Making 9 (5): 360–72.Google Scholar
  14. Esser, Hartmut. 2010. Das Modell der Frame-Selektion. Eine allgemeine Handlungstheorie für die Sozialwissenschaften?, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft 50, Soziologische Theorie kontrovers: 45–62.Google Scholar
  15. Esser, Hartmut. 2018. Sanktionen, Reziprozität und die symbolische Konstruktion einer Kooperations-„Gemeinschaft“, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 47 (1): 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazio, Russel H., and Tamara Towles-Schwen. 1999. The MODE Model of Attitude-Behavior Processes. In Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope, 97–116. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Fischbacher, Urs. 2007. Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments, Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  19. Fiske, Alan P. 1992. The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations, Psychological Review 99 (4): 689–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. 2003. Are Political Economists Selfish and Indoctrinated ? Evidence from a Natural Experiment, Economic Inquiry 41 (3): 448–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerlach, Philipp, and Bastian Jaeger. 2016. Another Frame, Another Game? Explaining Framing Effects in Economic Games. In Proceedings of norms, actions, games, edited by Astrid Hopfensitz and Emiliano Lori, 1–10. Toulouse: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeaster University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greiner, Ben. 2015. Subject Pool Recruitment Procedures: Organizing Experiments with ORSEE, Journal of the Economic Science Association 1(1): 114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt, Charles, and Susan Laury. 2002. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects, American Economic Review 92(5): 1644–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica 47 (2): 263–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kane, Emily W. 2012. The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
  27. Kittel, Bernhard, Sabine Neuhofer, and Manuel Schwaninger. 2017. Need-Based Justice in Social Exchange Networks. FOR2104 Working Papers 2017–04.Google Scholar
  28. Kroneberg, Clemens. 2005. Die Definition der Situation und die variable Rationalität der Akteure. Ein allgemeines Modell des Handelns, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34 (5): 344–63.Google Scholar
  29. Kroneberg, Clemens. 2007. Wertrationalität und das Modell der Frame-Selektion, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59 (2): 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kroneberg, Clemens. 2009. Das Modell der Frame-Selektion. Grundlagen und soziologische Anwendung einer integrativen Handlungstheorie. Universität Mannheim.Google Scholar
  31. Kroneberg, Clemens. 2011. Die Erklärung sozialen Handelns. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kroneberg, Clemens, Meir Yaish, and Volker Stocké. 2010. Norms and Rationality in Electoral Participation and in the Rescue of Jews in WWII, Rationality and Society 22 (1): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li, Jie, Suzanne S. Masterson, and Therese A. Sprinkle. 2012. Beyond the Eye of the Beholder. In Research in Management: Perspectives on Justice and Trust in Organizations, edited by Linda L. Neider and Chester Schriesheim, 139–63. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Liberman, Varda, Steven M. Samuels, and Lee Ross. 2004. The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations Versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (9): 1175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liebig, Stefan, and Carsten Sauer. 2013. Soziologische Gerechtigkeitsanalyse. Überlegungen zur theoretischen Fundierung eines Forschungsfeldes, Analyse & Kritik 35 (2): 371–94.Google Scholar
  36. Lindenberg, Siegwart. 2013. Social Rationality, Self-Regulation, and Well-Being: The Regulatory Significance of Needs, Goals and the Self. In The Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research, edited by Rafael Wittek, Tom A.B. Snijders, and Victor Nee, 72–112. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis, Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (2).Google Scholar
  38. Mayring, Philipp. 2015. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  39. Merton, Robert K. 1948. The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, The Antioch Review 8 (2): 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Molm, Linda D. 2014. Experiments on Exchange Relations and Exchange Networks in Sociology: In Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, edited by Murray Webster Jr. and Jane Sell, 199–224. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Molm, Linda D., Gretchen Peterson, and Nobuyuki Takahashi. 2003. In the Eye of the Beholder: Procedural Justice in Social Exchange, American Sociological Review 78 (1): 128–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Molm, Linda D., Nobuyuki Takahashi, and Gretchen Peterson. 2000. Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experimental Test of a Classical Proposition, American Journal of Sociology 105 (5): 1396–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Opp, Karl-Dieter. 2015. Norms. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by James D. Wright, 5–10. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Opp, Karl-Dieter. 2017. When Do People Follow Norms And When Do They Pursue Their Interests? In Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation, edited by Ben Jann, and Wojtek Przepiorka, 119–42. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  45. Park, Robert E., and Ernest Burgess (eds.). 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rendtorff, Barbara. 2006. Erziehung und Geschlecht: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  47. Rompf, Stephan Alexander. 2015. Trust and Rationality. An Integrative Framework for Trust Research. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Schwaninger, Manuel, Sabine Neuhofer, and Bernhard Kittel. 2018. Offers Beyond the Negotiating Dyad: Including the Excluded in a Network Exchange Experiment, Social Science Research 10.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, Vernon L. 1976. Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory, The American Economic Review 66 (2): 274–79.Google Scholar
  50. Thomas, William I. 1917. The Persistence of Primary Group Norms in Present-Day Society and Their Influence in Our Educational System. In Suggestion of Modern Science Concerning Education, edited by Herbert S. Jennings, John G. Watson, Adolf Meyer, and William I. Thomas, 157–97. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas, William I., and Dorothy S. Thomas. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, William I., and Florian Znaniecki. 1958. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science 211 (4481): 453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  55. Yamagishi, Toshio, Nobuhiro Mifune, Yang Li, Mizuho Shinada, Hirofumi Hashimot, Yutaka Horita, Arisa Miura, Keigo Inukai, Shigehito Tanida, Toko Kiyonari, Haruto Takagishi, and Dora Simunovic. 2013. Is Behavioral Pro-Sociality Game-Specific? Pro-Social Preference and Expectations of pro-Sociality, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120 (2): 260–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Hagauer
    • 1
  • Bernhard Kittel
    • 1
  • Manuel Schwaninger
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institut für WirtschaftssoziologieViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations