Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representative Decision-Making and the Propensity to Use Round and Sharp Numbers in Preference Specification

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World (GDN 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 315))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper analyzes the agents’ predisposition to produce round numbers during preference elicitation of the pre-negotiation phase. The agents negotiate on behalf of their principals and are asked to use information presented in terms of bar graphs and text to provide their principals’ preferences numerically. In doing that, they tend to use round numbers more often than sharp numbers. Also, more agents use round numbers than sharp numbers, however, the majority of agents use a mix of numbers. The results show that the increased use of round numbers results in greater inaccuracy; the most accurate are agents who use a mix or round and sharp numbers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aloysius, J.A., et al.: User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: the impact of preference elicitation techniques. EJOR 169(1), 273–285 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rubin, J.Z., Sander, F.E.: When should we use agents? Direct vs. representative negotiation. Negot. J. 4(4), 395–401 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dessein, W.: Authority and communication in organizations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 69(4), 811–838 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Solet, D.J., et al.: Lost in translation: challenges and opportunities in physician-to-physician communication during patient handoffs. Acad. Med. 80(12), 1094–1099 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M.: Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: reconsidered once again. Rev. Educ. Res. 71(1), 1–27 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Laffont, J.J., Martimort, D.: The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bénabou, R., Tirole, J.: Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 96(5), 1652–1678 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W.D., Cameron, J.: Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation: negative, neutral, and positive: comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychol. Bull. 125(6), 677–691 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaiken, S., Trope, Y.: Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein, S.: Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Millon, T., Lerner, M.J. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simon, H.A., Newell, A.: Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in operations research. Oper. Res. 6(1), 1–10 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481), 453–458 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Benson, B.: Cognitive bias cheat sheet. Better Humans 2016. https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18. Accessed 4 Jan 2017

  14. Kaufman, E.L., et al.: The discrimination of visual number. Am. J. Psychol. 62(4), 498–525 (1949)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dehaene, S.: The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jansen, C.J., Pollmann, M.M.: On round numbers: pragmatic aspects of numerical expressions. J. Quant. Ling. 8(3), 187–201 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schindler, R., Yalch, R.: It seems factual, but is it? Effects of using sharp versus round numbers in advertising claims. In: Pechmann, C., Price, L. (eds.) ACR North American Advances, Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, pp. 586–590 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D.: Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schelling, T.C.: The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Boston (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Alter, A.L., et al.: Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gener. 136(4), 569 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baird, J.C., Lewis, C., Romer, D.: Relative frequencies of numerical responses in ratio estimation. Attention Percept. Psychophy. 8(5), 358–362 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mason, M.F., et al.: Precise offers are potent anchors: conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49(4), 759–763 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bizer, G.Y., Schindler, R.M.: Direct evidence of ending-digit drop-off in price information processing. Psychol. Mark. 22(10), 771–783 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thomas, M., Morwitz, V.: Penny wise and pound foolish: the left-digit effect in price cognition. J. Consum. Res. 32(1), 54–64 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Janiszewski, C., Uy, D.: Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 19(2), 121–127 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pope, D.G., Pope, J.C., Sydnor, J.R.: Focal points and bargaining in housing markets. Games Econ. Behav. 93, 89–107 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T.: First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81(4), 657–669 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.: Heuristics in negotiation: limitations to dispute resolution effectiveness. In: Bazerman, M.H., Lewicki, R.J. (eds.) Negotiations in Organizations, pp. 51–67. Sage, Beverly Hills (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Xie, G.-X., Kronrod, A.: Is the devil in the details? The signaling effect of numerical precision in environmental advertising claims. J. Advertising 41(4), 103–117 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roberts, J.M., Brewer, D.D.: Measures and tests of heaping in discrete quantitative distributions. J. Appl. Stat. 28(7), 887–896 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kersten, G., Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: An impact of negotiation profiles on the accuracy of negotiation offer scoring system - experimental study. Multiple Criteria Decis. Making 11, 77–95 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Inaccuracy in defining preferences by the electronic negotiation system users. In: International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 131–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_11

    Google Scholar 

  33. Epstein, S., et al.: Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71(2), 390 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hutcheson, G., Sofroniou, N.: The Multivariate Social Scientist. Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Sage, London (1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported with the grants from Polish National Science Centre (2016/21/B/HS4/01583) and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J. Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

    Gregory E. Kersten

  2. Faculty of Economy and Management, University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland

    Ewa Roszkowska

  3. Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

    Tomasz Wachowicz

Authors
  1. Gregory E. Kersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ewa Roszkowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomasz Wachowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory E. Kersten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China

    Ye Chen

  2. Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Gregory Kersten

  3. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Rudolf Vetschera

  4. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Haiyan Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kersten, G.E., Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T. (2018). Representative Decision-Making and the Propensity to Use Round and Sharp Numbers in Preference Specification. In: Chen, Y., Kersten, G., Vetschera, R., Xu, H. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92873-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92874-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation