Framing Effects and the Distributive Aspect of Integrative Bargaining |
| |
| Authors: | Bottom William P. Studt Amy |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, China;2. College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, United States;3. Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Loughborough University London, United Kingdom;4. School of Business, University of Leicester, United Kingdom;1. Department of Environmental Engineering, College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China;2. The Residues and Resource Reclamation Centre, Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Cleantech Loop, CleanTech One, 637141, Singapore;3. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore;4. Department of Civil Engineering, 23 College Walk, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia;1. Residue and Resource Reclamation Centre, Nanyang Environment & Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Cleantech Loop, CleanTech One, 637141, Singapore;2. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore;3. Department of Civil Engineering, 23 College Walk, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia;1. Residue and Resource Reclamation Centre (R3C), Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Cleantech Loop, CleanTech One, Singapore 637141, Singapore;2. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore;1. Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia;2. Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Australia;3. Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia;4. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark;5. National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark;6. Centro Tecnológico del Mar-Fundación CETMAR, Vigo, Spain;1. School of Business and Management, LUT University, Finland;2. University of Queensland Business School, Australia;3. School of Business and Management, LUT University, Finland and School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Finland |
| |
| Abstract: | The earliest studies of negotiator framing effects demonstrated the benefits of positive framing of issues. However, several recent empirical studies and game theoretic models of bargaining contradict these findings. This paper seeks to develop a comprehensive explanation of the role of framing that will reconcile the various results. Because of the conflict between integrative and distributive aspects of bargaining, negotiators must confront a dilemma. Risk attitude and framing affect the approach negotiators take in dealing with the dilemma. Contrary to the view taken in the early framing studies, negatively framed bargainers should generally do better than their positively framed counterparts in most situations. However, a pair of positively framed bargainers should reach more integrative settlements than a pair of negatively framed bargainers. Two experiments are reported that tested these propositions. In each case the predictions were strongly supported. The implications of these results for theorists and negotiators are discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
