Heuristics and Biases at the Bargaining Table
Russell B. Korobkin
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law
Vanderbilt University - Law School
Marquette Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 795-808, 2004
Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 04-11
UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 04/5
In this essay, written for a symposium on The Emerging Interdisciplinary Cannon of Negotiation, we examine the role of heuristics in negotiation from two vantage points. First, we identify the way in which some common heuristics are likely to influence the negotiator's decision-making processes. Namely, we discuss anchoring and adjustment, availability, self-serving evaluations, framing, the status quo bias, contrast effects, and reactive devaluation. Understanding these common heuristics and how they can cause negotiators' judgments and choices to deviate from the normative model can enable negotiators to reorient their behavior so it more closely aligns with the normative model or, alternatively, make an informed choice to take advantage of the effort-conserving features of heuristics at the cost of the increased precision that the normative approach offers. Second, we explore how negotiators might capitalize on the knowledge that their counterparts are likely to rely on heuristics in their decision-making processes. We consider, in other words, how negotiators can exploit heuristic reasoning on the part of others for personal gain.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 9
Keywords: Heuristics, NegotiationAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 17, 2004
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.360 seconds