BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Adamus-Matuszyńska Anna (University of Economics in Katowice, Poland)
Heuristics and Biases as Sources of Negotiators' Errors in the Pre-Negotiation Phase. Review of Literature and Empirical Research
Optimum : Economic Studies, 2020, nr 3(101), s. 79-90, wykr., bibliogr. s. 87-90
Negocjacje, Proces podejmowania decyzji, Teoria negocjacji, Heurystyka
Negotiations, Decision making process, Negotiation theory, Heuristics
JEL Classification: D03
Purpose - Heuristics and biases are simplifying strategies that people (in the analysed issue - negotiators) use in the decision-making process, even when they can take advantage of supporting tools (e.g. Negotiation Support System), which will allow them to make the optimal choice [Wachowicz, 2006]. Many empirical studies have found that decision makers use heuristics and are biased [Bateman, Zeithaml, 1989; Jackson, Dutton, 1988; Kahneman et al. 1982; Zajac, Bazerman, 1991]. Therefore, the question should be asked: are negotiators, as managers (whose decisions were examined), instead of consciously and intentionally used tools supporting decision-making during negotiations, subject to heuristics and cognitive errors? As the consequence of this general question one may ask the specific research questions: (1) What heuristics do the negotiators undergo? (2) How do heuristics influence the decision-making process? (3) How can heuristics and biases impact be minimized by taking advantage of negotiation support tools? Research methods - The article is a review of psychological, sociological and management sciences theories, concepts and empirical researches on heuristics and biases. The review was made according to the following categories: (a) theories that recognize the inevitability of heuristics in the decision-making process, (b) theories that attempt to identify opportunities to minimize or even reduce the impact of heuristics on decisions, and (c) those that offer alternative solutions. Results - The summary highlights those heuristics which might occur in the decision-making process in the pre-negotiation phase. Originality/value - There is no research exploring the role of specific heuristics and biases in particular stages of negotiations. (original abstract)
The Library of Warsaw School of Economics
The Library of University of Economics in Katowice
Full text
  1. Alhakami A.S., Slovic P., 1994, A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, "Risk Analysis", no. 14 (6), p. 1085-1096, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539- 6924.1994.tb00080.x.
  2. Alloy L.B., Abramson L.Y., 1979, Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General", vol. 108, pp. 441 -485.
  3. Aronson E., Wilson T.D., Akert R.M., 1997, Psychologia społeczna. Serce i umysł. Wydawnictwo Zysk i  S-ka, Poznań.
  4. Baron J., Beattie J., Hershey J., 1988, Heuristics and biases in diagnostic reasoning: II. congruence, information, and certainty, "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes", vol. 42 (1), pp. 88-110, DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90021-0.
  5. Bateman T.S., Zeithaml C.P., 1989, The psychological context of strategic decisions: A model and convergent experimental findings, "Strategic Management Journal", vol. 10(1), pp. 59-74, DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250100106.
  6. Bazerman M.H., Neale M.A., 1983, Heuristics in negotiation: Limitations to effective dispute resolution, [in:] Negotiating in organizations, Bazerman M.H., Lewicki R.J. (eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
  7. Bazerman M.H., Chung D., 2005, Focusing in negotiation, [in:] Frontiers of Social Psychology: Negotiations, Thompson L. (ed.), Psychological Press, New York.
  8. Bazerman M.H., Moore D., 2009, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Wiley, New Caledonia.
  9. Berlyne D.E., 1969, Struktura i kierunek myślenia, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa.
  10. Bodenhausen G.V., Kramer G.P., Suesser K., 1994, Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment, "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", vol. 66(4), pp. 621-632, DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.621.
  11. Caputo A., 2013, A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes, "International Journal of Conflict Management", vol. 24 (4), pp. 374-398, DOI: 10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064.
  12. Chaiken S., 1987, The heuristic model of persuasion, [in:] Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology. Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Zanna M.P., Olson J.M., Herman C.P. (eds.), vol. 5, pp. 3-39.
  13. Chen S., Chaiken S., 1999, The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context, [in:] Dualprocess theories in social psychology, Chaiken S., Trope Y. (eds.), The Guildford Press, New York.
  14. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S., 1993, The psychology of attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
  15. Epley N., Gilovich T., 2006, The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic. Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient, "Psychological Science", vol. 17(4), p. 311-318.
  16. Epstein S., 1994, Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious, "American Psychologist", no. 49, p. 709-724, DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.49.8.709.
  17. Epstein S., Pacini R., Denes-Raj V., Heier H., 1996, Individual differences in intuitive-experimental and analytical-rational thinking styles, "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", vol. 71(2), pp. 390-405, DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390.
  18. Evans J.S.B.T., 1989, Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences, Brighton, England: Erlbaum.
  19. Evans J.S.B.T, Stanovich K.E., 2013, Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate, "Perspectives on Psychological Science", vol. 8(3), p. 223-241, DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685.
  20. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., ABC Research Group, 1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  21. Gigerenzer G., 1996, On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A  reply to Kahneman and Tversky, "Psychological Review", vol. 103(3), pp. 592-596.
  22. Gilovich T., Griffin D., 2002, Introduction - Heuristics and Biases: Then and Now, [in:] Heuristics and biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  23. Goldstein D.G., Gigerenzer G., 2002, Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic, "Psychological Review", vol. 109, pp. 75-90, DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.75.
  24. Jackson S.E., Dutton J.E., 1988, Discerning Threats and Opportunities, "Administrative Science Quarterly", no. 33(3), pp. 370-387, DOI: 10.2307/2392714.
  25. Jung C.G., 1969, The Psychology of the Transference, Routledge, London.
  26. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A., 1982, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  27. Kahneman D., 2003, A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality, "American Psychologist", vol. 58(9), pp. 697-720, DOI: 10.1037/0003- 066X.58.9.697.
  28. Kahneman D., 2012, Pułapki myślenia. O myśleniu szybkim i wolnym, Media Rodzina, Poznań.
  29. Kersten G.E., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2017, The heuristics and biases in using the negotiation support systems, [in:] Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective, Schoop M, Kilgour D.M. (eds.), 17th International Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, Proceedings, pp. 215- 228.
  30. Kersten G.E., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2018, Representative Decision-Making and the Propensity to Use Round and Sharp Numbers in Preference Specification, [in:] Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World, Chen Y., Kersten G., Vetschera R., Xu H. (eds), Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 315, pp. 43-55.
  31. Klayman J., Ha Y.W., 1987, Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing, "Psychological Review", vol. 94(2), pp. 211-228, DOI: 10.1037/0033- 295X.94.2.211.
  32. Kozina A., 2015, Dobór technik prowadzenia negocjacji, "Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie", vol. 8(944), pp. 31-44, DOI: 10.15678/ZNUEK.2015.0944.0803.
  33. Luhmann N., 1996, Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  34. Michnik J., Wachowicz T., 2016, Definicja problemu negocjacyjnego, [in:] Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
  35. Nęcka E., Orzechowski J., Szymura B., 2006, Psychologia poznawcza, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  36. Park J., Banaji M.R., 2000, Mood and heuristics: the influence of happy and sad states on sensitivity and bias in stereotyping, "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", vol. 78(6), pp. 1005-1023, DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1005.
  37. Piktus K., Czerwonka M., 2018, Awersja do strat i wybrane zniekształcenia poznawcze w kontekście różnic międzypłciowych, "Studia i Prace Kolegium Zarządzania i  Finansów", z. 164, pp. 25-47.
  38. Reimer T., Hoffrage U., 2012, Simple Heuristics and Information Sharing in Groups, [in:] Simple Heuristics in a Social World, Hertwig R., Hoffrage U., ABC Research group (eds)., Oxford University Press, New York, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/97801953.88435.003.0011.
  39. Roszkowska E., 2016, Możliwość wykorzystania systemu oceny ofert negocjacyjnych do wspomagania procesu negocjacji, [in:] Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
  40. Selz O., 1922, Zur Psychologie der produktiven Denkens und des Irrtums (On the psychology of productive thinking and of error), Cohen, Bonn.
  41. Simon H.A., 1955, A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, "The Quarterly Journal of Economics", vol. 69(1), pp. 99-118, DOI: 10.2307/1884852.
  42. Simon H.A., 1982, Models of bounded rationality, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge.
  43. Simon H.A., 1983, Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press PY, Stanford.
  44. Simon H.A., 1990, Invariants of Human Behavior, "Annual Review of Psychology", no. 41, pp. 1-19.
  45. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., MacGregor D.G., 2007, The affect heuristic, "European Journal of Operational Research", vol. 177, p. 1333-1352, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.
  46. Stanovich K.E., 1999, Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning. Psychology Press, New York.
  47. Stanovich K.E., West R. F., 2008, On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability, "Journal of Personal Social Psychology", vol. 94(4), pp. 672-695, DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672.
  48. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R., 2017, Impuls. Jak podejmować właściwe decyzje dotyczące zdrowia, dobrobytu i szczęścia, Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Poznań.
  49. Thaler R.H., 2018, Zachowania niepoprawne. Tworzenie ekonomii behawioralnej, Media Rodzinna, Poznań.
  50. Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1974, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. "Science", vol. 185(4157), pp. 1124-1131, DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
  51. Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1979, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, "Econometrica", vol. 47(2), pp. 263-291.
  52. Wachowicz T., 2006, E-negocjacje, modelowanie, analiza i wspomaganie, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, Katowice.
  53. Wachowicz T., Roszkowska E., Filipowicz-Chomko M., 2019, Decision Making Profile and the Choices of Preference Elicitation Mode - A  Case of Using GDMS Inventory, Proceedings The 15th International Symposium on Operational Research, pp. 72-77.
  54. Wachowicz T., Roszkowska E., 2019. Investigating the Self-Serving Bias Software Supported Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Process, Proceedings The 15th International Symposium on Operational Research, pp. 66-71.
  55. Zajac E J., Bazerman M.H., 1991, Blind Spots in Industry and Competitor Analysis: The Implications of Interfirm (Mis)perceptions for Strategic Decisions, "The Academy of Management Review", vol. 16(1), pp. 37-56, DOI: 10.2307/258606.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu