Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2020 | nr 3(101) | 79--90
Tytuł artykułu

Heuristics and Biases as Sources of Negotiators' Errors in the Pre-Negotiation Phase. Review of Literature and Empirical Research

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
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)
Opis fizyczny
  • University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Aronson E., Wilson T.D., Akert R.M., 1997, Psychologia społeczna. Serce i umysł. Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Poznań.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Bazerman M.H., Chung D., 2005, Focusing in negotiation, [in:] Frontiers of Social Psychology: Negotiations, Thompson L. (ed.), Psychological Press, New York.
  • Bazerman M.H., Moore D., 2009, Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Wiley, New Caledonia.
  • Berlyne D.E., 1969, Struktura i kierunek myślenia, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Eagly A.H., Chaiken S., 1993, The psychology of attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
  • Epley N., Gilovich T., 2006, The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic. Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient, "Psychological Science", vol. 17(4), p. 311-318.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Evans J.S.B.T., 1989, Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences, Brighton, England: Erlbaum.
  • 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.
  • Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., ABC Research Group, 1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Gigerenzer G., 1996, On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky, "Psychological Review", vol. 103(3), pp. 592-596.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Jackson S.E., Dutton J.E., 1988, Discerning Threats and Opportunities, "Administrative Science Quarterly", no. 33(3), pp. 370-387, DOI: 10.2307/2392714.
  • Jung C.G., 1969, The Psychology of the Transference, Routledge, London.
  • Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A., 1982, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • 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.
  • Kahneman D., 2012, Pułapki myślenia. O myśleniu szybkim i wolnym, Media Rodzina, Poznań.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Luhmann N., 1996, Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • Michnik J., Wachowicz T., 2016, Definicja problemu negocjacyjnego, [in:] Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
  • Nęcka E., Orzechowski J., Szymura B., 2006, Psychologia poznawcza, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Selz O., 1922, Zur Psychologie der produktiven Denkens und des Irrtums (On the psychology of productive thinking and of error), Cohen, Bonn.
  • 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.
  • Simon H.A., 1982, Models of bounded rationality, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge.
  • Simon H.A., 1983, Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press PY, Stanford.
  • Simon H.A., 1990, Invariants of Human Behavior, "Annual Review of Psychology", no. 41, pp. 1-19.
  • 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.
  • Stanovich K.E., 1999, Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning. Psychology Press, New York.
  • 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.
  • Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R., 2017, Impuls. Jak podejmować właściwe decyzje dotyczące zdrowia, dobrobytu i szczęścia, Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka, Poznań.
  • Thaler R.H., 2018, Zachowania niepoprawne. Tworzenie ekonomii behawioralnej, Media Rodzinna, Poznań.
  • 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.
  • Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1979, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, "Econometrica", vol. 47(2), pp. 263-291.
  • Wachowicz T., 2006, E-negocjacje, modelowanie, analiza i wspomaganie, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, Katowice.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.