Alternative Models of Negotiated Outcomes and the Nontraditional Utility Concerns That Limit Their Predictability

S. B. White; M. H. Bazerman; M. A. Neale

}
//]]>
</script>
<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR" id="__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR" value="E39AC016" />
<script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.core.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fsp.core.js?rev=7ByNlH\u00252BvcgRJg\u00252BRCctdC0w\u00253D\u00253D");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.res.resx", "\u002f_layouts\u002fScriptResx.ashx?culture=en\u00252Dus\u0026name=SP\u00252ERes\u0026rev=b6\u00252FcRx1a6orhAQ\u00252FcF\u00252B0ytQ\u00253D\u00253D");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.ui.dialog.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fsp.ui.dialog.js?rev=Tpcmo1\u00252FSu6R0yewHowDl5g\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("sp.ui.dialog.js", "sp.core.js");RegisterSodDep("sp.ui.dialog.js", "sp.res.resx");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("core.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002f1033\u002fcore.js?rev=Emb5hNX1RZMNXk9oS82yvA\u00253D\u00253D");</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
var _spFormDigestRefreshInterval = 1440000;window.g_updateFormDigestPageLoaded = new Date(); window.g_updateFormDigestPageLoaded.setDate(window.g_updateFormDigestPageLoaded.getDate() -5);function loadMDN2() { EnsureScript('MDN.js', typeof(loadFilterFn), null); }
function loadMDN1() { ExecuteOrDelayUntilScriptLoaded(loadMDN2, 'sp.ribbon.js'); }
_spBodyOnLoadFunctionNames.push('loadMDN1');//]]>
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.runtime.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fsp.runtime.js?rev=IGffcZfunndj0247nOxKVg\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("sp.runtime.js", "sp.core.js");RegisterSodDep("sp.runtime.js", "sp.res.resx");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fsp.js?rev=\u00252B4ZEyA892P3T0504qi0paw\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("sp.js", "sp.core.js");RegisterSodDep("sp.js", "sp.runtime.js");RegisterSodDep("sp.js", "sp.ui.dialog.js");RegisterSodDep("sp.js", "sp.res.resx");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("cui.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fcui.js?rev=OOyJv78CADNBeet\u00252FvTvniQ\u00253D\u00253D");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("inplview", "\u002f_layouts\u002finplview.js?rev=WB6Gy8a027aeNCq7koVCUg\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("inplview", "core.js");RegisterSodDep("inplview", "sp.js");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("ribbon", "\u002f_layouts\u002fsp.ribbon.js?rev=F\u00252BUEJ66rbXzSvpf7nN69wQ\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "core.js");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "sp.core.js");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "sp.js");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "cui.js");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "sp.res.resx");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "sp.runtime.js");RegisterSodDep("ribbon", "inplview");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("sp.ui.policy.resources.resx", "\u002f_layouts\u002fScriptResx.ashx?culture=en\u00252Dus\u0026name=SP\u00252EUI\u00252EPolicy\u00252EResources\u0026rev=YhBHGmUAGyJ3lAgSdE4V\u00252Fw\u00253D\u00253D");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("mdn.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002fmdn.js?rev=gwmFFJ2\u00252FfFacqXWAqG\u00252FqKg\u00253D\u00253D");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "sp.core.js");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "sp.runtime.js");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "sp.js");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "cui.js");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "ribbon");RegisterSodDep("mdn.js", "sp.ui.policy.resources.resx");</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[

function _spNavigateHierarchyEx(nodeDiv, dataSourceId, dataPath, url, listInContext, type, additionalQString) {
    SetAdditionalNavigateHierarchyQString(additionalQString);
    g_originalSPNavigateFunc(nodeDiv, dataSourceId, dataPath, url, listInContext, type);
}

g_originalSPNavigateFunc = _spNavigateHierarchy;
_spNavigateHierarchy = _spNavigateHierarchyEx;
var _fV4UI = true;//]]>
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("msstring.js", "\u002f_layouts\u002f1033\u002fmsstring.js?rev=QtiIcPH3HV7LgVSO7vONFg\u00253D\u00253D");</script><script type="text/javascript">RegisterSod("browserScript", "\u002f_layouts\u002f1033\u002fnon_ie.js?rev=EVTj1bu32\u00252FMla6SDN\u00252FsNTA\u00253D\u00253D");</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
var __wpmExportWarning='This Web Part Page has been personalized. As a result, one or more Web Part properties may contain confidential information. Make sure the properties contain information that is safe for others to read. After exporting this Web Part, view properties in the Web Part description file (.WebPart) by using a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad.';var __wpmCloseProviderWarning='You are about to close this Web Part.  It is currently providing data to other Web Parts, and these connections will be deleted if this Web Part is closed.  To close this Web Part, click OK.  To keep this Web Part, click Cancel.';var __wpmDeleteWarning='You are about to permanently delete this Web Part.  Are you sure you want to do this?  To delete this Web Part, click OK.  To keep this Web Part, click Cancel.';//]]>
</script>
</form>

Go to main content

Chapter | Research on Negotiation in Organizations | 1995

Alternative Models of Negotiated Outcomes and the Nontraditional Utility Concerns That Limit Their Predictability

by S. B. White, M. H. Bazerman and M. A. Neale

Keywords: Negotiation; Outcome or Result; Forecasting and Prediction;

Format: Print

Citation:

White, S. B., M. H. Bazerman, and M. A. Neale. "Alternative Models of Negotiated Outcomes and the Nontraditional Utility Concerns That Limit Their Predictability." In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, edited by R. J. Bies, R. Lewicki, and B. Sheppard. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1995.

About the Author

Max H. Bazerman

Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration

Negotiation, Organizations & Markets

View Profile »
View Publications »

More from the Author

Article | Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy | 2019

Pay-for-Monopoly?: An Assessment of Reverse Payment Deals by Pharmaceutical Companies

Sana Rafiq and Max Bazerman

Citation:
Rafiq, Sana, and Max Bazerman. "Pay-for-Monopoly? An Assessment of Reverse Payment Deals by Pharmaceutical Companies." Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy 3, no. 1 (2019): 37–43. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now Related
Working Paper | 2019

Redirecting Rawlsian Reasoning toward the Greater Good

Joshua D. Greene, Karen Huang and Max Bazerman

Citation:
Greene, Joshua D., Karen Huang, and Max Bazerman. "Redirecting Rawlsian Reasoning toward the Greater Good." Working Paper, 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Related
Working Paper | 2019

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Karen Huang, Joshua D. Greene and Max Bazerman

The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision-making by denying decision-makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across six experiments (N = 5,785), three pre-registered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice. Participants who first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning subsequently made more utilitarian choices in response to a classic philosophical dilemma, a medical dilemma, a real donation decision between a more vs. less effective charity, and a policy decision concerning the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. These effects depend on the impartial thinking induced by veil-of-ignorance reasoning and cannot be explained by a simple anchoring account, probabilistic reasoning, or generic perspective-taking. These studies indicate that veil-of-ignorance reasoning may be a useful tool for decision-makers who wish to make more impartial and/or socially beneficial choices.

Keywords: policy-making; procedural justice; Ethics; Decision Making; Fairness;

Citation:
Huang, Karen, Joshua D. Greene, and Max Bazerman. "Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good." Working Paper, July 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now Related

Faculty & Research

Alternative Models of Negotiated Outcomes and the Nontraditional Utility Concerns That Limit Their Predictability

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author