1. bookVolume 12 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)
Journal Details
First Published
25 Apr 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Open Access

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation - Literature Review

Published Online: 25 Jun 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 12 (2020) - Issue 2 (June 2020)
Page range: 31 - 52
Journal Details
First Published
25 Apr 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year

Objective: The purpose of this paper is also to thoroughly review those studies in the management literature that focused on bias in negotiation and to ascertain a couple of new research trajectories that could be observed as the result. As a matter of fact, a human’s judgment making capacity and behavior could be greatly influenced by cognitive misperceptions thus affecting decisions in negotiations. Whilst Thompson (2006) analytically examined the effects of biased decision-making processes for negotiations, the intention of this paper is to fill the gap through a systematic assessment of the literature.

Methodology: I have provided a theoretical background on decision makers’ cognition in this paper to provide context and introduce the research; after which we take a closer look at the literature and discuss its results. Based on this, I noted that limited research, with alternate results were done based on the interaction between biases bothering on mood, culture, personality as well as education and experience on the negotiators’ judgments. Finally, we suggest that future research trajectories might be on multilateral and integrative negotiations, the role of third parties and a better comprehension of the cognitive bias and how to rise above it in negotiations.

Findings: Despite the fact that this topic is considered important, it is surprisingly under-researched. Author was able to identify the void and inadequacies of the literature identified in journal articles systemizing the intersection of negotiation studies, from cognitive biases studies, group decision making and from the decision making and judgment literature.

Value Added: This paper showed that there are only a handful of papers that focus on why, how and when cognitive biases influence negotiation process.

Recommendations: There is a great need for papers that focus on cognitive biases in the negotiation process.


JEL Classification

Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 108(4), 441–485.10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441Search in Google Scholar

Bazerman, M. H., Magliozzi, T., & Neale, M. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 294–313.10.1016/0749-5978(85)90026-3Search in Google Scholar

Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 45–62.10.1002/ejsp.2420240104Search in Google Scholar

Bottom, W. P., & Studt, A. (1993). Framing effects and the distributive aspect of integrative bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56(3), 459–474.10.1006/obhd.1993.1064Search in Google Scholar

Caputo, A. (2013). A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 374–398.10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064Search in Google Scholar

Chmielecki, M. (2013). Conceptual negotiation metaphors across cultures – research findings from Poland, China, The United States and Great Britain. Journal of Intercultural Management, 5(3), 103–118.10.2478/joim-2013-0022Search in Google Scholar

Chmielecki, M., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2017). Goal vs. relationship-based approach: a comparative study between American, Chinese, and Polish negotiators. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, P. A. Wilson, & S. M. Croucher (Eds.), Approaches to conflict: theoretical, interpersonal, and discursive dynamics (pp. 93–110). Lanham: Lexington Books.Search in Google Scholar

Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005).Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. ABC Research Group10.1017/CBO9780511610332.006Search in Google Scholar

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963).A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2(4), 169-187.Search in Google Scholar

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981).Getting to yes: How to negotiate without giving in. London: Arrow.Search in Google Scholar

Gelfand, M. J., & Christakopoulou, S. (1999). Culture and negotiator cognition: Judgment accuracy and negotiation processes in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 248–269.10.1006/obhd.1999.2845Search in Google Scholar

Gelfand, M. J., Higgins, M., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., Dominguez, A., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., & Toyama, M. (2002). Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 833–845.10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.833Search in Google Scholar

Gino, F., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). See no evil: Why we fail to notice unethical behavior. In R. M. Kramer, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgments (pp. 241–263). New York: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heifetz, A., & Segev, E. (2004). The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 49(1), 117–134.10.1016/j.geb.2003.11.001Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.10.2307/1914185Search in Google Scholar

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review, 94(2), 211–228.10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211Search in Google Scholar

Korobkin, R. (1998). Inertia and preference in contract negotiation: The psychological power of default rules and form terms. Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, 1583–1651.Search in Google Scholar

Kramer, R. M., Pommerenke, P., & Newton, E. (1993). The social context of negotiation: Effects of social identity and interpersonal accountability on negotiator decision making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(4), 633–654.10.1177/0022002793037004003Search in Google Scholar

Kristensen, H., & Gärling, T. (2000). Anchor points, reference points, and counter-offers in negotiations. Group decision and negotiation, 9(6), 493–505.10.1023/A:1008722223618Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, R., & Gladwin, T. N. (1987). The social psychology of crisis bargaining: Toward a contingency model. Journal of World Business, 20, 23–32.Search in Google Scholar

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1987).Manager as negotiator. Simon and Schuster.Search in Google Scholar

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). Interests: The measure of negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 2(1), 73–92.10.1111/j.1571-9979.1986.tb00339.xSearch in Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (2007). Claiming a large slice of a small pie: Asymmetric disconfirmation in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 212–233.10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.212Search in Google Scholar

Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(4), 418–434.10.1016/0022-1031(79)90047-7Search in Google Scholar

Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. (1983). Fairness, preference, and fairness biases. In Messick, D. M., and Cook, K. S. (Eds.), Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives (pp. 61–94). New York: Praeger.Search in Google Scholar

Mumpower, J. L., Sheffield, J., Darling, T. A., & Milter, R. G. (2004). The accuracy of post-negotiation estimates of the other negotiator’s payoff. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(3), 259–290.10.1023/B:GRUP.0000031089.91654.26Search in Google Scholar

Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator over-confidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49.Search in Google Scholar

Neale, M. A., Huber, V. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 228–241.10.1016/0749-5978(87)90039-2Search in Google Scholar

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

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, 78(6), 1005–1023.10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1005Search in Google Scholar

Raiffa, H. (1982).The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar

Ritov, I. (1996). Probability of regret: Anticipation of uncertainty resolution in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 228–236.10.1006/obhd.1996.0051Search in Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(5), 645–665.10.1017/S0140525X00003435Search in Google Scholar

Sułkowski, Ł. (2009). The problems of epistemology of corporate culture. Journal of Intercultural Management, 1(1), 5–20.Search in Google Scholar

Sułkowski, Ł. (2012). Elements of Organizational Culture–theoretical and methodological problems. Management, 16(2), 63–71.10.2478/v10286-012-0056-ySearch in Google Scholar

Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008).Nudge: The gentle power of choice architecture. New Haven, Conn.: Yale.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 47(1), 98–123.10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-ESearch in Google Scholar

Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 176–197.10.1016/0749-5978(92)90010-5Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, L. L. (2006). Negotiation theory and research. Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203943243Search in Google Scholar

Traavik, L. E. (2011). Is bigger better? Dyadic and multiparty integrative negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 22(2), 190–210.10.1108/10444061111126701Search in Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124Search in Google Scholar

Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(1), 75–85.10.1006/obhd.1996.2674Search in Google Scholar

Wickham, P. A. (2003). The representativeness heuristic in judgements involving entrepreneurial success and failure. Management Decision, 41(2), 156–167.10.1108/00251740310457605Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo