Skip to main content

Negotiation Process Modelling: From Soft and Tacit to Deliberate

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation
  • 209 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter an approach to identify the impact of tacit knowledge on the result of negotiation from a mediation perspective is presented. The approach merges different perspectives in negotiation analyses to justify a general framework for identification of tacit knowledge interventions in systematic procedures supporting parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson DR, Sweeney DJ, Williams TA, Camm JD, Cochran JJ (2017) An introduction to management science: quantitative approach, 15th edn. Cengage, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values, Cowles commission monograph 12. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein A (2017) Before interpretation. Univ Chic Law Rev 84(2):567–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee K, Samuelson WF (eds) (2002) Game theory and business applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane E, Pratt MG (2007) Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figuera J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis. State of the art surveys. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber M, Wong W, Kodagoda N (2016) How analysts think: intuition, leap of faith and insight. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 2016 annual meeting, pp 173–177, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Pachón J, Romero C (2006) An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions. J Oper Res Soc 57(10):1241–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM (2001) Educating intuition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwicz L (1960) Optimality and informational efficiency in resource allocation processes. In: Arrow K, Karlin S, Suppes P (eds) Mathematical methods in the social sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwicz L (1972) On informationally decentralized systems. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • KamiÅ„ski B, Kersten G, Szapiro T (eds) (2015) Outlooks and insights on group decision and negotiation. Proceedings of the 15th international conference GDN 2015. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE, Szapiro T (1986) Generalized approach to modeling negotiations. EJOR 26(1):142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn HW (1962) Game theory and models of negotiation. J Confl Resolut 6(1):1–4. Game theory, bargaining and international relations (Mar.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn H, Tucker AW (1958) Theory of Games, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10:5–10, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby M (1961) Social psychology of deterrence. Bull At Sci 17:278–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt SM (2011) Affective processes in human-automation interactions. Hum Factors 53(4):356–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michalowski W, Szapiro T (1992) A Bi-Reference Procedure for Interactive Multiple Criteria Programming, Operations Research 40(2):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak P, Szapiro T (2001) On testing performance of a negotiation procedure in distributed environment. In: Köksalan M, Zionts S (eds) Multiple criteria decision making in the new millennium. LEMS, vol 507. pp 93–100, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell SJ, Norvig P (2010) Artificial intelligence. a modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Wilson K, Burke S, Wightman D (2006) Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Hum Factors 48:392–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Szapiro T (1993) Convergence of the bi-reference procedure in multiple criteria decision making. Ricerca Operativa 23(66):65–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Szapiro T (2018) On tacit knowledge impacted negotiation compromises. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on group decision and negotiation, Xinjia Jiang, Haiyan Xu, Shawei He, Ginger Y. Ke (wyd.), NUAA discussion papers in economics and management, str. 231–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Szapiro T, Wojewnik P (2010) Bireference procedure fBIP for interactive multicriteria optimization with fuzzy coefficients. Centr Eur J Econ Model Econ 2(3):169–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibault PJ (1999) Communicating and interpreting relevance through discourse negotiation: an alternative to relevance theory-a reply to Franken. J Pragmatics 31:557, 560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu P-L (1990) Forming winning strategies. Springer, Belin and Haidelberg

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Szapiro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Szapiro, T. (2019). Negotiation Process Modelling: From Soft and Tacit to Deliberate. In: Kilgour, D., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_36-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_36-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics