The Effect of Past Performance on Expected Control and Risk Attitudes in Integrative Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three experiments examine the relationship between past performance and strategies and risk attitudes in integrative negotiations. We hypothesized that past performance would affect negotiators’ willingness to embrace two types of risk: strategic (i.e., information sharing in the present) versus contractual (i.e., uncertainty about the future). Consistent with the hypothesis that past success promotes strategic risk taking, dyads with a history of success were more integrative than dyads with a history of failure in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that past performance impacts intentions regarding these two types of risk. Specifically, due to lower expected control over the negotiation process, past failure led negotiators to prefer a contractual risk strategy over a strategic risk strategy. In Experiment 3, we explored one implication of this tendency by showing a greater willingness of past failure negotiators to enter into a contingent agreement, which delays the outcome of the deal until a future point in time. Together these findings indicate that past performance influences not only the amount of risk negotiators assume but also the type of risk they are willing to embrace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".