The Effect of Past Performance on Expected Control and Risk Attitudes in Integrative Negotiations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it