国际商务谈判英文版最新版教学课件第11章

• The situation that results when people engage in behaviors that maximize selfinterests but lead to collective disaster is called a social dilemma.
• Examples of social dilemmas are a bidding war, negative campaigning, and greenhouse gases.
•• TOhnetrheespsuornfdaceer,mituwstouacldcespetetmhethspatliitn. such a situation the proposer would keep everything for herself, given that that the responder has no say in the matter.
11-3
Types of Negotiation Situations
Exhibit 11-1:
Two major types of negotiation situations
Cooperative Negotiations
Noncooperative Negotiations
• Contract is explicit.
Ultimatum Dilemma
• In an ultimatum bargaining situation, one person (the proposer) makes a final offer (an ultimatum).
• If the other party (the responder) accepts the offer, then the proposer receives the demand and the responder agrees to accept what was offered to him or her.
• Simple – counterparty quickly figures out what
to expect from a player who follows it
11-10
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
How can an escalating spiral of defection be brought to an end? Consider the following strategies:
• Make promises. • Make situational attributions. • Take one step at a time. • Getting even and catching up • Make your decisions at the same time.
11-11
people seek to reach mutual agreement via • bInincdoinntgracsotn, mtraacnty. negotiations are conducted by
actions and pledges, in the absence of a binding
11-1
Part Three Applications and Special Scenarios
— Chapter 11 — Social Dilemmas
11-2
Types of Negotiation Situations
• Explicit negotiations are situations in which
11-6
Types of Negotiation Situations
In this chapter, we discuss several types of social dilemmas, each depicting real-world situations that might face a negotiator, such as:
• The prisoner’s dilemma • The ultimatum dilemma • The dictator game • The trust dilemma • The volunteer dilemma • Multiparty dilemmas • Escalation dilemma
• A striking number of proposers (dictators) choose to give the responder a non-zero allocation.
11-14
The Trust Game
• In the trust game, the first move is made by the proposer’s partner, the trustor, who must decide how much of his or her initial endowment to trust the proposer with, in hopes of receiving some of it back.
11-9
The Prisoner’s Dilemma: Tit-for-Tat
The “tit-for-tat” strategy – why it works and why it maximizes overall gains:
• Not envious – never aims to beat its opponent • Nice – always begins the interaction by
cooperating
• Tough – conveys the message that the negotiator
cannot be taken advantage of
• Forgiving – the negotiator’s response will never
be greater than what it received
contract – we call these situations tacit negotiations.
• The distinction between these two different types of negotiation situations was first articulated by the famous mathematician John Nash. (Exhibit 11-1)
In tacit negotiations:
• Negotiators are interdependent with respect to outcomes, but make independent decisions.
• Negotiators’ outcomes are determined by the actions they take and the actions taken by others.
11-15
The Trust Game
The trust game affects and is affected by several factors, including:
• Binding versus nonbinding contracts • Social networks and reputations • Relationship threat • Self-blame and regret • Restoring broken trust
11-16
Volunteer Dilemma
• This is a schema in which one person in a group must sacrifice their interests to benefit
• The choices that players make in this game are either cooperation or defection.
11-8
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Exhibit 11-2:
Consequences of Thelma and Louise’s behaviors
• People can behave either in a cooperative fashion (cooperative games) or competitive fashion (noncooperative games).
11-5
Types of Negotiation Situations
• If the offer is refused, then no settlement is reached and the negotiators receive their respective reservation points.
11-12
Ultimatum Dilemma
Several factors determine the likelihood that the responder will accept the offer made by the proposer:
• Contract is tacit.
• Mutual understanding (people know • People often do not know what others will
what they are getting before they
do.
agree).
• People negotiate through their behaviors