AMBIGUITY AND LIABILITY NEGOTIATIONS - THE EFFECTS OF THE NEGOTIATORS ROLE AND THE SENSITIVITY ZONE

被引:12
作者
FOBIAN, CS
CHRISTENSENSZALANSKI, JJJ
机构
[1] UNIV IOWA,DEPT MANAGEMENT & ORG,IOWA CITY,IA 52242
[2] UNIV IOWA,CTR HLTH SERV RES,IOWA CITY,IA 52242
关键词
D O I
10.1006/obhd.1993.1013
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
This research applies the Einhorn-Hogarth ambiguity model to a two-party negotiation situation involving medical liability cases. In the first study, subjects who were assigned to the role of a defendant or a plaintiff in a medical liability case altered their out-of-court settlement offers according to the estimated likelihood of winning the case at trial, the amount of ambiguity associated with that estimate, and the importance of the case (p <. 05). As predicted by the Einhorn-Hogarth model, the effect of ambiguity on defendant subjects facing a potential loss differed (p <. 05) from its effect on plaintiff subjects facing a potential gain. The second study used the model to show that increasing the amount of ambiguity in negotiation situations can make the potential for a settlement less sensitive to parties having substantially different perspectives of their chances of winning at trial. These predictions were supported in an actual negotiation context. When each party had a very different estimate of the plaintiff winning the trial (p =. 20 vs p. 80), there were two to five times more settlements when there was much ambiguity than when there was little ambiguity (p <. 001). These results provide further support for the Emhorn-Hogarth ambiguity model. They also show that contrary to popular belief, increasing ambiguity in a negotiation context can increase the likelihood of a negotiated settlement. © 1993 Academic Press, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:277 / 298
页数:22
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Abraham Kenneth S., 1987, OHIO STATE LAW J, V48, P399
[2]  
*AM MED ASS, 1988, PROP ALT CIV JUST SY
[3]   WHAT PRICE AMBIGUITY - OR THE ROLE OF AMBIGUITY IN DECISION-MAKING [J].
BECKER, SW ;
BROWNSON, FO .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1964, 72 (01) :62-73
[4]  
BUSHNELL K, 1985, MED MALPRACTICE VERD
[5]  
CLARKE RN, 1988, YALE J REGULATION, V5, P367
[6]  
COHEN JV, 1977, STATISTICAL POWER AN
[7]   AN INVESTIGATION OF PATIENTS REACTIONS TO THERAPEUTIC UNCERTAINTY [J].
CURLEY, SP ;
ERAKER, SA ;
YATES, JF .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1984, 4 (04) :501-511
[8]   THE CENTER AND RANGE OF THE PROBABILITY INTERVAL AS FACTORS AFFECTING AMBIGUITY PREFERENCES [J].
CURLEY, SP ;
YATES, JF .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1985, 36 (02) :273-287
[9]   CHARACTERIZING PHYSICIANS PERCEPTIONS OF AMBIGUITY [J].
CURLEY, SP ;
YOUNG, MJ ;
YATES, JF .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1989, 9 (02) :116-124
[10]   AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY IN PROBABILISTIC INFERENCE [J].
EINHORN, HJ ;
HOGARTH, RM .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1985, 92 (04) :433-461