This thesis presents and compares two negotiation strategies. In Part I of the thesis, I explain the concept of the "decoy effect", which I then assess as a negotiation strategy. In Part II of the thesis, I introduce and assess the concept of "multiple equivalent simultaneous offers" (hereinafter, "MESOs") and draw relevant comparisons to the decoy effect. In Part III of the thesis, I compare the two negotiation strategies in more detail and analyse how the structure of the negotiation, negotiating power and the existing legal framework or established practices indirectly influence the outcome of a negotiation.
This thesis submits that both the use of MESOs and the use of the decoy effect are effective strategies in integrative negotiations and contain both value-claiming and value-creating elements. Actors often rely on cognitive shortcuts, thus violating the assumption of rationality that underpins classical economics. Hence, negotiators can facilitate negotiations by exploiting cognitive biases that cause predictable "errors" in human decision-making. Through mastering negotiation strategies such as the decoy effect and the use of MESOs, the negotiating parties can deal more effectively with conflict, improve their relationship, claim more value in negotiations and reach (Pareto) optimal agreements.
|
