A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: – What is the discipline's current grasp of cognitive biases in negotiation processes? What lessons can be drawn from this body of literature? The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the limited research on cognitive biases in the context of negotiations. Design/methodology/approach: – This article reviews research from judgment and decision-making, conflict management, psychology, and management literatures to systematize what we already know about cognitive biases in negotiations. Findings: – Decision-making studies have mainly identified 21 biases that may lead to lower quality decisions. Only five of those biases have been studied relating to negotiations: the anchoring, the overconfidence, the framing, the status quo and the self-serving bias. Moreover, negotiation literature has identified five additional biases that affect negotiation processes: the fixed-pie error, the incompatibility error, the intergroup bias, the relationship bias and the toughness bias. Biased behavior differs across cultures and emotional mood. Research limitations/implications: – Implications for future research include building comprehensive models of how negotiators can overcome cognitive biases, studying interconnections between different biases, and increasing complexity of the studies to provide practitioners with more practical advice. Originality/value: – The literature reviewed in this paper spans diverse disciplines and perspectives. This paper can be a starting point for researchers interested in understanding how cognitive biases affect negotiations. Moreover, it could be a starting point for future research on this field.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The tendencies to mistakenly believe that interactions are zero-sum and to make self-serving judgements as to what is fair are known to impede negotiation.
“For example, the tendencies to mistakenly believe that interactions are zero-sum (sometimes referred to as 'fixed-pie error') and to make selfserving judgements as to what is fair (Caputo, 2013) are known to impede negotiation.”
From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Caputo, 2013
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · see citing works
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540 · see citing works
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194 · see citing works
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441 · Cited by 1,692 · see citing works
Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias
Babcock, L., Wang, X., & Loewenstein, G. (1996) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2946655 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI
Hammond, L., Chan, A., Clifton, J., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., Khan, A., McLean, E., Smith, C., Barfuss, W., Foerster, J., Gavenčiak, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14143 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Principled negotiation: an evidence-based perspective
Hak, F. R., & Sanders, K. (2018) · Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship · doi:10.1108/ebhrm-03-2017-0014 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caputo, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Caputo, Andrea
- ORCID
- Caputo, Andrea
- Venue
- International Journal of Conflict Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-09-30
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 374-398
- ISSN
- 1044-4068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993023880
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 13.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Conflict Management (publishedVersion)
- Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, negotiation, anchoring effect, overconfidence, framing bias, self-serving bias, intergroup bias, cross-cultural negotiation, mood, decision-making, conflict management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review