Cited by 147Conflict Management and NegotiationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes

Open access
Caputo, Andrea·2013·International Journal of Conflict Management

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1108/ijcma-08-2012-0064

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caputo, A.
Affiliations
University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
Corresponding author
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
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