Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An experimental examination of credible information disclosure, perception of fairness, and intention to do business in online multi-bilateral negotiations

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inter-firm negotiations are often non-discrete: they are not isolated exchange episodes, but part of an ongoing process of building strategic relationships between the firms. This view posits a challenge to the design and application of negotiation mechanisms in e-markets supporting business-to-business exchanges. The assessment of the mechanisms needs to include both the impacts within each discrete exchange episode and those shaping the future of the inter-firm relationships. We argue that strategies of information revelation implemented with negotiation mechanisms can influence participants’ fairness perceptions, which can further affect business relationships. The paper examines both substantive and subjective measures in an experiment involving two multi-bilateral negotiations with distinct information disclosure strategies. The results show that the revelation of the best offer affects participants’ perceived fairness which, in turn, positively influences intention to do business. The findings have implications for both the design and use of negotiation mechanisms where inter-firm relationships are concerned.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For detailed introduction about the used system, please visit http://invite.concordia.ca/imbins/

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

  • Agndal, H., Åge, L.-J., & Eklinder-Frick, J. (2017). Two decades of business negotiation research: An overview and suggestions for future studies. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(4), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2015-0233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albin, C. (1993). The role of fairness in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 9(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000696

  • Albin, C., & Druckman, D. (2010). The role of justice in negotiation. In: D. M. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 109-119), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9097-3_7

  • Albin, C., & Druckman, D. (2014). Procedures matter: Justice and effectiveness in international trade negotiations. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 1014–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114523654

  • Alt, R. (2018). Electronic Markets on digitalization. Electronic Markets, 28(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0320-7.

  • Alt, R., & Klein, S. (2011). Twenty years of electronic markets research - looking backwards towards the future. Electronic Markets, 21(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-011-0057-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnot, C., Boxall, P. C., & Cash, S. B. (2006). Do ethical consumers care about Price? A revealed preference analysis of fair trade coffee purchases. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 54(4), 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00066.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunduchi, R. (2008). Trust, power and transaction costs in B2B exchanges -a socio-economic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.003

  • Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.09.009

  • Charki, M. H., Josserand, E., & Charki, N. B. (2011). Toward an ethical understanding of the controversial technology of online reverse auctions. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0532-z

  • Claro, D. P., Hagelaar, G., & Omta, O. (2003). The determinants of relational governance and performance: How to manage business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Ppplied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Ferran, F., & Grunert, K. G. (2007). French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: An exploratory study using means-end chains analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 18(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A., Soderberg, A. T., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2013). Fairness and ethics in bargaining and negotiation. In M. Olekalns & W. L. Adair (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Negotiation (pp. 191–220). Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

  • DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mîndrilă, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.7275/da8t-4g52

  • Druckman, D., & Wagner, L. (2017). Justice and fairness in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9496-4

  • Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151

  • Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska press.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

  • Gao, H., & Liu, D. (2014). Relationship of trustworthiness and relational benefit in electronic catalog markets. Electronic Markets, 24(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-013-0142-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of economic value, social value, and perceptions of fairness in Interorganizational relationship retention decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398264005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gattiker, T. F., Huang, X., & Schwarz, J. L. (2007). Negotiation, email, and internet reverse auctions: How sourcing mechanisms deployed by buyers affect suppliers’ trust. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.02.007

  • Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 70–103). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W. (1995). On ultimatum bargaining experiments - a personal review. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)00071-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., & van Damme, E. (1998). Information, strategic behavior, and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: An experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42(2–3), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1998.1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haitao Cui, T., Raju, J. S., & Zhang, Z. J. (2007). Fairness and channel coordination. Management Science, 53(8), 1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H. (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods, an interaction approach, IMP project group (Ed.). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London and New York: Routledge Londres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, C. M. (1996). Supply chain management: Relationships, chains and networks. British Journal of Management, 7, S63–S80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00148.x

  • Hayne, S. C., Bugbee, B., & Wang, H. (2010). Bidder behaviours on eBay: Collectibles and commodities. Electronic Markets, 20(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-010-0036-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander-Blumoff, R., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law & Social Inquiry, 33(2), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00110.x

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. H., Chang, C. T., & Chen, C. Y. H. (2005). Perceived fairness of pricing on the internet. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2004.03.002

  • Jaffee, D. (2014). Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability, and survival. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., Vahidov, R., & Gimon, D. (2013). Concession-making in multi-attribute auctions and multi-bilateral negotiations: Theory and experiments. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.02.002

  • Kersten, G. E., Wachowicz, T., & Kersten, M. (2016). Competition, transparency, and reciprocity: A comparative study of auctions and negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(4), 693–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9471-0

  • Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.004

  • Liu, Y., Li, Y., Shi, L. H., & Liu, T. (2017). Knowledge transfer in buyer-supplier relationships: The role of transactional and relational governance mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 78, 285–293.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.024

  • McGinn, K. L. (2006). Relationships and negotiations in context. In: L. L. Thompson (Ed.), Negotiation theory and research (pp. 129–144). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (1999). Business relationships and networks: Managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00086-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2018). IMP thinking and IMM: Co-creating value for business marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.025

  • O’Malley, L. (2014). Relational marketing: Development, debates and directions. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(11–12), 1220–1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2014.939592

  • Ocker, F. (2018). “Bid more, pay less” – Overbidding and the Bidder’s curse in teleshopping auctions. Electronic Markets, 28(4), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-018-0295-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.249

  • Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D., & Leigh Taylor, P. (2004). Fair trade coffee: Building producer capacity via global networks. Journal of International Development, 16(8), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095.

  • Sambhara, C., Rai, A., Keil, M., & Kasi, V. (2017). Risks and controls in internet-enabled reverse auctions: Perspectives from buyers and suppliers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(4), 1113–1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1394071

  • Smith, V. (2003). Markets, institutions and experiments. In: L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 2, pp. 991–998). London: Nature Publishing Group.

  • Stevens, G. C., & Johnson, M. (2016). Integrating the supply chain… 25 years on. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-07-2015-0175

  • Straub, P. G., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)00072-M

  • Strecker, S. (2010). Information revelation in multiattribute English auctions: A laboratory study. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter, T. A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2005). Maximizing earnings and price fairness perceptions in online consumer-to-consumer auctions. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.01.007

  • Tan, C. H., Teo, H. H., & Xu, H. (2010). Online auction: The effects of transaction probability and listing price on a seller’s decision-making behavior. Electronic Markets, 20(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-010-0029-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. J., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). A comparison of auctions and multilateral negotiations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 33(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696379

  • Thomas, C. J., & Wilson, B. J. (2005). Verifiable offers and the relationship between auctions and multilateral negotiations. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01030.x

  • Turel, O., & Yuan, Y. (2008). You can't shake hands with clenched fists: Potential effects of trust assessments the adoption of e-negotiation services. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9079-5

  • Van Raaij, E. M., & Caniels, M. C. (2009). Supplier perceived fairness of electronic reverse auctions. Academy of Management Proceedings.  https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2009.44256480

  • Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, K. S., & Ennew, C. T. (2004). Business-to-business relationship quality: An IMP interaction-based conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1252–1271. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548960

  • Yilmaz, C., Sezen, B., & Kabadayı, E. T. (2004). Supplier fairness as a mediating factor in the supplier performance–reseller satisfaction relationship. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 854–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00485-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, B., Kersten, G. E., & Vahidov, R. (2015). Traders’ subjective appraisals: Comparison of negotiations and auctions. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 25(3), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1058111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. K., Ramsey, E., McCole, P., & Chen, H. (2011). Repurchase intention in B2C e-commerce - a relationship quality perspective. Information & Management, 48(6), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Wang, W., Xu, J., Liu, T., & Gu, J. (2018). Perceived information transparency in B2C e-commerce: An empirical investigation. Information & Management, 55(7), 912–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dalhousie University, 6100 University Ave, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Bo Yu

  2. Concordia University, 1450 Guy St, Montreal, Quebec, H3H 0A1, Canada

    Gregory E. Kersten & Rustam Vahidov

Authors
  1. Bo Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory E. Kersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rustam Vahidov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Yu.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Christiane Lehrer

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 56 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, B., Kersten, G.E. & Vahidov, R. An experimental examination of credible information disclosure, perception of fairness, and intention to do business in online multi-bilateral negotiations. Electron Markets 32, 217–237 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00473-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00473-4

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation