Final answer:
Going first in negotiations sets the initial terms and can influence the entire negotiation dynamic, potentially leading to fair or unfair offers in games like the ultimatum game. In political bargaining, going first might reveal one's position fully, which can be disadvantageous.
Step-by-step explanation:
Intentionally going first in negotiations or strategic games can significantly impact potential negotiated outcomes. In scenarios like the ultimatum game, where one player proposes a division of resources, going first means you set the initial terms, influencing the entire negotiation dynamic. Player A, going first, may offer a fair split to prevent Player B from rejecting the offer, which would result in no deal at all. If Player A offers an unfair split and Player B accepts, it sets a precedent that might lead to consistently unfair offers in future negotiations. The decision to go first could also relate to political negotiations or strategic games such as chess, where the actors base their strategies on anticipating the responses and strategies of their opponents.
In political bargaining, when there's a deadlock and no agreement is reached, the status quo prevails. Here, going first can be a disadvantage, especially if maintaining the status quo benefits the other party. By going first, one might unintentionally reveal their position fully, allowing the opposing side to take a strategic advantage by stalling negotiations.Moreover, in instances like a prisoner's dilemma or collective action problems, negotiation strategies can be formulated based on what is expected of the other party. This implies that going first comes with the responsibility of making strategic decisions that consider the potential actions and reactions of the opposing party, with an aim to steer the negotiations toward a more favorable outcome or compromise.