Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 363–379 | Cite as

How Much Do We Say? Using Informativeness of Negotiation Text Records for Early Prediction of Negotiation Outcomes

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Business negotiations represent a form of communication where informativeness, i.e., the amount of provided information, depends on context and situation. In this study, we hypothesize that relations exist between language signals of informativeness and the success or failure of negotiations. We support our hypothesis through linguistic and statistical analysis which acquires language patterns from records of electronic text-based negotiations. Empirical results of machine learning experiments show that the acquired patterns are useful for early prediction of negotiation outcomes.

Keywords

Electronic negotiations Text data mining Machine learning Language patterns Early prediction of success or failure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adair W, Brett JM (2005) The negotiation dance: time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Org Sci 16(1): 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carston R (1998) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In: Carston R, Uchida S (eds) Relevance theory: applications and implications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 179–236Google Scholar
  3. Chu-Carroll J, Carberry S (2000) Conflict resolution in collaborative planning dialogues. Int J Hum Comput Stud 53(6): 969–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grice P (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  5. Hall M, Holmes G (2003) Benchmarking attribute selection techniques for discrete class data mining. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 15(6): 1437–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hine M, Murphy S, Weber M, Kersten G (2009) The role of emotion and language in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decis Negotiat 18: 193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kamakura W, Basuroy S, Boatwright P (2006) Is silence golden? An inquiry into the meaning of silence in professional product evaluations. Quant Mark Econ 4: 119–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kersten G, Zhang G (2003) Mining Inspire data for the determinants of successful internet negotiations. Cent Eur J Oper Res 11(3): 297–316Google Scholar
  9. Koeszegi S, Pesendorfer E-M, Vetschera R (2007) Data-driven episodic phase analysis of e-negotiation. Group Decis Negot 2007 2: 113–130Google Scholar
  10. Leech G, Svartvik J (2002) A communicative grammar of English. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Loken B (2006) Consumer psychology: categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion. Ann Rev Psychol 57: 453–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahmoudi MT, Badie K, Kharrat M (2008) Text organization via projection from researcher-space onto text-space. Kybernetes 37(8): 1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manning C, Schutze H (2003) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Marriot H (1995) Intercultural business negotiation, the discourse of negotiation. In: Firth A (ed), The discourse of negotiation. Studies of languages in the workplace. Pergamon, pp 247–268Google Scholar
  15. McKenna K, Green A, Gleason M (2002) Relationship formation on the internet: what’s the big attraction? J Soc. Issues 58(1): 9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nastase V, Shirabad JS (2007) A study of sentiment and gender influence on negotiation outcome in electronic negotiations. In: Proceedings of group decision and negotiations, vol 2, pp 491–500Google Scholar
  17. Oakes M (2003) Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburg University Press, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Pennebaker J, Francis M, Booth R (2001) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Erlbaum Publishers, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  19. Reitter D, Moore J (2007) Predicting success in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics (ACL 2007). Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 808–815Google Scholar
  20. Roget’s Interactive Thesaurus (2006) http://thesaurus.reference.com/
  21. Roloff M, Putnam L (1992) Introduction, communication and negotiation. In: Roloff M, Putnam L (eds) Communication and negotiation. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Sebastiani F (2002) Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput Surv 34(1): 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simons T (1993) Speech patterns and the concept of utility in cognitive maps: the case of integrative bargaining. Acad Manag J 38(1): 139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sokolova M (2006) Learning from communication data: language in electronic busines negotiations. Ph.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
  25. Sokolova M, Szpakowicz S (2006) Language patterns in the learning of strategies from negotiation texts. In: Proceedings of the 19th Canadian conference on artificial intelligence (AI’2006), pp 288–299, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. Sokolova M, Lapalme G (2007) Informativeness for prediction of negotiation outcomes. In: Proceedings of group decision and negotiations 2007, vol 2, pp 501–511Google Scholar
  27. Sokolova M, Nastase V, Szpakowicz S (2008) The telling tail: signals of success in electronic negotiation texts. In: Proceedings of the third international joint conference on natural language processing (IJCNLP 2008) pp 257–264Google Scholar
  28. Sperber S, Wilson D (2006) Pragmatics. In: Jackson F, Smith M (eds) Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Takeuchi H, Subramaniam L, Nasukawa T, Roy S (2007) Automatic identification of important segments and expressions for mining of business-oriented conversations at contact centers. In: Proceedings of the 2007 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL) pp 458–467Google Scholar
  30. Witten I, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Yu G (2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Appl Linguist 31(2): 236–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  2. 2.DIROUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations