Abstract
In this paper we discuss the relationships among negotiations, integrative and distributive speech acts, and classification of negotiation outcome. Our findings present how using automated linguistic analysis can show the trajectory of negotiations towards convergence (resolution) or divergence (non-resolution) and how these trajectories accurately classify negotiation outcomes. Consequently, we present the results of our negotiation outcome classification study, in which we use a corpus of 20 transcripts of actual face-to-face negotiations to build and test two classification models. The first model uses language features and speech acts to place negotiation utterances onto an integrative and distributive scale. The second uses that scale to classify the negotiations themselves as successful or unsuccessful at the midpoint, three-quarters of the way through, and at the end of the negotiation. Classification accuracy rates were 80, 75, and 85 % respectively.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Austin J L (1962) How to do things with words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Bartos OJ (1964) A model of negotiation and the recency effect. Sociometry 27(3): 311–326
Carberry S, Lambert L (1999) A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation subdialogues. Comput Linguist 25(1): 1–53
Chang MK, Woo CC (1994) A speech-act-based negotiation protocol: design, implementation, and test use. ACM Trans Inf Syst (TOIS) 12(4): 360–382
Donohue WA, Ramesh C, Kaufman G, Smith R (1991) Crisis bargaining: tracking relational paradox in hostage negotiation. Int J Group Tens 21: 133–145
Donohue WA, Roberto J (1996) An empirical examination of three models of integrative and distributive bargaining. Int J Confl Manag 7(3): 209–229
Freitas AA, Wieser DC, Apweiler R (2010) On the importance of comprehensible classification models for protein function prediction. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinf (TCBB) 7: 172–182
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hall MA (1998) Correlation-based feature subset selection for machine learning. Hamilton, New Zealand
Hall MA, Smith LA (1998) Practical feature subset selection for machine learning. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 21st Australasian computer science conference, Perth
Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25(2): 135–154
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174
Leech G, Svartvik J (2002) A communicative grammar of English. Pearson Longman, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Pennebaker JW, Chung CK, Ireland M, Gonzales A, Booth RJ (2007) The development and psychometric properties of LIWC 2007, Austin, TX: LIWC.net
Pennebaker JW, Mayne TJ, Francis ME (1997) Linguistic predictors of adaptive bereavement. J Pers Soc Psychol 72: 863–871
Putnam LL (1990) Reframing integrative and distributive bargaining: a process perspective. Res Negot Organ 2: 3–30
Putnam LL, Jones TS (1990) The role of communication in bargaining. Hum Commun Res 8(3): 262–280
Searle JR (1979) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 1–29
Sebenius JK (1992) Negotiation analysis: a characterization and review. Manag Sci 38(1): 18–38
Shevade SK, Keerthi SS, Bhattacharyya C, Murthy KRK (2000) Improvements to the SMO algorithm for SVM regression. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 11(5): 1188–1193
Sinaceur M, Neale MA (2005) Not all threats are created equal: how implicitness and timing affect the effectiveness of threats in negotiations. Group Decis Negotiat 14(1): 63–85
Smola AJ, Schoelkopf B. (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14: 199–222
Sokolova M, Szpakowicz S (2005) Analysis and classification of strategies in electronic negotiations. In: Kegal B, Lapalme G (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence (Proceedings of the 18th conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Canadian AI 2005, held in Victoria, Canada in May 2005). Springer, New York, NY, pp 145–157
Sokolova M, Szpakowicz S. (2007) Strategies and language trends in learning success and failure of negotiation. Group Decis Negotiat 16(6): 469–484
Stolcke A, Ries K, Coccaro N, Shriberg E, Bates R, Jurafsky D et al (2000) Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Comput Linguist 26(3): 339–373
Twitchell DP, Nunamaker JF (2004) Speech act profiling: a probabilistic method for analyzing persistent conversations and their participants. Paper presented at the thirty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (CD/ROM), Big Island, Hawaii
Walton RE, McKersie RB (1991) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: an analysis of a social. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
Whissell C (1989) The dictionary of affect in language. In: Plutchnik R, Kellerman H (eds) Emotion: theory, research and experience. Academic Press, New York, NY, p 113
Whissell C, Fournier M, Pelland R, Weir D, Makarec K (1986) A dictionary of affect in language: IV. Reliability, validity, and applications. Percept Mot Skills 62: 875–888
Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ
Witten IE, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA
Zhou L, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker JF, Twitchell DP (2004a) Automated linguistics based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication: an empirical investigation. Group Decis Negotiat 13(1): 81–106
Zhou L, Twitchell DP, Qin T, Burgoon JK, Nunamaker JF (2004b) Toward the automatic prediction of deception—an empirical comparison of classification methods. J Manag Inf Syst 20(4): 139–166
Acknowledgments
For use of the divorce negotiations transcripts, the authors wish to thank William Donohue.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Twitchell, D.P., Jensen, M.L., Derrick, D.C. et al. Negotiation Outcome Classification Using Language Features. Group Decis Negot 22, 135–151 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9301-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9301-y