Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Persuasive argumentation in negotiation

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents Persuasive Argumentation as a means of guiding the negotiation process to a settlement. Decision theoretic approaches construct prescriptive models of the negotiation process that make various assumptions about the behavior of the negotiation participants but do not model changes in behavior. On the other hand, models for decision support leave the actual decisions to human negotiators, again not modeling or automating the negotiating process. In contrast to both approaches, our work deals with automating the negotiation process. This paper focuses on modeling the process by which the beliefs and behavior of negotiators are changed via persuasive argumentation. We claim that persuasive argumentation lies at the heart of negotiation and embodies the dynamics of negotiation. We present a model of persuasive argumentation that integrates Artificial Intelligence and decision theoretic methods. The model has been implemented as part of the PERSUADER, a multi-agent computer program that operates in the domain of labor negotiations.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, H.: 1959, Persuasion, New York, N.Y.: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkouri, F. and Elkouri, E.: 1973, How Arbitration Works, Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L.: 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelman-Soulie, F., Munier, D., and Shakun, M. F.: 1983, ‘Bivariate Negotiations as a Problem of Stochastic Terminal Control’, Management Science 29, 840–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesereth, Michael R. and Nils, J. Nilsson: 1987, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Goeltner, C.: 1987, The Computer as a Third Party (Tech. Rep.), Cambridge, Mass.: Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., Working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F.: 1958, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York, N.Y.: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, E. and Kuhn, A.: 1981, Collective Bargaining and Labor Relations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E.: 1985, ‘NEGO-Group Decision Support System’, Information and Management 8, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Simpson, R. L., and Sycara-Cyranski, K.: 1985, ‘A Process Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving’, Proceedings of IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Matwin, S., Szpakowicz, S., Kersten, G., Michalowski, W., and Koperczak, Z.: 1987, Logic-based Tools for Negotiation Support (Tech. Rep. 87-10), University of Ottawa.

  • Osgood, C. and Tannenbaum, P.: 1955, ‘The Principle of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change’, Psychological Review 62, 42–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randle, W.: 1951, Collective Bargaining: Principles and Practices, Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. G. and Shakun, M. F.: 1974, ‘A Normative Model for Negotiations’, Management Science 20, 1364–1375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. and Abelson, R..: 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Hilsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. F.: 1988, Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making Under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems, Oakland, CA.: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara-Cyranski, K.: 1985, ‘Persuasive argumentation in resolution of collective bargaining impasses’, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Irvine, CA.

  • Sycara, K.: 1987, Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, Doctoral dissertation, School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • Sycara, K.: 1988a, ‘Resolving Goal Conflicts via Negotiation’, Proceedings of AAAI-88, St. Paul, MN.

  • Sycara, K.: 1988b, ‘Utility Theory in Conflict Resolution’, Annals of Operations Research 12, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K.: 1988c, ‘Patching Up Old Plans’, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, Canada.

  • Sycara, K.: 1989, ‘Negotiation Planning: An AI Approach’, European Journal of Operational Research (forthcoming).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sycara, K.P. Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theor Decis 28, 203–242 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162699

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162699

Keywords

Navigation