A Non-intrusive Approach to Measuring Trust in Opponents in a Negotiation Scenario

  • Marco GomesEmail author
  • John Zeleznikow
  • Paulo Novais
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10791)


There is a consensus that trust in one’ opponent plays a significant role in promoting parties to engage in the conflict management process. Trust is an important yet complex and little-understood relation among parties in conflict. In general, trust can be seen as a measure of confidence that an entity or entities will behave expectedly. Without trust, the instruments to prevent or manage the conflict, such as negotiation, are handicapped and cannot reach their full potential for promoting an end to or a mitigation of a conflict. Hence, our motivation to examine trust is three-fold. First, the present study aims to address and expand on this line of research by investigating the possibility of measuring trust based on quantifiable behavior. To do so, we provide a brief review of the existing definitions of trust and define trust in the context of a negotiation scenario. Further, we propose a formal definition so that the analysis of trust in this kind of scenarios can be developed. Thus, it is suggested the use of Ambient Intelligence techniques that use a trust data model to collect and evaluate relevant information based on the assumption that observable trust between two entities (parties) results in certain typical behaviors. Third, this work aims to study the particular connection between relational aspects of trust and parties’ conflict styles based on two dimensions: cooperativeness and assertiveness. The main contribution of this work is the identification of situations in which trust relationships influences the negotiation performance. To do so, an experiment was set-up in which we tried to streamline all the relevant aspects of the interaction between the parties and its environment that occur in a sensory rich environment, to measure trust. To simulate a conflict situation, a web-based game was developed. It was designed to enable test participants to engage in a conflict experience induced by the presence of Ambient Intelligence systems. Several tests were performed. We then engaged in rigorous assessment, post- processing and analysis of results. We validated the results comparing them with trust measures obtained through the use of a questionnaire (carefully adapted) from social networks.


Ambient intelligence Conflict handling styles Negotiation Trust measurement 



This work has been supported by COMPETE: POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043 and FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Project Scope UID/CEC/00319/2013.


  1. 1.
    Fells, R.E.: Developing trust in negotiation. Empl. Relat. 15(1), 33–45 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Trust is much more than subjective probability: mental components and sources of trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, HICSS 2000, vol. 6, p. 6008. IEEE Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kappmeier, M.: Its all about trust how to assess the trust relationship between conflict parties. In Proceedings of the IACM 24th Annual Conference Paper (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeleznikow, J.: Comparing the Israel–Palestinian Dispute to Australian Family Mediation. Group Decis. Negot. 23(6), 1301–1317 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Picard, R.W.: Computer learning of subjectivity. ACM Comput. Surv. 27(4), 621–623 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deutsch, M.: The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Carl Hovland Memorial Lectures. Yale University Press, New Haven (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robbins, S.P.: Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lodder, A.R., Zeleznikow, J.: Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carneiro, D., Gomes, M., Novais, P., Neves, J.: Developing dynamic conflict resolution models based on the interpretation of personal conflict styles. In: Antunes, L., Pinto, H.S. (eds.) EPIA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7026, pp. 44–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sherchan, W., Nepal, S., Paris, C.: A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(4), 47:1–47:33 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ebner, N.: Online dispute resolution and interpersonal trust. In: ODR: Theory and Practice (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adali, S., et al.: Measuring behavioral trust in social networks. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), pp. 150–152, May 2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naquin, C.E., Paulson, G.D.: Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(1), 113–120 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M., Jonker, C.M., Aydoan, R.: From problems to protocols: towards a negotiation handbook. Decis. Support Syst. 60, 39–54 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomes, M., Oliveira, T., Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Neves, J.: Studying the effects of stress on negotiation behavior. Cybern. Syst. 45(3), 279–291 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Zeleznikow, J., Neves, J.: Online dispute resolution: an artificial intelligence perspective. Artif. Intell. Rev. 41(2), 211–240 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewicki, R., Brinsfield, C.: Measuring trust beliefs and behaviours. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, p. 29. Edward Elgar Pub. (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewicki, R.J., Polin, B.: Trust and negotiation. In: Handbook of Research on Negotiation, chap. 7, p. 161 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malhotra, D., Murnighan, J.K.: The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Adm. Sci. Q. 47(3), 534–559 (2002). 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ebner, Noam, Zeleznikow, John: Fairness, trust and security in online dispute resolution. Hamline Univ. Sch. Law’s J. Public Law Policy 36(2), (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han, G., Harms, P.D.: Team identification, trust and conflict: a mediation model. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 21(1), 20–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ALGORITMI CentreUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.College of BusinessVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations