Analysis of Negotiation Dynamics

  • Koen Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Dmytro Tykhonov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4676)


The process of reaching an agreement in a bilateral negotiation to a large extent determines that agreement. The tactics of proposing an offer and the perception of offers made by the other party determine how both parties engage each other and, as a consequence, the kind of agreement they will establish. It thus is important to gain a better understanding of the tactics and potential other factors that play a role in shaping that process. A negotiation, however, is typically judged by the efficiency of the outcome. The process of reaching an outcome has received less attention in literature and the analysis of the negotiation process is typically not as rigorous nor is it based on formal tools. Here we present an outline of a formal toolbox to analyze and study the dynamics of negotiation based on an analysis of the types of moves parties to a negotiation can make while exchanging offers. This toolbox can be used to study both the performance of human negotiators as well as automated negotiation systems.


Negotiation Process Negotiation Strategy Bilateral Negotiation Negotiation Space Step Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M.: Human vs. Computer Behaviour in Multi-Issue Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 11–24. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents, Int. Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24(3-4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Using Similarity Criteria to Make Negotiation Trade-Offs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 142(2), 205–237 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher, R.R., Ury, W.L.: (and for the latest edition B. Patton), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving. In: Penguin Books, 1981, 1992 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M., Tykhonov, D.: Negotiation Dynamics: Analysis, Concession Tactics, and Outcomes, Submitted to: 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology IAT (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: An Agent Architecture for Multi-Attribute Negotiation. In: IJCAI 2001. Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conference on AI, pp. 1195–1201 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., Barry, J.: An Automated Agent for Bilateral Negotiation with Bounded Rational Agents with Incomplete Information. In: ECAI 2006. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 270–274 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R., Tulumello, A.S.: Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thompson, L.L.: The Heart and Mind of the Negotiator. Pearson Prentice Hall (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Dmytro Tykhonov
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of Technology, Man-Machine Interaction, Mekelweg 4, 2628CD DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations