The Influence of Culture on ABMP Negotiation Parameters

  • Gert Jan Hofstede
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Tim Verwaart
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 319)


Negotiations are known to proceed differently across cultures. A realistic agent model of international negotiations has to take cultural differences into account. This paper presents an agent-based model that tackles this challenge. The context is a trade game where commodities with a hidden quality attribute are exchanged. The negotiation model uses the ABMP negotiation architecture. It applies a utility function that includes market value, quality preference, and risk attitude. The indices of the five dimensions of Hofstede’s model of national cultures are used, in combination with agent’s group membership and societal status, to differentiate negotiation behavior by adaptation of weight factors in the utility function and ABMP parameters. The paper presents test runs with synthetic cultures and a set of actual national cultures. The present version of the model helps to understand behaviors in international trade networks. It proves that Hofstede’s dimensions can be used to generate culturally differentiated agents.


Uncertainty Avoidance Negotiation Behavior Quality Preference Negotiation Round Gaming Simulation 
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.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Millennium Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, P.: Nations, Cultures, and Individuals: New Perspectives and Old Dilemmas. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 35(1), 50–61 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings Of the 17th International Joint Conference on AI, IJCAI 2001, pp. 1195–1201 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Individualism and Collectivism in Trade Agents. In: Nguyen, N.T., Borzemski, L., Grzech, A., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5027, pp. 492–501. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Modeling Power Distance in Trade. In: David, N., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) MABS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5269, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Meijer, S., Verwaart, T.: Modeling Trade and Trust across Cultures. In: Stølen, K., Winsborough, W.H., Martinelli, F., Massacci, F. (eds.) iTrust 2006. LNCS, vol. 3986, pp. 120–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Modeling Culture in Trade: Uncertainty Avoidance. In: Proceedings of 2008 Agent-Directed Simulation Symposium (ADS 2008), SCS, San Diego (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Long-term Orientation in Trade. In: Schredelseker, K., Hauser, F. (eds.) Complexity and Artificial Markets. LNEMS, vol. 614, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raiffa, H.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson, L.L.: The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, 3rd edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents. Int. J. of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24, 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coehoorn, R.M., Jennings, N.R.: Learning an Opponent’s Preferences to Make Effective Multi-Issue Negotiation Trade-Offs. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on E-Commerce, pp. 59–68 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindriks, K., Tykhonov, D.: Opponent Modeling in Automated Multi-Issue Negotiation using Bayesian Learning. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2008. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 331–338 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meijer, S., Hofstede, G.J., Beers, G., Omta, S.W.F.: Trust and Tracing game: learning about transactions and embeddedness in a trade network. Production Planning and Control 17, 569–583 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tykhonov, D., Jonker, C., Meijer, S., Verwaart, T.: Agent-Based Simulation of the Trust and Tracing Game for Supply Chains and Networks. J. of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11(3) (2008),
  18. 18.
    Hofstede, G.J., Jonker, C.M., Verwaart, T.: Cultural Differentiation of Negotiating Agents. Group Decis Negot (2010), doi:10.1007/s10726-010-9190-xGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Treur, J.: Automated Formal Analysis of Human Multi-Issue Negotiation Processes. Multi-Agent and Grid Systems Journal 4, 213–233 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jonker, C.M., Robu, V., Treur, J.: An Agent Architecture for Multi-Attribute Negotiation Using Incomplete Preference Information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Journal 15, 221–252 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adair, W., Brett, J., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., Lytle, A.: Culture and Negotiation Strategy. Negotiation Journal 20, 87–111 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar, R., Worm, V.: Institutional Dynamics and the Negotiation Process: Comparing India and China. International J. of Conflict Management 15, 304–334 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gelfand, M.J., Brett, J.M.: The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Rosis, F., Pelachaud, C., Poggi, I.: Transcultural Believability in Embodied Agents: A Matter of Consistent Adaptation. In: Payr, S., Trappl, R. (eds.) Agent Culture, pp. 75–105. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gert Jan Hofstede
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 2
  • Tim Verwaart
    • 3
  1. 1.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Nethterlands
  2. 2.Delft University of TachnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.LEI Wageningen URDen HaagThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations