Automatic Interpretation of Negotiators’ Affect and Involvement Based on Their Non-verbal Behavior

  • Zhaleh Semnani-Azad
  • Elnaz NouriEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9169)


Valid interpretation of the nonverbal behavior of the people involved in negotiations is important. Computational agents that are designed for negotiation benefit from the ability to interpret human nonverbal behavior for communicating more effectively and achieving their goals. In this paper, we demonstrate how the mode of involvement and relational affect of the negotiators involved in the interaction can be determined by several nonverbal behaviors such as that of the mouth, head, hand movements, posture and the facial expressions of the negotiators. We use machine learning to study involvement and affect in negotiation. Our results show that the prediction models built based on non-verbal cues can help identify the negotiator’s attitudes and motivation in the interaction.


Relational affect recognition Involvement recognition Negotiation Nonverbal behavior interpretation 


  1. 1.
    Anderson, P.A., Guerrero, L.K., Jones, S.M.: Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in human relationships. In: The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, pp. 259–278. SAGE Publications, Incorporated (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye–contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., Hale, J.L., Turck, M.A.: Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Hum. Commun. Res. 10(3), 351–378 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgoon, J.K., Manusov, V., Mineo, P., Hale, J.L.: Effects of gaze on hiring, credibility, attraction and relational message interpretation. J. Nonverbal Behav. 9, 133–146 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carney, D.R., Cuddy, A.J., Yap, A.J.: Power posing brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychol. Sci. 21(10), 1363–1368 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coker, D.A., Burgoon, J.: The nature of conversational involvement and nonverbal encoding patterns. Hum. Commun. Res. 13(4), 463–494 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1(1), 49–98 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 17(2), 124 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: A new pan–cultural facial expression of emotion. Motiv. Emot. 10(2), 159–168 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kudoh, T., Matsumoto, D.: Cross–cultural examination of the semantic dimensions of body postures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48(6), 1440–1446 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maddux, W.W., Mullen, E., Galinsky, A.D.: Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44(2), 461–468 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manusov, V., Patterson, M.L. (eds.): The Sage Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. SAGE Publications, Incorporated (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehrabian, A.: Nonverbal Communication. Aldine De Gruyter (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noldus, L.P.J.J., Trienes, R.J.H., Hendriksen, A.H.M., Jansen, H., Jansen, R.G.: The observer video–pro: new software for the collection, management, and presentation of time–structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 32(1), 197–206 (3), 133–146 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nouri, E., Park, S., Scherer, S., Gratch, J., Carnevale, P., Morency, L.P., Traum, D.R.: Prediction of strategy and outcome as negotiation unfolds by using basic verbal and behavioral features. In: 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH 2013), pp. 1458–1461. ISCA Archive, Lyon (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olekalns, M., Brett, J.M., Weingart, L.R.: Phases, transitions and interruptions: Modeling processes in multi–party negotiations. Int. J. Confl. Manage. 143(3), 191–211 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J.: Factor analysis of meaning. J. Exp. Psychol. 50(5), 325 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prager, K.J.: Intimacy in personal relationships. In: Hendrick, S., Hendrick, C. (eds.) Close Relationships, pp. 229–244. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Semnani-Azad, Z., Adair, W.L.: The display of dominant nonverbal cues in negotiation: the role of culture and gender. Int. Negot. 16(3), 451–479 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Semnani–Azad, Z., Adair, W.L.: Watch Your Tone… Relational Paralinguistic Messages in Negotiation: The Case of East and West. Int. Stud. Manage. Organ. 43 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanaka, Y., Osgood, C.E.: Cross–culture, cross– concept, and cross–subject generality of affective meaning systems. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 143 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Triandis, H.C., Osgood, C.E.: A comparative factorial analysis of semantic structures in monolingual Greek and American college students. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 57(2), 187 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trout, D.L., Rosenfeld, H.M.: The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport. J. Nonverbal Behav. 4(3), 176–190 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weingart, L.R., Bennett, R.J., Brett, J.M.: The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 78(3), 504 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Creative Technologies and Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations