Subjective Effectiveness in Agent-to-Human Negotiation: A Frame x Personality Account

  • Yinping Yang
  • Ya Hui Michelle See
  • Andrew Ortony
  • Jacinth Jia Xin Tan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6057)

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical examination on the role of framing as a persuasion technique in agent-to-human negotiations. The primary hypothesis was that when a software agent frames the same offer in different ways it will have different consequences for a human counterpart’s perceptions of the negotiation process and outcomes. A secondary hypothesis was that the subjective effectiveness of different frames will be influenced by the personality of the human counterpart. An experiment to test these hypotheses was conducted using a simulated software seller agent and a human buyer counterpart in a 4-issue negotiation task. The results demonstrated the influence of framing on human counterparts’ judgments of subjective effectiveness–an influence that was moderated by the personality variable Need for Cognition. The findings illustrate the strategic impact of framing and personality on satisfaction in negotiation, suggesting that these variables should be taken into account in designing negotiating agents.

Keywords

frame negotiation satisfaction personality Need for Cognition persuasion agent-to-human negotiation automated negotiation experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kraus, S.K., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching Agreements through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, S., Lin, F., Yuan, Y.: Understanding Agent-based On-line Persuasion and Bargaining Strategies: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11, 85–115 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, Y., Singhal, S.: Designing an Intelligent Agent that Negotiates Tactfully with Human Counterparts: A Conceptual Analysis and Modeling Framework. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conferences on System Sciences (HICSS42), pp. 1–10. IEEE Publication, Big Island (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson, L.: Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues. Psychological Bulletin 108, 515–532 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curhan, J.R., Elfenbein, H.A., Xu, H.: What Do people Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, 493–512 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Idson, L.C., Liberman, N., Higgins, E.: Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity. Journal of Experimental Psychology 36, 252–274 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F.: The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, 306–307 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snyder, M., DeBono, K.G.: Appeals to Image and Claims About Quality: Understanding the Psychology of Advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, 586–597 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, Y.H.M., Petty, R.E., Fabrigar, L.R.: Affective and Cognitive Meta-bases of Attitudes: Unique Effects on Information Interest and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, 938–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Keefe, D.J., Jensen, J.D.: The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-framed and Loss-framed Messages. Communication Yearbook 30, 1–43 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rothman, A.J., Salovey, P.: Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychological Bulletin 121, 3–19 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neale, M.A., Bazerman, M.H.: The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 28, 34–49 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.A.: Negotiating rationally. Free Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schelling, T.C.: The Strategy of Conflict: Prospectus for a Reorientation of Game Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 203–204 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schelling, T.C.: The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1960)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tedeschi, J.T.: Threats and Promises. In: Swingle, P.G. (ed.) The Structure of Conflict, pp. 155–191. Academic Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubin, J.Z., Brown, B.R.: The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schlenker, B.R., Bonoma, T., Tedeschi, J.T., Pivnick, W.P.: Compliance to Threats as a Function of the Wording of the Threat and the Exploitativeness of the Threatener. Sociometry 33, 394–408 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Geiwitz, P.J.: The Effects of Threats on Prisoner’s Dilemma. Behavioral Science 12, 232–233 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubin, J.Z., Lewicki, R.J.: A Three-factor Experimental Analysis of Promises and Threats. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 3, 240–257 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinaceur, M., Neale, M.A.: Not All Threats are Created Equal: How Implicitness and Timing Affect the Effectiveness of Threats in Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 14, 63–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Delaney, M.M., Foroughi, A., Perkins, W.C.: An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of a Computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS). Decision Support Systems 20, 185–197 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eliashberg, J., Gauvin, S., Lilien, G.L., Rangaswamy, A.: An Experimental Study of Alternative Preparation Aids for International Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 1, 243–267 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foroughi, A., Perkins, W.C., Jelassi, M.T.: An Empirical Study of an Interactive, Session-oriented Computerized Negotiation Support System. Group Decision and Negotiation 6, 485–512 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lim, J., Yang, Y.P.: Enhancing Negotiators’ Performance with Computer Support for Pre-Negotiation Preparation and Negotiation: An Experimental Investigation in an East Asian Context. Journal of Global Information Management 15, 18–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rangaswamy, A., Shell, G.R.: Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Towards an Electronic Bargaining Table. Management Science 43, 1147–1163 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Dreu, C., Carnevale, P., Emans, B., van de Vliert, E.: Effects of Gain-loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 90–107 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carnevale, P.J., Pruitt, D.G.: Negotiation and Mediation. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 531–582 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B., Strack, F.: At the Boundaries of Automaticity: Negation as Reflective Operation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, 385–405 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A., Jarvis, W.B.G.: Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119, 197–253 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    See, Y.H.M., Petty, R.E., Evans, L.M.: The Impact of perceived Message Complexity and Need for Cognition on Information Processing and Attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality 43, 880–889 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., Rodriguez, R.: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: An Individual Difference Perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1032–1043 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior 1, 239–260 (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Inman, J.J., McAlister, L., Hoyer, W.D.: Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut? Journal of Consumer Research 17, 74–81 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Priester, J., Petty, R.E.: Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 637–654 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verplanken, B.: Persuasive Communication of Risk information: A Test of Cue versus Message Processing Effects in a Field Experiment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 188–193 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang, Y., Singhal, S., Xu, Y.: Offer with Choices and Accept with Delay: A Win-Win Strategy Model for Agent-Based Automated Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference in Information Systems (ICIS 2009), Phoenix, Arizona, United States (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones, B.H.: Analytical Mediation: An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Computer Support for Different Levels of Conflict in Two-Party Negotiation. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University Graduate School of Business, Bloomington, Indiana (1988)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiations. Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to Yes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1981)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oliver, R.L., Balakrishnan, P.V., Barry, B.: Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 252–275 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinping Yang
    • 1
  • Ya Hui Michelle See
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew Ortony
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jacinth Jia Xin Tan
    • 2
  1. 1.Computational Cognition for Social SystemsInstitute of High Performance Computing, Agency for Science, Technology, and Research (A*STAR)Singapore
  2. 2.National University of SingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations