Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation: Towards cognitive support systems

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rapid expansion of Decision and Negotiation Support Systems has been built mainly on decision-theoretic approaches. This has resulted in the decision maker being viewed through the lens of the problem. In this article, the focus is on the decision maker's view of the problem. Three levels of problem articulation are described. Special emphasis is placed on the needs level and the implications it carries for the cognitive and instrumental levels. The three levels of articulation, the organizational model of making decision in social settings, and the three basic approaches to decision making form the basis for computer support focused on understanding and change rather than preferences and outcomes. We argue that in the dynamic, interactive context characteristic of negotiations, a cognitive support system based on restructurable modeling provides a richer basis for support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AliA. J. (1993). “Decision-Making Style, Individualism, and Attitudes toward Risk of Arab Executives,”International Studies of Management and Organization 23 (3), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N. J. and J. L. Graham (1989). “Cross-Cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy,”Journal of International Business Studies (Fall), 515–537.

  • AngehrnA. A. (1993). “Computers that Criticize You: Stimulus-Based Decision Support Systems,”Interfaces 23 (3), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • BartlettR. (1932).Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BazermanM. H., and M. A.Neale. (1991). “Negotiator Rationality and Negotiator Cognition: The Interactive Roles of Prescriptive and Descriptive Research.” In H. P.Young (ed.),Negotiation Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 109–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • BellD. E., H.Raiffa, and A.Tversky. (1988). “Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions in Decision Making.” In D. E.Bell, H.Raiffa, and A.Tversky (eds.),Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • BonhamG. M. (1993). “Cognitive Mapping as a Technique for Supporting International Negotiation,”Theory and Decisions 34, 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BrewerW. F., and G. V.Nakamura. (1984). “The Nature and Functions of Schemas.” In R. S.Wyer and T. K.Srull (eds.),Handbook of Social Cognition. Northvale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • BrookesC. H. P. (1994). “A Framework for DSS Development.” In P.Gray (ed.),Decision Support and Executive Information Systems. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • BeulensA. J. M., and J. A. E.vanNunen. (1988). “The Use of Expert System Technology in DSS,”Decision Support Systems 4 (4), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, T. (1994). “Software Architectures for Negotiator Support: Co-op and Negotiator.”Computer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, May 26–27.

  • Bui, T., and M. F. Shakun. (1996). “Negotiation Processes, Evolutionary Systems Design and Negotiator,”Group Decision and Negotiation 5.

  • ChecklandP. (1989). “Soft Systems Methodology.” In J.Rosenhead (ed.),Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. New York: Wiley, pp. 71–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • CohenM. D., J. G.March, and J. P.Olsen. (1972). “A Garbadge Can Model of Organizational Choice,”Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, R. et al. (1990). “Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in an Electronic Meeting Environment,”Management Science 36 (2).

  • Cray, D. (1994). “Simultaneity and Sequencing in a Strategic Decision.” In J. Climaco (ed.),Proceedings of the Eleventh MCDM Conference. Electronic Proceedings, Disk #1.

  • DeSanctis, G. et al. (1991). “Using Computing to Facilitate the Quality Improvement Process: The IRS-Minnesota,”Interfaces (November/December).

  • DevlinK. (1991).Logic and Information. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DoukisG. I. (1989). “General Consideration on Knowledge-based Management Support Systems.” In G. I.Doukis, F.Land, and G.Miller (eds.),Knowledge-based Management Support Systems. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood, pp. 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • DruckmanD. (1977).Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DunckerK. (1945). “On Problem Solving,”Psychological Monographs 58 (270). Reprinted inOn Problem Solving, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • EdenC. (1992). “A Framework for Thinking About Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS),”Group Decision and Negotiation 1 (3), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EdenC., S.Jones, and D.Sims. (1983).Messing about in Problems. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • EdenC., S.Jones, and D.Sims. (1979).Thinking in Organizations. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • EliasbergJ., S.Gauvin, G. L.Lilien, and A.Rangaswamy. (1992). “An Experimental Study of Alternative Preparation Aids for International Negotiations,”Group Decision and Negotiations 1, 243–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Najdawi, M. K., and A. C. Stylianou. (1993). “Expert Support Systems: An Integration of Decision Support Systems, Expert Systems, and other AI Technologies,”Communication of the ACM 36 (12).

  • FangL., K. W.Hipel, and D. M.Kilgour. (1993).Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • FisherR., E.Kopelman, and A. K.Schneider. (1994).Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FisherR., and W.Ury. (1983).Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelman-Soulie et al. (1983). “Bivariate Negotiations as a Problem of Stochastic Terminal Control,”Management Science 29 (7), 840–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • FriendJ. (1989). “The Strategic Choice Approach”. In J.Rosenhead (ed.),Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. New York: Wiley, pp. 121–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • FrenchS. (1986).Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • GottingerH. W., and P.Weimann. (1992). “Intelligent Decision Support Systems,”Decision Support Systems 8 (4), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GulliverP. H. (1979).Disputes and Negotiations, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HarsanyiJ., and R.Selten. (1988).A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HeylighenF. (1992). “A Cognitive-systemic Reconstruction of Maslow's Theory of Self-actualization,”Behavioral Science 37, 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • HillP. H. et al. (1982).Making Decisions: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • HowardN. (1994). “Dramma Theory and Its Relation to Game Theory. Part 1: Dramatic Resolution vs. Rational Solution” and “Part 2: Formal Model of the Resolution Process,”Group Decision and Negotiation 3 (2), 187–206 and 207–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HoltzmanS. (1987).Intelligent Decision Systems. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • KeeneyR. L. (1992).Value-focussed Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E. (1988). “A Procedure for Negotiating Efficient and Non-Efficient Compromises,”Decision Support Systems 4, 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., D.Cray and S.Szpakowicz, “Supporting Strategic Decisions: Requirements, Approach and Application,”Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Decision Support Systems, T.Bui (ed.), Hong Kong: HKUST, Vol. 1, (1995), pp. 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., S.Rubin, and S.Szpakowicz. (1994b). “Medical Decision Making in Negoplan,” In J.Liebovitz (ed.),Moving Towards Expert Systems Globally in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Expert Systems. Cambridge, MA: Macmillan, pp. 1130–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., and S.Szpakowicz. (1994a). “Decision Making and Decision Aiding. Defining the Process, Its Representations, and Support,”Group Decision and Negotiation 3(2), 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., and S.Szpakowicz. (1994b). “A Formal Account of Sequential Decision-Making in a Co-operative Setting.” A. M.Gadomski and C.Balducelli (eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 73–78, InProceedings of the Second International Round-Table on Abstract Intelligent Agent: Situation Assessment, ENEA, Rome, February 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., W.Michalowski, D.Cray, and I.Lee. (1991). “An Analytic Basis for Decision Support in Negotiations,”Naval Logistic Research 38, 743–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., W. Michalowski, S. Szpakowicz, and Z. Koperczak. “Restructurable Representations of Negotiation,”Management Science 37(10), 1269–1290.

  • KerstenG. E., and W.Michalowski. (1989). “A Cooperative Expert System for Negotiation With a Hostage-Taker”,International Journal of Expert Systems 2 (3/4), 357–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • KerstenG. E., and S.Szpakowicz. (1990). “Rule-Based Formalism and Preference Representation: An Extension of Negoplan”,European Journal of Operational Research 45, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KleinD. (1994).Decision-Analytic Intelligent Systems. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • KolodnerJ. (1993).Case-based Reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • KoperczakZ., S.Matwin, and S.Szpakowicz. (1992). “Modelling Negotiation Strategies with Two Interacting Expert Systems”,Control and Cybernetics 21 (1), 105–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • KremenukV. A., ed. (1993).International Negotiation. Analysis, Approaches, Issues. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaxD.A., and J. K.Sebenius. (1986).The Manager as Negotiator. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, Ch. E. (1979). “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through”,Public Administration Review (November/December), 517–536.

  • LeviI. (1986).Hard Choices: Decision Making under Unresolved Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LevinK. (1936).Principles of Topological Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • LewickiR. J., and J. A.Litterer. (1985).Negotiation. Homewood, IL. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L. F., and M. F. Shakun. (1994). “Computer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Systems Questionnaire”. InComputer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, May 26–27.

  • MarchJ. G. (1988). “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice”. In D. E.Bell, H.Raiffa and A.Tversky (eds.),Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Perspectives, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • MaslowA. H. (1954).Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • MatwinS., S.Szpakowicz, Z.Koperczak, G. E.Kersten, and W.Michalowski. (1989). “Negoplan: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support”,IEEE Expert 4 (4), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MayerR. E. (1992).Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. New York, Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • MayerR. E. (1989). “Human Nonadversary Problem Solving”. In K. J.Gilhooly (ed.),Human and Machine Problem Solving. New York: Plenum, pp. 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meister, D., and G. E. Kersten. (1994). “Natural Resource Management with Restructurable Modelling”. Carleton University.

  • McNeilB. J., S. G.Pauker, and A.Tversky. (1988). “On Framing of Medical Decisions”. In D. E.Bell, H.Raiffa, and A.Tversky (eds.),Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 562–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1975). “The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact”,Harward Business Review July/August.

  • MintzbergH., D.Raisingham, and A.Theoret. (1976). “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes”,Administrative Science Quarterly 21 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MohrL. B. (1982).Explaining Organizational Behaviour. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • MoyseR., and M. T.Elsom-Cook, eds. (1992),Knowledge Negotiation. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NealM. A., and M. H.Bazerman. (1991).Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NewcombT. M. (1953). “An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts”,Psychological Review 60, 394–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • NierenbergG. I. (1987).Fundamentals of Negotiating. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • NozickR. (1993).The Nature of Rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NozickR. (1969). “Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice”. In N.Rescher et al. (eds.),Essays in Honor of C. G. Hemple. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 114–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. et al. (1991). “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work“,Communication of the ACM (July).

  • NewellA. (1990).Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PenJ. (1952). “A General Theory of Bargaining”,The American Economic Review 17, 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • PettitP. (1978). “Rational Man Theory”. In C.Hookway and P.Pettit (eds.),Action and Interprettion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • RaiffaH. (1982).The Art and Science of Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangaswamy, A., and G. R. Shell. (1994). “Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward and Electronic Bargaining Table.”Computer-Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, May 26–27.

  • RosenscheinJ. S., and G.Zlotkin. (1994).Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiations among Computers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RoyB. (1990). “Decision-aid and Decision-making,”European Journal of Operational Research 45, 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SchankR. (1982).Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchellingT. C. (1984).Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SebeniusJ. K. (1992) “Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review,”Management Science 38 (1), 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SimonH. A. (1991). “Artificial Intelligence: Where Has It Been, and Where Is It Going,”Knowledge and Data Engineering 3 (2), 128–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SimonH. A., and C. A.Kaplan. (1989). “Foundations of Cognitive Science.” In M. I.Posner (ed.),Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • SimonH. A. (1982).The Science of the Artificial Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SimonH. A. (1960).The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShakunM. F. (1985).Evolutionary Systems Design. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • SpragueR. H.Jr., and E. D.Carlson. (1982).Building Effective Decision Support Systems. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • SzpakowiczS., G. E.Kersten, and Z.Koperczak. (1990). “Knowledge Based Decision Support, Preferences, and Financial Planning.” InProceedings of the sixth Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, pp. 222–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • TeichJ., H.Wallenius, M.Kuula and S.Zionts (1995). “A Decision Support Approach for Negotiation with an Application to Agricultural Income Policy Negotiations,”European Journal of Operational Research 81, 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen, E. M., and D. P. Loucks. (1994) “Interactive Computer-assisted Negotiation Support”Computer Assisted Negotiation and Mediation Symposium, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, May 26–27; also ICAN Systems, Inc., Abbotsford, BC.

  • TurbanE. (1988).Decision Support and Expert Systems. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, E., and P. R. Watkins. (1986). “Integrating Expert Systems and Decision Support Systems,”MIS Quarterly (June). pp. 121–136.

  • TverskyA. (1975). “A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive and Normative Considerations,”Erkenntnis 9 (2), 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyA. (1972). “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,”Psychological Review 79, 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyA., and D.Kahneman. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science 211, 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • UngsonG. R., and D. N.Braunstein. (1982).Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry Boston: Kent.

    Google Scholar 

  • UryW. (1993).Getting Past No: Negotiating your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • WallJ. A. (1985).Negotiation: Theory and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • WeickK. W. (1979).The Social Psychology of Organizing 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • WeisbandS. P. (1992). “Group Discussion and First Advocacy Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups,”Organizational Behaviour and Human Devision Processes 53, 352–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WinogradT., and F.Flores. (1986).Understanding Computers and Cognition: A NewFoundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • vonWinterfeldtD., and W.Edwards. (1986).Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom V. M.Work and Motivation New York: Wiley.

  • YoungO. R. (1975). “Strategic Interaction and Bargaining.” In O. R.Young, (ed.),Bargaining: Formal Theories of Negotiations. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZartmanI. W., ed. (1994).International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Computer Assisted Management, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Gregory E. Kersten

  2. Centre for Computer Assisted Management, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    David Cray

Authors
  1. Gregory E. Kersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Cray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kersten, G.E., Cray, D. Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation: Towards cognitive support systems. Group Decis Negot 5, 433–467 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404644

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404644

Key words

Search

Navigation