APPLYING CASE-BASED REASONING FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEGOTIATION PROFILE OF ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEM USERS

Jakub Brzostowski, Tomasz Wachowicz

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the problem of identifying the negotiation profile of the electronic negotiation system users. Usually such a profile is identified by means of the specific questionnaire (e.g. the Thomas-Kilmann questionnaire), however it requires from the negotiator answering many troublesome questions which is tiring and may lead to unreliable results. On the other hand many behavioural and psychological studies confirm that there is a set of demographical and sociological characteristics that influence the human general behaviour. Deriving from these studies we try to determine such a profile by analyzing the general information provided by the pre-negotiation questionnaire the users fill while creating their negotiation accounts. Having the historical data of Inspire negotiation system we try to find links between a set of the data that describes the negotiators demographical features and their final negotiation profile using the notion of Gilboa and Schmeidler case-based reasoning (CBR). To determine all the parameters required for the case-based reasoning the statistical correspondence analysis on the set of the historical data is conducted in advance. The results of CBR-based profile identification are also presented and discussed.

References

  1. Adair, W. L. and Brett, J. M. (2004). Culture and negotiation processes. In Gelfand, M. J. and Brett J. M. (Eds.), The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture (pp. 158-176). Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
  2. Aamodt, A. and Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications, 7:, 39-59.
  3. Benzecri, J. P. (1992). Correspondence analysis handbook, New York: Marcel Dekker.
  4. Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publications.
  5. Briggs, I. and Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mountain View: Davies-Black Publishing.
  6. Brzostowski, J. and Wachowicz, T. (2009). Conceptual Model of eNS For Supporting Preference Elicitation and Counterpart Analysis. In Kilgour, D.M. and Wang Q. (Eds.), Proceedings of GDN 2009: An International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 182-186). Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University.
  7. Brzostowski, J. and Wachowicz, T. (2010). Building personality profile of negotiator for electronic negotiations. In Trzaskalik, T. and Wachowicz, T. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making 7809 (pp. 31- 46). Katowice: The Publisher of The University of Economics in Katowice.
  8. Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A. and Baccaro, L. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1463-1475.
  9. Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-based decision theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 605-639.
  10. Herrmann, G. M. (2004). Haggling Spoken Here: Gender, Class, and Style in US Garage Sale Bargaining. Journal of Popular Culture, 38(1), 55-81.
  11. Hill, M. O. (1974). Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate method. Applied Statistics, 23, 340-354.
  12. Howison, J. (2003). An Introduction to the Literature on Online Reputation Systems for the MMAPPS project. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://james.howison. name/pubs/RepLitIntro.pdf
  13. Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes, International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4): 287-305.
  14. Kersten, G. E. and Noronha, S. J. (1999). WWW-Based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation And Use. Decision Support Systems, 25, 135-154.
  15. Kersten, G. E., Koeszegi, S. and Vetschera, R. (2003). The effects of culture in computer-mediated negotiations. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(2), 1-28.
  16. Kilmann, R. and Thomas, K. W. (1983). The ThomasKilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Cleveland: The Organizational Development Institute.
  17. Kray, L. J. and Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 103-182.
  18. Kraybill, R. (2005). Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory. Harrisonburg: Riverhouse ePress.
  19. Leake, D. B. (1996). Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons & Future Directions. Menlo Park: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
  20. Mershon, B. and Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675-680
  21. Paradis, N., Gettinger, J., Lai, H., Surboeck, M. and Wachowicz, T. (2010). E-Negotiations via Inspire 2.0: The System, Users, Management and Projects. In: de Vreede, G.J. (Ed.), Group Decision and Negotiations 2010. Proceedings (pp. 155-159). Omaha: The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
  22. Patton, C. and Balakrishnan, P. V. (2010). The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 809-816.
  23. Paunonen, S. V. and Ashton, M. S. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 524- 539
  24. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Shell, G. R. (2001). Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal, 17(2), 155- 174.
  26. Sternberg, R. J. and Dobson, D. M. (1987). Resolving interpersonal conflicts: An analysis of stylistic consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 794-812.
  27. Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: a taxonomy of verbal response modes. SAGE Publications.
  28. Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behaviour and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-532.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Brzostowski J. and Wachowicz T. (2012). APPLYING CASE-BASED REASONING FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEGOTIATION PROFILE OF ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEM USERS . In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES, ISBN 978-989-8425-97-3, pages 48-58. DOI: 10.5220/0003755100480058


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icores12,
author={Jakub Brzostowski and Tomasz Wachowicz},
title={APPLYING CASE-BASED REASONING FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEGOTIATION PROFILE OF ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEM USERS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,},
year={2012},
pages={48-58},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003755100480058},
isbn={978-989-8425-97-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems - Volume 1: ICORES,
TI - APPLYING CASE-BASED REASONING FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEGOTIATION PROFILE OF ELECTRONIC NEGOTIATION SYSTEM USERS
SN - 978-989-8425-97-3
AU - Brzostowski J.
AU - Wachowicz T.
PY - 2012
SP - 48
EP - 58
DO - 10.5220/0003755100480058