NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Regular Paper

Introduction

Negotiation support systems (NSS) are a special category of group support systems (GSS)

designed to support the activities of two or more negotiating parties to reach an agreement

via computerized systems that use information and communications technology through

electronic media (Bichler et al., 2003; Delaney et al., 1997; Lee et al., 2007) . These NSSs

can support execution of negotiations, guiding online activities (Kersten, 2004) and

facilitating communication, structuring and organizing processes information related to

negotiating (Gettinger et al., 2012). Thus, this type of system is characterized by the ability

to enable people from different places and time zones to communicate by using

computational resources (Kersten and Noronha, 1999).

Although negotiation support approaches provide IT support for complex negotiations,

enabling human negotiators to conduct the negotiation (Schoop et al., 2003), they fail to

automate negotiation process. Weigand et al., (2003) states that negotiation processes can

be divided into two types of negotiation, distributive and integrative, according to the goals

of the negotiation. Distributive negotiation focuses on an efficient compromise, i.e. “win-

lose” negotiation type. Integrative negotiation seeks to create a solution that satisfies all

negotiators, i.e. a “win-win” negotiation type.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

1
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Several NSS approaches apply one or both negotiation types in one’s environment. They

incorporate negotiation descriptive or prescriptive models (Kersten and Cray, 1996), and

tools that have various perspectives. Descriptive models are concerned with understanding

user behavior in the particular situation, whereas prescriptive models are concerned with

helping negotiators achieve the best outcome by prescribing procedures (Schoop, 2004).

Such negotiation models and tools may be found in several applications of NSS such as

neural networks (Carbonneau et al., 2008), fuzzy logic (Cheng et al., 2006), meta-

modeling (Chiu et al., 2005), multi-agents (Wang et al., 2013), and negotiators’ preferences

and behavior (Vetschera, 2007). These applications are inserted into the negotiation process

to assist the negotiator in handling relevant information, and they provide support for

making an offer.

Despite several tools that have been developed in order to improve the negotiation process

and mitigate the lack of face-to-face interaction, mechanisms that gather nonverbal

information with regard to the personality traits and negotiation behavior are rarely present

in the literature. Since humans are the most complex and flexible part of any

communication system (DeRosa et al., 2004), information about communication preference

and negotiation behavior handling tends to improve the communication process, as well the

negotiation outcomes (Yiu and Lee, 2011). Moreover, personality and negotiation style

information can help negotiators to adjust their tactics, according to their personal

information and that of their disputing parties (Gilkey and Greenhalgh, 1986).

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

2
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

In this context, the game theory approach devotes considerable importance to understand

strategies that are intrinsically bound to personalities. The backward inductions, dominant

strategies and concepts of non-credible threats from traditional economic games and

models (see Leontief 1946; Merlo and Wilson 1995; Rubinstein 1982; Sutton 1986) help to

understand the agents and negotiators’ behavior into an outcome that provides greater

social satisfaction with just and efficient agreements. The present study proposes the

development of a Web-NSS that besides to incorporate traditional tools of a NSS, also

integrate personality and negotiation information to improve the communication process

during the negotiation process in order to obtain better Social outcomes, defined as the

outcome that maximize the group satisfaction. Initially a Web-based NSS is developed

following the traditional NSS approach and design (Lim, 1999; Lee et al., 2007). Then a

new NSS approach and a conceptual model are presented to help the implementation of the

new tools. An experiment with 102 participants is proposed in order to demonstrate the

system contribution to the negotiation process.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

3
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

The NegPlace System

The NegPlace System is a web-based Negotiation Support System (NSS) developed to

guide the negotiation process by using a web environment. This NSS offers technological

resources to flexibilize the negotiation process. It is available to all operating systems and

devices connected to the internet with a web browser that runs Java application.

The design and development of NegPlace system were based on free platforms of software

development and database system. First, the Eclipse Integrated Development Environment

(IDE) was chosen to develop the Web application, which enables a fast and efficient

development in Java programming language. Second, a relational database management

system was required for data storing. MySQL was chosen to provide the necessary tools for

storing and retrieving data using Structured Query Language (SQL). Lastly, the Java

development language was used in the software development process, thereby enabling the

development of an application for different kinds of Web platforms.

Information regarding a negotiator’s personality and negotiation styles is restricted to the

participants in the same negotiation problem. Therefore, NegPlace does not allow any

searching for information of another negotiator that is not participating the same

negotiation problem. This kind of information has only informative qualities and will be

available to each negotiator through color intensity scales and brief overviews (Figure 1)

based on each dimension of the MBTI model (Myers, 1987; Myers and McCaulley, 1988)

and also available as a polar graph of the negotiation styles intensity (Figure 2) along with a

brief overview of each negotiation style based on TKI model (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974;
Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016
4
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Thomas, 1976). The negotiator is evaluated by the intensity of the color scale; a red shade

indicates a lower preference and green points to higher preference. Similarly, the polar

graph represents the intensity of one negotiation style, as well as how one’s behavior might

influence the negotiation process.

Figure 1. Personality Dimensions information

Figure 2. Negotiation style profile information

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

5
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

The MBTI and TKI models are applied to recognize the personality and negotiation styles

of each negotiator (Myers, 1987). When the negotiator accesses the NegPlace system for

the first time, they must complete a profile and respond to personality and negotiation

questionnaires. These data are processed and provide input to the MBTI and TKI models

which, in the final process, outcomes the personality trait with the combination of bipolar

dimensions: Extraversion and Introversion; Sensing and Intuition, Thinking and Feeling,

and Judging and Perceiving, and the negotiation styles: Avoiding, Accommodating,

Competing, Collaborating, and Compromising.

Once recognized, the personality and negotiation styles become an important point of

information that is used to draft both communication and negotiation strategies. Moreover,

knowledge of the personality and negotiation styles facilitates the communication

interaction and helps to predict the future behavior of the negotiators during the negotiation

process. Therefore, it is fundamental that the user complete the personality and negotiation

questionnaires the first time they access the NegPlace system.

At the end of the negotiation process, with the agreement achieved between the parties, the

NegPlace starts the post-negotiation stage. Such stage analyzes the concluded negotiation

based on the number of interactions between negotiators and the negotiators’ satisfaction

with the negotiation process. In the interaction analysis, the system automatically calculates

the number of interactions between negotiators from the start of the problem until they

achieve an agreement, to verify how the number of interactions are commonly required in

the negotiation process using NegPlace. In the satisfaction analysis, at the end of the

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

6
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

negotiation all participants’ are required to respond a satisfaction questionnaire containing

fifteen questions to evaluate their satisfaction experience with the NegPlace usage. Thus, it

is possible to investigate the level of individual’s satisfaction using the NegPlace System.

Participatory Budgeting Game

The experiment consist a dynamic negotiation of complete and perfect information in

which three parts, the public administration representative (P), neighbourhood A

community leader (A) and neighbourhood B community leader (B), bargain a municipal

budget for public works. One hundred and two individuals took part the experiment

composing a total of 34 negotiations: 61 men and 41 women, ages that ranged from 21 to

46 years old, most of them undergraduate students of business, information technology and

management engineering, some graduate students, managers of financial firms, water and

electric distribution companies, bank employees and industrial supervisors.

In the negotiation case, there is a budget limited to R$1,500,000 (Brazilian reais) and a state

law enforces the city administration to invest no less than 80% of the amount in projects

according the neighborhood needs. Each neighborhood leader has information about the

other’s projects and cost, and a sense of their priorities. If there is no agreement, the amount

will be used for next year's budget and the negotiation interaction goes from a distributive

to integrative relation among the parts. The public works each neighborhood requires, their

cost and priority are presented in Table 1.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

7
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Public works opportunities, costs and priorities to each neighbourhood

Neighborhood Project Cost Priority
1 Community Daycare R$500,000 Very High
2 Road Paving R$250,000 High
A
3 Fairground Square R$250,000 Medium
4 Community City Gym R$150,000 Low
5 Health Center R$550,000 Very High
6 Road Paving R$350,000 High
B
7 Multi-sports Court R$150,000 Medium
8 Community Library R$101,000 Low

Table 1. The budget game’s projects, cost and priorities

It is essential for the public administration to meet high and very high priorities, rather

higher values first, and it is assumed that the public administration slightly prefer to save

financial resources instead to invest in medium or low priority projects. Thus, the timing of

the negotiation is presented in Figure 3 as an extensive form game: first, the public

administration representative chooses an xp, offer to community A and yp offer to

community B from the feasible set 1,200,000 < F ≤ 1,500,000; both the leaders of A and B

observes the public administration offer and decide whether to accept or either reject the

proposal – if both accepts, the negotiation ends with payoffs (xp, yp, zp) with regard to

community A, B and public administration, respectively; if one part accepts, say

community A, and the other is willing to reject, the rejecter (community B) is invited to

propose a better offer for each part, that might result (xb, yb, zb) if both the public

administration and the community A accepts; if no one accepts the public administrator

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

8
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

offer, both are invited to propose offers simultaneously, and the negotiation goes on until a

three part agreement is signed.

A P B

reject accept (xp, yp, zp) accept reject

B P A

reject accept (xa, ya, za) accept accept (xb, yb, zb) accept reject

P A B P

… … … …

Figure 3: Extensive form budget negotiation under complete information

Below we discriminate the possible Pareto efficient outcomes, defined as the agreement

which it is impossible to improve any other party's gain without making at least one part

worse off. The First Best outcome is the best individual option for each negotiation

member, e.g., the best overall outcome for A is to obtain the public administration to

execute all of their projects, a total amount of R$1,150,000. Once it is still possible to make

both B and the public administration better off by carrying out project 6 with high priority,

the outcome of (1,2,3,4) = R$1,150,000 is not a Pareto efficient one and the outcome (1,2,3,4,6)

= R$1,500,000 is attached in Table 2 in lieu of the former result. Note distributive nature of A-

B negotiation: while the outcome (1,2,3,4,6) still remains the First Best to A, it is just the

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

9
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Sixth Best result to B because there will be a plenty of combinations with better individual

outcomes for them. Also, there is an integrative nature in A-P and B-P interactions once

each part get mutual benefits by employing resource in high and very high priority projects.

Pareto efficient outcomes to each neighbourhood and public administration

Entity A B Public Adm. First Best (A, B, P) Social Payoff
1, 2, 3 and 4 6
R$1,500,00 (1, 6, 5) 14
R$1,150,000 R$350,000
1, 2 and 3 6 and 7
R$1,500,00 (2, 5, 5) 14
R$1,000,000 R$500,000
1, 2 and 4 5
R$1,450,00 (3, 4, 2) 9
Projects R$900,000 R$550,000
and 1 and 2 5
Cost R$1,300,00 (4, 4, 1) 9
R$750,000 R$550,000
1 and 2 5 and 7
R$1,450,00 (4, 3, 2) 9
R$750,000 R$700,000
1 5 and 6
R$1,400,00 (5, 2, 4) 11
R$500,000 R$900,000
2 5, 6, 7 and 8
R$1401,00 (6, 1, 3) 10
R$250,000 R$1,151,000
Table 2. The budget game’s first best results

The Social Payoff is defined as the sum of the Fist Best payoffs, keeping the simplicity of

unit relation regarding the scale. Therefore, the smaller the Social Payoff is, the closer is the

First Best results of each negotiator, and better the agreement are. From the set of Pareto

efficient possibilities we find three outcomes that present the best Social Payoff ‘9’:

(1,2,4,5) = R$1,450,000; (1,2,5) = R$1,300,000; and (1,2,5,7) = R$1,450,000. Following

the rationality of individuals and the Bargain Theory, any of those Pareto efficient results is

possible in the three-part budget game, but only those three of them has the best social

outcome, i.e., the best result that maximize the group utility, regardless individual payoffs.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

10
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Table 3 shows that the usage of one’s negotiation profile and personality traits information

provided by the Negplace system allows the negotiation to reach an agreement that is not

only Pareto efficient, but also routes to the best Social Outcome possible. From 102

participants, 57 users had information concerning the others’ personality dimensions and

negotiation style available, 48 of them reach an agreement with a better Social Payoff and 3

outcomes that is not Pareto efficient. 45 users had this information disabled, which resulted

30 choices with the better Pareto Social Payoff and 9 outcomes that is not Pareto efficient.

Participatory Budgeting Game table of results

Personality and
Pareto efficient outcomes Cost Negotiators
Negotiation Style
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 R$1,500,00 0
1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 R$1,500,00 3
1, 2, 4 and 5 R$1,450,00 0
1, 2 and 5 R$1,300,00 0
Enabled
1, 2, 5 and 7 R$1,450,00 48
1, 5 and 6 R$1,400,00 3
2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 R$1401,00 0
Non-Pareto efficient outcomes - 3
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 R$1,500,00 0
1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 R$1,500,00 0
1, 2, 4 and 5 R$1,450,00 0
1, 2 and 5 R$1,300,00 0
Disabled
1, 2, 5 and 7 R$1,450,00 30
1, 5 and 6 R$1,400,00 3
2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 R$1401,00 3
Non-Pareto efficient outcomes - 9

Table 3. Results of the case with and without information about other’s personalities

In order to determine whether this difference with regard to the two groups of users are

statistically significant we perform unpaired Welch's Student's t-test that is applied when
Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016
11
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

two population variances are not assumed to be equal. The p-value statistic of 0,035878754

rejects the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative hypothesis that the means of the

groups of users are not equal, pointing to a significant negotiation improvement when each

part knows their opponent’s personality and negotiation style.

Conclusion

The approach and the conceptual model of NegPlace offer a new point-of-view concerning

the use of nonverbal information during the negotiation process supported by NSS.

Through the lens of bargaining theory, the best collective agreement, i.e. the agreement

with the best Social Payoff, is reached when information about one’s personality provides

enough argument to discredit a threat. Suppose that the leader of neighbourhood A

threatens to end the negotiation if neighbourhood B leader does not give up their First Best

(2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 outcome) in exchange to a fairer outcome. The rationality thought states

this situation as a non-credible threat, once to obtain R$250,000 in Road Paving (project 2)

is better than ending the negotiation with nothing. In a real negotiation interaction, that

option might happen when dealing with a headstrong character leader, and the worst

outcome might arise given a lack of personality trait consideration.

The accessibility to the inputs provided MBTI and TKI models in the NegPlace might

avoids this outcome and point to a best social result by a mutual understanding of interest

and desires. The system can address the personality and negotiation information styles to

try to fill the gap of the face-to-face absence that is common in this kind of negotiation

procedure and produce better agreements. Much remains under discussion, nevertheless,
Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016
12
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

NegPlace aim to improve the negotiator satisfaction with a clearer communication trade

process and personality understanding might lead the whole negotiation process into a

different perspective.

References

Bichler, M., Kersten, G., Strecker, S., 2003. “Towards a Structured Design of Electronic
Negotiations,” Gr. Decis. Negot. (12), pp 311–335.
Carbonneau, R., Kersten, G., Vahidov, R., 2008. “Predicting opponent’s moves in
electronic negotiations using neural networks,” Expert Syst. Appl. (34), pp 1266–1273.
Cheng, C.-B., Chan, C.-C.H., Lin, K.-C., 2006. “Intelligent agents for e-marketplace:
Negotiation with issue trade-offs by fuzzy inference systems,” Decis. Support Syst.
(42), pp 626–638.
Chiu, D.K.W., Cheung, S.C., Hung, P.C.K., Chiu, S.Y.Y., Chung, A.K.K., 2005.
“Developing e-Negotiation support with a meta-modeling approach in a Web services
environment,” Decis. Support Syst. (40), pp 51–69.
Delaney, M.M., Foroughi, A., Perkins, W.C., 1997. “An empirical study of the efficacy of a
computerized negotiation support system (NSS),” Decis. Support Syst. (20), pp 185–
197.
DeRosa, D.M., Hantula, D. a., Kock, N., D’Arcy, J., 2004. “Trust and leadership in virtual
teamwork: A media naturalness perspective,” Hum. Resour. Manage. (43), pp 219–
232.
Gettinger, J., Koeszegi, S.T., Schoop, M., 2012. “Shall we dance? - The effect of
information presentations on negotiation processes and outcomes,” Decis. Support
Syst. (53), pp 161–174.
Gilkey, R.W., Greenhalgh, L., 1986. “The role of personality in successful negotiating,”
Negot. J. (2), pp 245–256.
Kersten, G.E., 2004. “E-negotiation systems : Interaction of people and technologies to
resolve conflicts,” InterNeg Res. Pap., pp 5–6.
Kersten, G.E., Cray, D., 1996. “Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation:
Towards cognitive support systems,” Gr. Decis. Negot. (5), pp 433–467.
Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J., 1999. “WWW-based negotiation support: design,
implementation, and use,” Decis. Support Syst. (25), pp 135–154.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

13
 NSS to Support Optimal Social Agreements

Lee, K.C., Kang, I., Kim, J.S., 2007. “Exploring the user interface of negotiation support
systems from the user acceptance perspective,” Comput. Human Behav. (23), pp 220–
239.
Leontief, Wassily (1946), “The Pure Theory of the Guaranteed Annual Wage Contract,”
Journal of Political Economy, (54:1), pp 76-79.
Lim, J.L.H., 1999. “Multi-stage negotiation support: A conceptual framework,” Inf. Softw.
Technol. (41), pp 249–255.
Merlo, A., and C. Wilson, 1995, “A stochastic model of sequential bargaining with
complete information,” Econometrica (63), pp 371—399.
Rubinstein, A., 1982, “Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model,” Econometrica (50), pp
97—109
Schoop, M., 2004. “The Worlds of Negotiation,” Proceedings of the 9th Int. Work. Conf.
Lang. Perspect. Commun. Model., pp 179–196.
Schoop, M., van Amelsvoort, M., Gettinger, J., Koerner, M., Koeszegi, S.T., van der Wijst,
P., 2014. “The Interplay of Communication and Decisions in Electronic Negotiations:
Communicative Decisions or Decisive Communication?,” Gr. Decis. Negot. (23), pp
167–192.
Sutton, J., 1986. “Non-cooperative bargaining theory: an introduction,” Review of
Economic Studies (53), pp 709—724.
Vetschera, R., 2007. “Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic
negotiations,” Decis. Support Syst. (44), pp 135–146.
von Stackelberg, H. 1934. Marktform und Gleichgewicht, Vienna: Springer.
Wang, G., Wong, T.N., Yu, C., 2013. “A computational model for multi-agent E-commerce
negotiations with adaptive negotiation behaviors,” J. Comput. Sci. (4), pp 135–143.
Weigand, H., De Moor, A., Schoop, M., Dignum, F., 2003. “B2B Negotiation Support: The
Need for a Communication Perspective,” Gr. Decis. Negot. (12), pp 3–29.
Yiu, T.W., Lee, H.K., 2011. “How Do Personality Traits Affect Construction Dispute
Negotiation? Study of Big Five Personality Model,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag. (137), pp
169–178.

Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, Dublin, Ireland 2016

14