How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes

Operational Research - Tập 19 - Trang 993-1032 - 2019
Tomasz Wachowicz1, Gregory E. Kersten2, Ewa Roszkowska3
1Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland
2Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
3Faculty of Economy and Management, University of Bialystok, Białystok, Poland

Tóm tắt

In this paper we analyze how the way in which the principal’s preferences are visualized may affect the accuracy of representation of this principal by their agent. We study the processes of multi-issue electronic representative negotiations conducted by agents on behalf of their principals by means of the negotiation support system that implements a simple decision support tool for eliciting the preferences and building a system of cardinal ratings for feasible negotiation offers. First, we investigate the accuracy of agents’ scoring systems and compare their concordance to the preferential information provided to them by their principals by means of single verbal description and two different visualization techniques, one using bar graphs and the second—circles (pies). The concordance is measured by means of the notions of ordinal and cardinal accuracy. Then we analyze how the scoring systems with various inaccuracy indexes influence the agents’ perception of negotiation process, i.e. the interpretation of concessions made by parties and the structures of concession paths. We also study what is an impact of inaccurate scoring systems on the negotiation outcomes, i.e. the final contracts, their ratings and efficiency. The results obtained show that the bars are slightly better in more precise representation of principals preferences. They allow agent to determine a little more accurate scoring systems, which help to understand the negotiation process better by minimizing the cardinal error of evaluation of the offers in concession paths. Yet, no significant impact on the outcomes have been found. An interesting prescriptive conclusion that can be drawn is that to assure an adequate representation of principal’s preferences the agents should be offered the bar-based visualization. Also, a checkup mechanism should be introduced to the preference elicitation procedure that assure the agents to be ordinally concordant with the priorities of their principal’s preferences.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bosse DA, Phillips RA (2016) Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Acad Manag Rev 41:276–297 Bottom WP, Holloway J, Miller GJ, Mislin A, Whitford A (2006) Building a pathway to cooperation: negotiation and social exchange between principal and agent. Adm Sci Q 51:29–58 Bous G, Fortemps P, Glineur F, Pirlot M (2010) ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements. Eur J Oper Res 206:435–444 Brams SJ (2003) Negotiation games: applying game theory to bargaining and arbitration, vol 2. Psychology Press, London Brinton WC (1917) Graphic methods for presenting facts. Engineering Magazine Company Choo EU, Schoner B, Wedley WC (1999) Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making. Comput Ind Eng 37:527–541 Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2007) Bounded awareness: What you fail to see can hurt you. Mind Soc 6:1–18 Clark RC, Lyons C, Hoover L (2004) Graphics for learning: proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. Perform Improv 43:45–47 Croxton FE, Stein H (1932) Graphic comparisons by bars, squares, circles, and cubes. J Am Stat Assoc 27:54–60 DeSanctis G (1984) Computer graphics as decision aids: directions for research. Decis Sci 15:463–487 Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325 Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14:57–74 Engin A, Vetschera R (2017) Information representation in decision making: the impact of cognitive style and depletion effects. Decis Support Syst 103:94–103 Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art. Springer, Boston Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New York Gettinger J, Koeszegi ST, Schoop M (2012) Shall we dance?—The effect of information presentations on negotiation processes and outcomes. Decis Support Syst 53:161–174 Gettinger J, Kiesling E, Stummer C, Vetschera R (2013) A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems. Decis Support Syst 54:976–985 Goodwin P, Wright G (2004) Decision analysis for management judgement, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester Górecka D, Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2014) MARS—a hybrid of ZAPROS and MACBETH for verbal evaluation of the negotiation template. In: Zaraté P, Camilleri G, Kamissoko D, Amblard F (eds) Group decision and negotiation 2014. Proceedings. Toulouse University Press, pp 24–31 Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H (1985) Item response theory: principles and applications, vol 7. Springer, Berlin Handley SJ, Newstead SE, Wright H (2000) Rational and experiential thinking: a study of the REI. Int Perspect Individ Differ 1:97–113 Hendry J (2002) The principal’s other problems: honest incompetence and the specification of objectives. Acad Manag Rev 27:98–113 Hollands JG, Spence I (1992) Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception. Hum Factors 34:313–334 Hu X (2005) Portfolio choices for homeowners. J Urb Econ 58:114–136 Huber J, Ariely D, Fischer G (2002) Expressing preferences in a principal-agent task: a comparison of choice, rating, and matching. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 87:66–90 Jang D, Elfenbein HA, Bottom WP (2017) More than a phase: planning, bargaining, and implementation in theories of negotiation SSRN Kadziński M, Tervonen T (2013) Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements. Eur J Oper Res 228:169–180 Kadziński M, Greco S, Słowiński R (2013) Selection of a representative value function for robust ordinal regression in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 22:429–462 Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, London Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25:135–154 Kersten GE, Chen E, Rios J, Strecker S (2010a) A study on preference impartation and decision support in e-negotiation. In: HICSS, pp 1–10 Kersten GE, Wu S, Wachowicz T (2010b) Why do students negotiate? The impact of objectives on behavior, process & outcomes research paper INR02 10 Kersten GE, Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2016) An impact of negotiation profiles on the accuracy of negotiation offer scoring system—experimental study. Mult Criteria Decis Mak 11:77–103 Kilmann RH, Thomas KW (1977) Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the” MODE” instrument. Educ Psychol Meas 37:309–325 Koeszegi S, Vetschera R, Kersten G (2004) National cultural differences in the use and perception of internet-based NSS: does high or low context matter? Int Negot 9:79–109 Kolodziej R, Hesse FW, Engelmann T (2016) Improving negotiations with bar charts: the advantages of priority awareness. Comput Hum Behav 60:351–360 Korhonen P, Wallenius J (2008) Visualization in the multiple objective decision-making framework. In: Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K, Słowiński R (eds) Multiobjective optimization. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–212 Laffont J-J, Martimort D (2009) The theory of incentives: the principal-agent model. Princeton University Press, Princeton Levy M (2009) Almost stochastic dominance and stocks for the long run. Eur J Oper Res 194:250–257 Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Roy J, Lewicki N (2011) Essentials of negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York Liu S, Cui W, Wu Y, Liu M (2014) A survey on information visualization: recent advances and challenges. Vis Comput 30:1373–1393 Macdonald-Ross M (1977) How numbers are shown AV. Commun Rev 25:359–409 McCrudden MT, Rapp DN (2017) How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educ Psychol Rev 29:623–639 Meihoefer H-J (1973) The visual perception of the circle in thematic maps/experimental results. Cartogr Int J Geogr Inf Geovis 10:63–84 Miettinen K (2014) Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteria decision making problems. OR Spectr 36:3–37 Morge M, Mancarella P (2009) Assumption-based argumentation for the minimal concession strategy. In: International workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems. Springer, pp 114–133 Mustajoki J, Hamalainen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR J 38:208–220 Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162 Nilakant V, Rao H (1994) Agency theory and uncertainty in organizations: an evaluation. Organ Stud 15:649–672 Perrotin R, Heusschen P (2002) Acheter avec profit. Ed. d’organisation Raiffa H (1953) Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. Ann of Math Stud 28:361–387 Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA) Roselli LRP, Frej EA, de Almeida AT (2018) Neuroscience experiment for graphical visualization in the FITradeoff decision support system. In: International conference on group decision and negotiation. Springer, pp 56–69 Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015a) Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. Eur J Oper Res 242:920–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.050 Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015b) Inaccuracy in defining preferences by the electronic negotiation system users. Lect Notes Bus Inf Process 218:131–143 Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2016) The application of item response theory for analyzing the negotiators’ accuracy in defining their preferences. In: Group decision and negotiation 2016, Bellingham, 20–24 June 2016 Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T, Kersten G (2017) Can the holistic preference elicitation be used to determine an accurate negotiation offer scoring system? A comparison of direct rating and UTASTAR techniques. Lect Notes Bus Inf Process 293:202–214 Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York Schoop M, Jertila A, List T (2003) Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl Eng 47:371–401 Shah P, Hoeffner J (2002) Review of graph comprehension research: implications for instruction. Educ Psychol Rev 14:47–69 Simons T, Tripp TM (2003) The negotiation checklist. In: Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Barry B (eds) Negotiation. Reading, excersises and cases, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, pp 50–63 Siskos Y, Grigoroudis E, Matsatsinis NF (2005) UTA methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Berlin, pp 297–334 Spence I, Lewandowsky S (1991) Displaying proportions and percentages. Appl Cognit Psychol 5:61–77 Starkey B, Boyer MA, Wilkenfeld J (2005) Negotiating a complex world: an introduction to international negotiation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham Stein JG (1989) Getting to the table: the triggers, stages, functions, and consequences of prenegotiation. Int J 44:475–504 Swaab RI, Postmes T, Neijens P, Kiers MH, Dumay AC (2002) Multiparty negotiation support: the role of visualization’s influence on the development of shared mental models. J Manag Inf Syst 19:129–150 Thiessen EM, Soberg A (2003) SmartSettle described with the Montreal taxonomy Group. Decis Negot 12:165–170 Thompson L (2015) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Tzeng G-H, Huang J-J (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton Vessey I (1991) Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci 22:219–240 Vetschera R (2007) Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis Support Syst 44:135–146 Wachowicz T (2008) NegoCalc: spreadsheet based negotiation support tool with even-swap analysis. In: Climaco J, Kersten GE, Costa JP (eds) Group decision and negotiation 2008: proceedings—full papers. INESC Coimbra, pp 323–329 Wachowicz T (2010) Decision support in software supported negotiations. J Bus Econ Manag 11:576–597 Wachowicz T, Wu S (2010) Negotiators’ strategies and their concessions. In: de Vreede GJ (ed) Proceedings of the conference on group decision and negotiation 2010. The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, pp 254–259 Weber M, Kersten G, Hine M (2006) Visualization in e‐negotiations: an inspire ENS graph is worth 334 words, on average electronic markets 16:186–200 Young HP (1991) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor