Katja Bouman
ABSTRACT
This study investigates whether an agent-based Negotiation Training System (NTS) can teach women Strategic Empathy - a recently introduced negotiation strategy based on perspective taking - and whether this can improve their negotiation performance. Developed and tested through an interaction-based real-time experiment was a NTS that integrated instructions on how to utilize Strategic Empathy. Women in the experimental group showed significantly higher levels of perspective-taking compared to the control group, and their understanding and use of Strategic Empathy increased over time. Also, a significant positive effect was found of Strategic Empathy on women's self-efficacy. No significant positive effect was found of Strategic Empathy on persistence. The high cognitive load of the experiment and a lack of intrinsic motivation may have caused this finding. Overall, this work demonstrates the applicability of using NTS to teach Strategic Empathy, and its effectiveness for enhancing women's self-efficacy in salary negotiations.
- Firoj Alam, Morena Danieli, and Giuseppe Riccardi. 2018. Annotating and modeling empathy in spoken conversations. Computer Speech and Language 50 (2018), 40--61. arXiv:1705.04839 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tim Baarslag, Mark J C Hendrikx, Koen V Hindriks, and Catholijn M Jonker. 2016. Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation : a comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Vol. 30. Springer US. 849--898 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hannah Bowles and Francis Flynn. 2010. Gender and persistence in negotiation: A dyadic perspective. Academy of Management Journal 53, 4 (2010), 769--787. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hannah Riley Bowles and Linda Babcock. 2013. How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly 37, 1 (2013), 80--96. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victoria L. Brescoll and Eric Luis Uhlmann. 2008. Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Psychological Science 19, 3 (2008), 268--275. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joost Broekens, Catholijn M. Jonker, and John Jules Ch Meyer. 2014. Affective negotiation support systems. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 2, 2 (2014), 121--144. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark H. A. Davis. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 44, 1 (1983), 113--126. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kristen E. Dicerbo. 2014. Game-based assessment of persistence. Educational Technology and Society 17, 1 (2014), 17--28.Google Scholar
- MA Ding, Ding; Burger, Franziska; Brinkman, WP; Neerincx. 2017. Intelligent Virtual Agents Elektronische Ressource. 17th International Conference, IVA 2017, Stockholm, Sweden, August 27--30, 2017, Proceedings August (2017), 119--128. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andy Field. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage (2013).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adam D. Galinsky, William W. Maddux, Debra Gilin, and Judith B. White. 2008. Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations: Research article. Psychological Science 19, 4 (2008), 378--384. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adam D. Galinsky and Thomas Mussweiler. 2001. First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, 4 (2001), 657--669. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan Gratch. 2021. The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators. Negotiation Journal 37, 1 (2021), 13--34. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew F Hayes. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.Google Scholar
- Keren Holmes, Marcus; Yahri-Milo. 2017. The Psychological Logic of Peace Summits : How Empathy Shapes Outcomes of Diplomatic Negotiations. (2017), 107--122. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joachim Hüffmeier, Stefan Krumm, and Guido Hertel. 2011. The Practitioner-Researcher Divide in Psychological Negotiation Research: Current State and Future Perspective. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 4, 2 (2011), 145--168. Google ScholarCross Ref
- JASP Team. 2021. JASP (Version)[Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/Google Scholar
- Nicholas R Jennings, Peyman Faratin, Alessio R Lomuscio, Simon Parsons, Charles Sierra, and Micheal Wooldridge. 2001. Automated negotiation: prospects, methods, and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 2 (2001), 199--215.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emmanuel Johnson and Jonathan Gratch. 2020. The Impact of Implicit Information Exchange in Human-agent Negotiations. Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, IVA 2020 (2020). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emmanuel Johnson, Jonathan Gratch, and David Devault. 2017. Towards an autonomous agent that provides automated feedback on students' negotiation skills. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 1 (2017), 410--418.Google Scholar
- Emmanuel Johnson, Gale Lucas, Peter Kim, and Jonathan Gratch. 2019. Intelligent tutoring system for negotiation skills Training. Vol. 11626 LNAI. Springer International Publishing. 122--127 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Catholijn M. Jonker, Koen V. Hindriks, Pascal Wiggers, and Joost Broekens. 2012. Negotiating agents. AI Magazine 33, 3 (2012), 79--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia M. Kim, Randall W. Hill, Paula J. Durlach, H. Chad Lane, Eric Forbell, Mark Core, Stacy Marsella, David Pynadath, and John Hart. 2009. BiLAT: A game-based environment for practicing negotiation in a cultural context. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19, 3 (2009), 289--308.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deborah Kolb and Kathleen L. McGinn. 2011. Beyond Gender and Negotiation to Gendered Negotiations. SSRN Electronic Journal (2011). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Kozhevnikov, Carol Evans, and Stephen M Kosslyn. 2014. Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological science in the public interest 15, 1 (2014), 3--33.Google Scholar
- Laura J. Kray and Leigh Thompson. 2004. Gender Stereotypes and Negotiation Performance: an Examination of Theory and Research. Research in Organizational Behavior 26, 04 (2004), 103--182. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhanfei Lei, Dezhi Yin, and Han Zhang. 2021. Focus Within or On Others: The Impact of Reviewers' Attentional Focus on Review Helpfulness. Information Systems Research 32, 3 (2021), 801--819. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marina Litvak, Jahna Otterbacher, Chee Siang Ang, and David Atkins. 2016. Social and linguistic behavior and its correlation to trait empathy. PEOPLES (Workshop on Computational Modeling of People's Opinions, Personality and Emotions in Social Media) (2016), 128--137. http://www.anthology.aclweb.org/W/W16/W16-43.pdf{#}page=142Google Scholar
- Anyi Ma, Yu Yang, and Krishna Savani. 2019. "Take it or leave it!" A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 153, November 2017 (2019), 1--12. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jens Mazei, Marc Mertes, and Joachim Hüffmeier. 2020. Strategies Aimed at Reducing Gender Differences in Negotiation Are Perceived by Women as Ineffective. Sex Roles 83, 9--10 (2020), 580--594. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johnathan Mell and Jonathan Gratch. 2016. IAGO: Interactive arbitration guide online (demonstration). Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS (2016), 1510--1512.Google Scholar
- Robert L. Moore, Cherng Jyh Yen, and F. Eamonn Powers. 2021. Exploring the relationship between clout and cognitive processing in MOOC discussion forums. British Journal of Educational Technology 52, 1 (2021), 482--497. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tom Murray, Lynn Stephens, Beverly Park Woolf, Leah Wing, Xiaoxi Xu, and Natasha Shrikant. 2013. Supporting social deliberative skills online: The effects of reflective scaffolding tools. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8029 LNCS (2013), 313--322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zahra Nazari, Gale Lucas, and Jonathan Gratch. 2015. Multimodal approach for automatic recognition of Machiavellianism. International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) (2015), 1--23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennifer K. Olsen and Catharine Oertel. 2020. Supporting Empathy Training Through Virtual Patients. Vol. 1. Springer International Publishing. 234--239 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia Othlinghaus-Wulhorst and H. Ulrich Hoppe. 2020. A Technical and Conceptual Framework for Serious Role-Playing Games in the Area of Social Skill Training. Frontiers in Computer Science 2, July (2020), 1--20. Google ScholarCross Ref
- James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Stacy M. Roberts. 2016. Gendered Differences in Negotiation: Advancing an Understanding of Sources, Effects, and Awareness. Cardozo J. of Conflict Resolution 81, 71 (2016), 71--84.Google Scholar
- Andrea Kupfer Schneider. 2017. Negotiating While Female. SMU Law Review 70, 3 (2017), 695.Google Scholar
- Dimitris Spiliotopoulos, Eleni Makri, Costas Vassilakis, and Dionisis Margaris. 2020. Multimodal interaction: Correlates of learners' metacognitive skill training negotiation experience. Information (Switzerland) 11, 8 (2020), 1--21. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher A. Stevens, Jeroen Daamen, Emma Gaudrain, Tom Renkema, Jordi Top, Fokie Cnossen, and Niels A. Taatgen. 2018. Using cognitive agents to train negotiation skills. Frontiers in Psychology 9, FEB (2018), 1--17. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yla R. Tausczik and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 1 (2010), 24--54. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roman Trötschel, Joachim Hu, and David D Loschelder. 2017. Perspective Taking as a Means to Overcome Motivational Barriers in Negotiations : When Putting Oneself Into the Opponent's Shoes Helps to Walk Perspective Taking as a Means to Overcome Motivational Barriers in Negotiations : When Putting Oneself Into th. July 2011 (2017). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gerben A. Van Kleef, Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Davide Pietroni, and Antony S.R. Manstead. 2006. Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. European Journal of Social Psychology 36, 4 (2006), 557--581. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lyn M. Van Swol, Paul Hangsan Ahn, Andrew Prahl, and Zhenxing Gong. 2021. Language Use in Group Discourse and Its Relationship to Group Processes. SAGE Open 11, 1 (2021). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chriss Voss, Tim Raz, and Mark Kramer. 2016. Never split the difference: negotiating as if your life depended on it. HarperAudio.Google Scholar
- Erika Weisz and Mina Cikara. 2021. Strategic Regulation of Empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25, 3 (2021), 213--227. Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Male and female robots
A population of male and female robots evolves in an environment in which to remain alive they must eat the food contained in the environment and to reproduce they must mate with a robot of the opposite sex. The only difference between male and female ...
Affective negotiation support systems
Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties aim to reach a joint agreement. As such negotiation involves rational decision making about options and issues. However, negotiation also involves social interaction and dilemmas as well as personal ...
Comments