IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i23p6832-d293047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation

Author

Listed:
  • Jinsoo Park

    (Department of Management Information System, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman

    (Faculty of Industrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, Kampung Melayu Gambang, Gambang 26300, Pahang, Malaysia)

  • Jihae Suh

    (Big Data Institute, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Hazami Hussin

    (Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Melaka, Kampus Jasin, Merlimau, Melaka 77300, Malaysia)

Abstract

E-commerce is increasingly competitive and there is a constant need for new approaches and technology to facilitate exchange. Emerging techniques include the use of artificial intelligence (AI). One AI tool that has sparked interest in e-commerce is the automated negotiation agent (negotiation-agent). This study examines such agents, and proposes an offer strategy model of integrative negotiation for a negotiation-agent with a focus on negotiation agent-to-human interaction. More specifically, a new offer strategy was developed based on the integrative bargaining model, which emphasizes the importance of exchanging information among negotiators and multi-issue negotiation that includes package offers to achieve an integrative (win-win) outcome. This study incorporated an argumentation-based negotiation and the negotiation tactic of multiple equivalent simultaneous offers, which was programmed into the negotiation-agent. An experiment was conducted performing 49 negotiation-agent-to-human negotiations over three issues in online purchase tasks to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Experimental results indicated that the proposed offer strategy with agent negotiation can enhance the persuasiveness of an offer and the performance of negotiation outcome (human counterpart’s perception toward negotiation process, opponent–agent and desire for future negotiation). The findings confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed design and demonstrated an innovative approach to e-commerce transactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6832-:d:293047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6832/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6832/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonardelli, Geoffrey J. & Gu, Jun & McRuer, Geordie & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Galinsky, Adam D., 2019. "Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-83.
    2. Stephanie Watts Sussman & Wendy Schneier Siegal, 2003. "Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 47-65, March.
    3. Gefen, David & Straub, Detmar W., 2004. "Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 407-424, December.
    4. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    5. David A. Kenny & Burcu Kaniskan & D. Betsy McCoach, 2015. "The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 486-507, August.
    6. Wolfgang Ketter & John Collins & Maria Gini & Alok Gupta & Paul Schrater, 2012. "Real-Time Tactical and Strategic Sales Management for Intelligent Agents Guided by Economic Regimes," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1263-1283, December.
    7. Oliver, Richard L. & Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar) & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Outcome Satisfaction in Negotiation: A Test of Expectancy Disconfirmation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 252-275, November.
    8. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    9. Alessio R. Lomuscio & Michael Wooldridge & Nicholas R. Jennings, 2003. "A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 31-56, January.
    10. Corfman, Kim P & Lehmann, Donald R, 1993. "The Importance of Others' Welfare in Evaluating Bargaining Outcomes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(1), pages 124-137, June.
    11. Tripp, Thomas M. & Sondak, Harris, 1992. "An evaluation of dependent variables in experimental negotiation studies: Impasse rates and pareto efficiency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 273-295, March.
    12. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2012. "Negotiating when outnumbered: Agenda strategies for bargaining with buying teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 280-291.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beatriz Andres & Vicente Javier Blanes, 2020. "A Negotiation Approach to Support the Strategies Alignment Process in Collaborative Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Patricia Elgoibar & Elio Shijaku, 2022. "Bringing the Social Back into Sustainability: Why Integrative Negotiation Matters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Katrin Zulauf & Ralf Wagner, 2021. "Negotiation Power and the Impact of Gender Differences," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Adina Cretan & Cristina Nica & Carlos Coutinho & Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves & Ben Bratu, 2021. "An Intelligent System to Ensure Interoperability for the Dairy Farm Business Model," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-24, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melvin F. Shakun, 2005. "Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 383-392, September.
    2. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    3. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    4. Ingmar Geiger, 2014. "Media Effects on the Formation of Negotiator Satisfaction: The Example of Face-to-Face and Text Based Electronically Mediated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 735-763, July.
    5. Alisa Frik & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Factors Influencing the Perceived Websites' Privacy Trustworthiness and Users' Purchase Intentions," CEEL Working Papers 1609, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    6. Bo Yu & Rustam Vahidov, 2019. "Applying Social Interaction Theory to Negotiation Modeling: Design of E-negotiation System," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 703-718, June.
    7. Seyed Morsal Ghavami & Mohammad Taleai, 2017. "Towards a conceptual multi-agent-based framework to simulate the spatial group decision-making process," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 109-132, April.
    8. Dinkevych, Elena & Wilken, Robert & Aykac, Tayfun & Jacob, Frank & Prime, Nathalie, 2017. "Can outnumbered negotiators succeed? The case of intercultural business negotiations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 592-603.
    9. Shazib E. Shaikh & Nikolay Mehandjiev, 2007. "E-Business Process Negotiation : Formal Requirements for Strategy Support," Microeconomics Working Papers 22278, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    10. Khalid Mansour & Ryszard Kowalczyk, 2015. "An Approach to One-to-Many Concurrent Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 45-66, January.
    11. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    12. Backhaus, & Pesch,, 2018. "Verhandlungen – Spiegeln die Lehrbücher den Stand der Forschung wider?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 72(1), pages 3-26.
    13. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    14. Mareike Schoop & Marije Amelsvoort & Johannes Gettinger & Michael Koerner & Sabine T. Koeszegi & Per Wijst, 2014. "The Interplay of Communication and Decisions in Electronic Negotiations: Communicative Decisions or Decisive Communication?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 167-192, March.
    15. Brooke Abrahams & Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow, 2012. "Incorporating Fairness into Development of an Integrated Multi-agent Online Dispute Resolution Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 3-28, January.
    16. Buckley, Peter J. & Cross, Adam & De Mattos, Claudio, 2015. "The principle of congruity in the analysis of international business cooperation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1048-1060.
    17. Bo Yang & Chao Liu & Xusen Cheng & Xi Ma, 2022. "Understanding Users' Group Behavioral Decisions About Sharing Articles in Social Media: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 819-842, August.
    18. Un-Kon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of Confirmation of Nation Brand Image in International Tourism Advertisement on Travel Intention of Foreign Tourists: The Case of Korean ITA for Chinese Tourists," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    19. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    20. G. Rejikumar & Aswathy Asokan-Ajitha & Sofi Dinesh & Ajay Jose, 2022. "The role of cognitive complexity and risk aversion in online herd behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 585-621, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6832-:d:293047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.