The impact of negotiators’ motivation on the use of decision support tools in preparation for negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thorough preparation for a negotiation is considered critical for the achievement of successful relational and substantive results. Careful specification of preferences and determining the negotiation offer scoring systems is one of the most important preparation activities. To facilitate this process, preference elicitation aids have been designed and implemented in decision and negotiation support systems (NSSs). This paper shows that negotiators’ motivation affects the use of simple elicitation aid and elicited preferences. We identify three types of motivations: epistemic, social, identity, and assign the factors that describe them. Then, using the dataset from electronic negotiation experiments, we apply logistic regression to identify those motivations that allow distinguishing negotiators who make errors in the determination of the scoring systems from those who do not make them. The key result allows us to identify relational‐ and learning‐oriented goals of the identity motivation as having a significant and direct impact on the negotiators’ classification. Accommodating and competing approaches of social motivation impact agents' accuracy with the differences observed for gender. Surprisingly, epistemic motivation represented by rationality and experientiality factors does not affect users’ accuracy in the prenegotiation phase. The results obtained can be used to design decision support tools adjusted to the motivational profiles of the NSS users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".