The Application of Item Response Theory for Analyzing the Negotiators' Accuracy in Defining Their Preferences

In this paper we analyze how some notions of Item Response Theory (IRT) may be used to analyze the process of scoring the negotiation template and building the negotiation offer scoring system. In particular we focus on evaluating and analyzing the accuracy and concordance of such scoring systems with the preferential information provided to negotiators by the represented party. In our research we use the dataset of bilateral electronic negotiations conducted by means of Inspire negotiation support system, which provides users with decision support tools for preference analysis and scoring system building based on SMART/SAW method. IRT allows us to consider how the potential accuracy of individual scoring systems can be explained by both negotiators’ intrinsic abilities to use decision support tool and understand the scoring mechanism, and the difficulty of applying this scoring mechanism.

[1]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications , 1984 .

[2]  H. Raiffa.  21. Arbitration Schemes for Generalized Two-person Games , 1953 .

[3]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  An Approximate Measure of Value , 1954, Oper. Res..

[4]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes , 2010, Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation.

[5]  G. Rasch,et al.  An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. , 1966, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[6]  F. H. Barron,et al.  SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement , 1994 .

[7]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis , 1999 .

[8]  Gregory E. Kersten,et al.  WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[10]  Tomasz Wachowicz,et al.  Inaccuracy in Defining Preferences by the Electronic Negotiation System Users , 2015, GDN.

[11]  Tomasz Wachowicz,et al.  Defining Preferences and Reference Points - A Multiple Criteria Decision Making Experiment , 2014, GDN.

[12]  J. Nash.  THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[13]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making , 2003 .

[14]  Rainer W. Alexandrowicz,et al.  “GANZ RASCH” , 2012 .

[15]  Tomasz Wachowicz,et al.  SAW-Based Rankings vs. Intrinsic Evaluations of the Negotiation Offers - An Experimental Study , 2014, GDN.

[16]  Mareike Schoop,et al.  Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce , 2003, Data Knowl. Eng..

[17]  Rudolf Vetschera,et al.  Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[18]  Ernest M. Thiessen,et al.  SmartSettle Described with the Montreal Taxonomy , 2003 .

[19]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Item Response Theory , 1984, The History of Educational Measurement.

[20]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[21]  S. Embretson,et al.  Item response theory for psychologists , 2000 .

[22]  Tomasz Wachowicz,et al.  DECISION SUPPORT IN SOFTWARE SUPPORTED NEGOTIATIONS , 2010 .