An Adaptive Agent for Negotiating with People in Different Cultures

The rapid dissemination of technology such as the Internet across geographical and ethnic lines is opening up opportunities for computer agents to negotiate with people of diverse cultural and organizational affiliations. To negotiate proficiently with people in different cultures, agents need to be able to adapt to the way behavioral traits of other participants change over time. This article describes a new agent for repeated bilateral negotiation that was designed to model and adapt its behavior to the individual traits exhibited by its negotiation partner. The agent’s decision-making model combined a social utility function that represented the behavioral traits of the other participant, as well as a rule-based mechanism that used the utility function to make decisions in the negotiation process. The agent was deployed in a strategic setting in which both participants needed to complete their individual tasks by reaching agreements and exchanging resources, the number of negotiation rounds was not fixed in advance and agreements were not binding. The agent negotiated with human subjects in the United States and Lebanon in situations that varied the dependency relationships between participants at the onset of negotiation. There was no prior data available about the way people would respond to different negotiation strategies in these two countries. Results showed that the agent was able to adopt a different negotiation strategy to each country. Its average performance across both countries was equal to that of people. However, the agent outperformed people in the United States, because it learned to make offers that were likely to be accepted by people, while being more beneficial to the agent than to people. In contrast, the agent was outperformed by people in Lebanon, because it adopted a high reliability measure which allowed people to take advantage of it. These results provide insight for human-computer agent designers in the types of multicultural settings that we considered, showing that adaptation is a viable approach towards the design of computer agents to negotiate with people when there is no prior data of their behavior.

[1]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Avi Pfeffer,et al.  Simultaneously modeling humans' preferences and their beliefs about others' preferences , 2008, AAMAS.

[3]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Mobile opportunistic commerce: mechanisms, architecture, and application , 2008, AAMAS.

[4]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: initial investigations with a new game , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[5]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  DESIGNING AND BUILDING A NEGOTIATING AUTOMATED AGENT , 1995, Comput. Intell..

[6]  M. Rabin,et al.  UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PREFERENCES WITH SIMPLE TESTS , 2001 .

[7]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior , 1995 .

[8]  Wendi L. Adair,et al.  Culture and Negotiation Processes. , 2004 .

[9]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling , 2009, AAMAS.

[11]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[12]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Investigating the benefits of automated negotiations in enhancing people's negotiation skills , 2009, AAMAS.

[13]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Adapting to agents' personalities in negotiation , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[14]  J. Henrich Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the machiguenga , 2000 .

[15]  G. Hofstede Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[16]  M. Gelfand,et al.  Individualism-collectivism and accountability in intergroup negotiations. , 1999 .

[17]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Using Focal Point Learning to Improve Tactic Coordination in Human-Machine Interactions , 2007, IJCAI.

[18]  Yoshihisa Kashima,et al.  Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups? , 2005 .

[19]  F. A. Hayek The American Economic Review , 2007 .

[20]  S. Zamir,et al.  Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study , 1991 .

[21]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  Agent-Human Interactions in the Continuous Double Auction , 2001, IJCAI.

[22]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Using multiagent teams to improve the training of incident commanders , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[23]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  The Influence of Task Contexts on the Decision-Making of Humans and Computers , 2007, CONTEXT.

[24]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Efficient agents for cliff-edge environments with a large set of decision options , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[25]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory , 1990 .

[26]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Modeling Reciprocal Behavior in Human Bilateral Negotiation , 2007, AAAI.

[27]  Jana L. Raver,et al.  Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Jeanne M. Brett,et al.  The handbook of negotiation and culture , 2004 .

[29]  KrausSarit,et al.  An Adaptive Agent for Negotiating with People in Different Cultures , 2011 .

[30]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  Betrayal Aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States , 2008 .

[31]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[32]  M. Gelfand,et al.  The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes , 2010 .

[33]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Agent decision-making in open mixed networks , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[34]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? , 2010, CACM.

[35]  Claudio Bartolini,et al.  AutONA: a system for automated multiple 1-1 negotiation , 2003, EC '03.

[36]  M. Gelfand,et al.  Culture and Negotiator Cognition: Judgment Accuracy and Negotiation Processes in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures. , 1999, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[37]  Fiona Greig,et al.  Betrayal Aversion , 2007 .

[38]  Niro Sivanathan,et al.  Getting Off on the Wrong Foot: The Timing of a Breach and the Restoration of Trust , 2008 .