Bridging the Gap: Face-to-Face Negotiations with an Automated Mediator

Abstract

Abstract-Mediation is an important paradigm for dispute resolution. It can lead to "win-win" situations and benefit all parties. Yet, when people negotiate they demonstrate bounded rationality in their actions and diversity in their behaviors. This increases the difficulty to design automated mediators. To be successful, the mediator must take this into account and propose solutions deemed relevant, otherwise it will lose the focus and trust of the negotiators. To tackle these difficulties we present AniMed -an automated animated mediator, incorporated with a novel proposal generation strategy, aimed to increase the social benefit of the negotiating parties. To validate the benefits of using AniMed in negotiations, experiments were conducted with 130 people negotiating with each other. The results demonstrate the significant increase both in the social welfare and the individual utilities of both parties, compared to negotiations in which another state-of-the-art automated mediator or no mediator was involved.

Computerized simulation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, knowledge gap, and news media use

“…Online conflict resolution courses are now offered in a variety of academic institutions (Bhappu, Ebner, Kaufman, & Welsh, 2010;Ebner, 2008;Matz & Ebner, 2010). E-negotiation and e-mediation systems are made available in order to help negotiators satisfy their requirements and to assist them in negotiations (Druckman et al, 2011;Druckman, Druckman, & Arai, 2004;Lin, Gev, & Kraus, 2011). Technology becomes prevalent in the use of decision support systems in negotiation simulations (Wilkenfeld, Young, Queen, & Assal, 2005) and web-based simulation programs like GlobalEd Gehlbach et al, 2008).…”

“…Most of the research on web-based and digital technologies in teaching and learning (Hannafin & Kim, 2003;Lawless & Brown, 2003) focus on innovations in using the World Wide Web in teaching in general rather than focusing on computer games in a conflict resolution context. Few studies (Chalamish & Kraus, 2012;Lin et al, 2011) have systematically analyzed the effects of technology support as opposed to no technology support in negotiation simulations like PeaceMaker. Some argue that face-to-face negotiation has many advantages over e-negotiation; others think the opposite (Galin, Gross, & Gosalkler, 2007).…”

“…In an experimental study comparing an e-mediator with live mediation, Druckman et al (2004) found that the former produced more agreements than the latter, but negotiators still preferred live mediation. Similarly, Lin et al (2011) suggested positive outcomes for the use of an automated animated mediator, compared to situations where there was no mediator help to negotiating parties.…”

NegoChat-A: a chat-based negotiation agent with bounded rationality

“…For example, the GENIE and Pocket Negotiator projects [44,45] focused on how to use an agent as decision support during a person's negotiation session. AutoMed and AniMed* are agents that act as a mediator between bilateral negotiations between people [46,47]. An important open question is if or how NegoChat-A's strategy could be changed for decision support or mediation.…”

Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness of mediator styles in intercultural disputes

“…The mediator in the study was based on AutoMed (Chalamish & Kraus, ), an automated mediator shown to produce better settlement rates, faster settlements, and greater negotiator satisfaction than unmediated negotiations; the AutoMed mediator was then adapted to program the manipulative mediator used in the current study (see details of the agent design in Lin et al, ). The agent mediator in both conditions was programmed to maximize the social welfare of the participants' agreement.…”