research-article

Open access

Towards Understanding the Effect of Voice on Human-Agent Negotiation

Authors:

Joost Broekens,

Catharine OertelAuthors Info & Claims

IVA '20: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

Article No.: 38, Pages 1 - 8

https://doi.org/10.1145/3383652.3423896

Published: 19 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Virtual agents are increasingly being used for communication training such as public speaking-, job interviews-, as well as negotiation training. In these use-cases the agent is generally taking on the role of interviewer and its behaviour is altered according to the nonverbal cues of its human interlocutor. However, understanding how the agent's non-verbal cues influence human behaviour, perception or interactions outcomes is equally important. This contributes to appropriate behaviour generation in agents, but also to our understanding of the intricate interplay of non-verbal behaviours on human perception and interaction outcomes.

This study focuses specifically on the perception of vocal dominance in human-agent negotiation. Earlier research showed that the perception of dominance influences decision making in the course of negotiations, as do concessions tactics. However, the effect of voice as well as the effect of the negotiator type in this regard have been so far under-explored. To close this gap, an online experiment was conducted, in which a total number of 121 participants negotiated with conversational agents displaying either low or high vocal dominance, and an individualistic or neutral concession tactic. The results showed that when taking into account the self-reported type of negotiator, significant differences caused by vocal dominance were evident in regard to the number of negotiation rounds and perceived fairness. The number of rounds was significantly higher for the competitive participant type negotiating with the low vocal dominance agent, and the perceived fairness was significantly lower with the collaborative participant type negotiating with the high vocal dominance agent.

References

[1]

C. Albin. 1992. Fairness Issues in Negotiation: Structure, Process, Procedures and Outcome. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/3612/

[2]

Tim Baarslag, Katsuhide Fujita, Enrico H Gerding, Koen Hindriks, Takayuki Ito, Nicholas R Jennings, Catholijn Jonker, Sarit Kraus, Raz Lin, Valentin Robu, et al. 2013. Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence 198 (2013), 73--103.

Digital Library

[3]

Samuel B Bacharach and Edward J Lawler. 1981. Bargaining: Power, Tactics and Outcomes. ERIC.

[4]

Samuel B Bacharach and Edward J Lawler. 1981. Power and tactics in bargaining. ILR Review 34, 2(1981), 219--233.

[5]

Rainer Banse and Klaus R Scherer. 1996. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of personality and social psychology 70, 3 (1996), 614.

[6]

Nikolaus Bee, Stefan Franke, and Elisabeth Andrée. 2009. Relations between facial display, eye gaze and head tilt: Dominance perception variations of virtual agents. In 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops. IEEE, 1--7.

[7]

Liuba Y Belkin, Terri R Kurtzberg, and Charles E Naquin. 2013. Signaling dominance in online negotiations: The role of affective tone. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 6, 4 (2013), 285--304.

[8]

Barbara Borkowska and Boguslaw Pawlowski. 2011. Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour 82, 1 (2011), 55--59.

[9]

Joost Broekens, Maaike Harbers, Willem-Paul Brinkman, Catholijn M Jonker, Karel Van den Bosch, and John-Jules Meyer. 2012. Virtual reality negotiation training increases negotiation knowledge and skill. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 218--230.

Digital Library

[10]

Richard N Cardozo. 1965. An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of marketing research 2, 3 (1965), 244--249.

[11]

Marcela Charfuelan, Marc Schröder, and Ingmar Steiner. 2010. Prosody and voice quality of vocal social signals: the case of dominance in scenario meetings. In Eleventh annual conference of the international speech communication association.

[12]

Eva Chen and Gregory Kersten. 2010. Collaborators and competitors negotiating in profit and costs frames. InterNeg Res Pap 5 (2010), 10.

[13]

Celso M de Melo, Peter Carnevale, and Jonathan Gratch. 2011. The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans. In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multia-gent Systems-Volume 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 937--944.

[14]

Celso M de Melo, Peter Carnevale, and Jonathan Gratch. 2012. The effect of virtual agents' emotion displays and appraisals on people's decision making in negotiation. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 53--66.

Digital Library

[15]

David DeVault, Johnathan Mell, and Jonathan Gratch. 2015. Toward natural turn-taking in a virtual human negotiation agent. In 2015 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.

[16]

Norah E Dunbar and Judee K Burgoon. 2005. Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22, 2 (2005), 207--233.

[17]

Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nick R.Jennings. 1998. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24, 3 (1998), 159--182. Multi-Agent Rationality.

[18]

Alvin W Gouldner. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review (1960), 161--178.

[19]

Jonathan Gratch, David DeVault, and Gale Lucas. 2016. The benefits of virtual humans for teaching negotiation. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 283--294.

[20]

Jonathan Gratch, David DeVault, Gale M Lucas, and Stacy Marsella. 2015. Negotiation as a challenge problem for virtual humans. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 201--215.

[21]

Judith A. Hall, Erik J. Coats, Bala Cynwyd Pa, and Lavonia Smith Lebeau. 2005. Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin (2005), 898--924.

[22]

James E Heyman, Yesim Orhun, and Dan Ariely. 2004. Auction fever: The effect of opponents and qua si-endowment on product valuations. Journal of interactive Marketing 18, 4 (2004), 7--21.

[23]

Koen Hindriks, Catholijn Jonker, and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2009. Using opponent models for efficient negotiation. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2. 1243--1244.

[24]

Leonard M Horowitz, Kelly R Wilson, Bulent Turan, Pavel Zolotsev, Michael J Constantino, and Lynne Henderson. 2006. How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, 1 (2006), 67--86.

[25]

Martha Jeong, Julia Minson, Michael Yeomans, and Francesca Gino. 2019. Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive. Management Science 65, 12 (2019), 5813--5837.

Digital Library

[26]

Casey A Klofstad, Rindy C Anderson, and Susan Peters. 2012. Sounds like a winner: voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279, 1738 (2012), 2698--2704.

[27]

Seungwoo Kwon and Laurie R Weingart. 2004. Unilateral concessions from the other party: concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 2 (2004), 263.

[28]

Sarah Maxwell, Pete Nye, and Nicholas Maxwell. 1999. Less pain, same gain: The effects of priming fairness in price negotiations. Psychology & marketing 16, 7 (1999), 545--562.

[29]

Catharine Oertel, Kenneth A Funes Mora, Joakim Gustafson, and Jean-Marc Odobez. 2015. Deciphering the silent participant: On the use of audio-visual cues for the classification of listener categories in group discussions. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 107--114.

Digital Library

[30]

Catharine Oertel and Giampiero Salvi. 2013. A gaze-based method for relating group involvement to individual engagement in multimodal multiparty dialogue. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction. 99--106.

Digital Library

[31]

Yinon Oshrat, Raz Lin, and Sarit Kraus. 2009. Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. 377--384.

Digital Library

[32]

Richard A Page and Joseph L Balloun. 1978. The effect of voice volume on the perception of personality. The journal of social psychology 105, 1 (1978), 65--72.

[33]

Pooja Prajod, Mohammed Al Owayyed, Tim Rietveld, Jaap-Jan van der Steeg, and Joost Broekens. 2019. The Effect of Virtual Agent Warmth on Human-Agent Negotiation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 71--76.

[34]

David Andrew Puts, Carolyn R Hodges, Rodrigo A Cárdenas, and Steven JC Gaulin. 2007. Men's voices as dominance signals: vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior 28, 5 (2007), 340--344.

[35]

Astrid M Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Carolin Straßmann, Ramin Yaghoubzadeh, Stefan Kopp, and Nicole C Krämer. 2019. Dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior of virtual agents and its effects on evaluation and negotiation outcome in different age groups. Computers in Human Behavior 90 (2019), 397--409.

[36]

Peter Lucas Stöckli and Carmen Tanner. 2014. Are integrative or distributive outcomes more satisfactory? The effects of interest-based versus value-based issues on negotiator satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology 44, 3 (2014), 202--208.

[37]

Hun-Tong Tan and Ken Trotman. 2007. Effects of auditors' concession timing on financial officers' negotiation judgments. Available at SSRN 960907 (2007).

[38]

Leigh Thompson and George Loewenstein. 1992. Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51, 2 (March 1992), 176--197.

[39]

Kyle James Tusing and James Price Dillard. 2000. The sounds of dominance. Vocal precursors of perceived dominance during interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research 26, 1 (2000), 148--171.

[40]

Rustam Vahidov, Gregory Kersten, and Raafat Saade. 2014. An experimental study of software agent negotiations with humans. Decision Support Systems 66 (2014), 135--145.

Digital Library

[41]

Gerben A Van Kleef, Carsten KW De Dreu, and Antony SR Manstead. 2004. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of personality and social psychology 86, 1 (2004), 57.

[42]

Tzu-Yang Wang, Ikkaku Kawaguchi, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Mai Otsuki. 2018. Effect of Manipulated Amplitude and Frequency of Human Voice on Dominance and Persuasiveness in Audio Conferences. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 177.

Digital Library

[43]

Zhen Wang, John Lim, and Xiaojia Guo. 2010. Negotiator satisfaction in NSS-facilitated negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation 19, 3 (2010), 279--300.

[44]

Laurie R Weingart, Rebecca J Bennett, and Jeanne M Brett. 1993. The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology 78, 3 (1993), 504.

[45]

Nancy A Welsh. 2003. Perceptions of fairness in negotiation. Marq. L. Rev. 87 (2003), 753.

[46]

Scott Wiltermuth, Larissa Z Tiedens, and Margaret Neale. 2015. The benefits of dominance complementarity in negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 8, 3 (2015), 194--209.

[47]

Yang Yinping and Sharad Singhal. 2009. Designing an intelligent agent that negotiates tactfully with human counterparts: a conceptual analysis and modeling framework. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1--10.

Cited By

Karaoǧlu SKatoh MMajumdar TBeaird EMerve Hafızoǧlu FSen S(2024)Effect of Agent Explanations Using Warm and Cold Language on User Adoption of Recommendations for Bandit ProblemsExplainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-70074-3_1(3-20)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70074-3_1
Sato MTerada KGratch J(2023)Preference learning from emotional expressions contributes integrative solutions between human-AI negotiation2023 11th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW)10.1109/ACIIW59127.2023.10388197(1-7)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW59127.2023.10388197
Terada KOkazoe MGratch J(2021)Effect of politeness strategies in dialogue on negotiation outcomesProceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents10.1145/3472306.3478336(195-202)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3472306.3478336

Recommendations

Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation
AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

In this paper, we study how argumentation can be used as a basis for negotiation between autonomous agents, where negotiation strategies of the different parties are represented as argumentation theories within their knowledge. We propose an ...
The Effect of Virtual Agent Warmth on Human-Agent Negotiation
AAMAS '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems

The perception of warmth and competence in others influences social interaction and decision making. Virtual agents have been used in many domains including serious gaming and training. In this work we study the effect of warmth expressed in the ...
Analyzing intra-team strategies for agent-based negotiation teams
AAMAS '11: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 3

An agent-based negotiation team is a group of two or more agents with their own and possibly conflicting preferences who join together as a single negotiating party because they share a common goal which is related to the negotiation. Scenarios ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

IVA '20: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

October 2020

394 pages

ISBN:9781450375863

DOI:10.1145/3383652

Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 October 2020

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

IVA '20

Sponsor:

SIGAI

IVA '20: ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

October 20 - 22, 2020

Scotland, Virtual Event, UK

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 53 of 196 submissions, 27%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
644
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)184
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

Reflects downloads up to 17 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Karaoǧlu SKatoh MMajumdar TBeaird EMerve Hafızoǧlu FSen S(2024)Effect of Agent Explanations Using Warm and Cold Language on User Adoption of Recommendations for Bandit ProblemsExplainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-70074-3_1(3-20)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70074-3_1
Sato MTerada KGratch J(2023)Preference learning from emotional expressions contributes integrative solutions between human-AI negotiation2023 11th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW)10.1109/ACIIW59127.2023.10388197(1-7)Online publication date: 10-Sep-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW59127.2023.10388197
Terada KOkazoe MGratch J(2021)Effect of politeness strategies in dialogue on negotiation outcomesProceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents10.1145/3472306.3478336(195-202)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3472306.3478336

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents