Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation. Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Application (GDN 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 274))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J.: WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis. Support Syst. 25(2), 135–154 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schoop, M., Jertila, A., List, T.: Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl. Eng. 47(3), 371–401 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Raiffa, H.: Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. Ann. Math. Stud. 28, 361–387 (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nash, J.F.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frederick, S.: Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R.P.: Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds.) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 4, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Wachowicz, T.: Decision support in software supported negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. 11(4), 576–597 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P.: Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR. J. 38(3), 208–220 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Churchman, C.W., Ackoff, R.L.: An approximate measure of value. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Am. 2(2), 172–187 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edwards, W., Barron, F.H.: SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 60(3), 306–325 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thiessen, E.M., Soberg, A.: SmartSettle described with the Montreal taxonomy. Group Decis. Negot. 12(2), 165–170 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: SAW-based rankings vs. intrinsic evaluations of the negotiation offers – an experimental study. In: Zaraté, P., Kersten, G.E., Hernández, J.E. (eds.) GDN 2014. LNBIP, vol. 180, pp. 176–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4_20

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vetschera, R.: Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis. Support Syst. 44(1), 135–146 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Defining preferences and reference points – a multiple criteria decision making experiment. In: Zaraté, P., Kersten, G.E., Hernández, J.E. (eds.) GDN 2014. LNBIP, vol. 180, pp. 136–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4_15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kersten, G.E., Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Do the negotiators’ profiles influence an accuracy in defining the negotiation offer scoring systems. In: The 15th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation Letters, pp. 129–138. Warsaw School of Economics Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Inaccuracy in defining preferences by the electronic negotiation system users. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, G.E., Szapiro, T. (eds.) GDN 2015. LNBIP, vol. 218, pp. 131–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H.: Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (1985)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Rasch, G.: An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 19(1), 49–57 (1966)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Embretsson, S., Reise, S.: Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alexandrowicz, R.W.: “GANZ RASCH” a free software for categorical data analysis. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 30(3), 369–379 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the grant from Polish National Science Centre (2015/17/B/HS4/00941).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economy and Management, University of Bialystok, Warszawska 63, 15-062, Bialystok, Poland

    Ewa Roszkowska

  2. Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40-287, Katowice, Poland

    Tomasz Wachowicz

Authors
  1. Ewa Roszkowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomasz Wachowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Roszkowska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, USA

    Deepinder Bajwa

  2. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Sabine T. Koeszegi

  3. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Rudolf Vetschera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T. (2017). The Application of Item Response Theory for Analyzing the Negotiators’ Accuracy in Defining Their Preferences. In: Bajwa, D., Koeszegi, S., Vetschera, R. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation. Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Application. GDN 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 274. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52624-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation