↓ Skip to main content

Using Cognitive Agents to Train Negotiation Skills

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Cognitive Agents to Train Negotiation Skills
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher A. Stevens, Jeroen Daamen, Emma Gaudrain, Tom Renkema, Jakob Dirk Top, Fokie Cnossen, Niels A. Taatgen

Abstract

Training negotiation is difficult because it is a complex, dynamic activity that involves multiple parties. It is often not clear how to create situations in which students can practice negotiation or how to measure students' progress. Some have begun to address these issues by creating artificial software agents with which students can train. These agents have the advantage that they can be "reset," and played against multiple times. This allows students to learn from their mistakes and try different strategies. However, these agents are often based on normative theories of how negotiators should conduct themselves, not necessarily how people actually behave in negotiations. Here, we take a step toward addressing this gap by developing an agent grounded in a cognitive architecture, ACT-R. This agent contains a model of theory-of-mind, the ability of humans to reason about the mental states of others. It uses this model to try to infer the strategy of the opponent and respond accordingly. In a series of experiments, we show that this agent replicates some aspects of human performance, is plausible to human negotiators, and can lead to learning gains in a small-scale negotiation task.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 21 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 25 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,002,932
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,862
of 30,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,560
of 330,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#321
of 567 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 567 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.