Johannes Gettinger

A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems

Discrete multi-criteria decision problems with numerous Pareto-efficient solution candidates place a significant cognitive burden on the decision maker. An interactive, aspiration-based search process that iteratively progresses toward the most preferred solution can alleviate this task. In this paper, we study three ways of representing such problems in a DSS, and compare them in a laboratory experiment using subjective and objective measures of the decision process as well as solution quality and problem understanding. In addition to an immediate user evaluation, we performed a re-evaluation several weeks later. Furthermore, we consider several levels of problem complexity and user characteristics. Results indicate that different problem representations have a considerable influence on search behavior, although long-term consistency appears to remain unaffected. We also found interesting discrepancies between subjective evaluations and objective measures. Conclusions from our experiments can help designers of DSS for large multi-criteria decision problems to fit problem representations to the goals of their system and the specific task at hand.

Impact of and Interaction between Behavioral and Economic Decision Support in Electronic Negotiations

In this study we compare the effects of two distinct approaches in negotiation support: negotiation analysis providing economic decision support, and mediation analysis offering behavioral decision support. Those negotiators with economic or behavioral decision support at their disposal were expected to reach better results. Furthermore, behavioral decision support would not only lead to more integrative behavior, but also to more satisfaction about process variables. The hypotheses were tested in a laboratory experiment with 224 undergraduate students from four European universities. Contrary to our expectations, economic decision support did not yield better results, but instead increased informal communication, whereas behavioral decision support led to fewer, but larger concessions. Satisfaction of subjects with the negotiation process and outcomes reflects the strength of the support approaches. The implications of these results and the impact of both types of decision support are discussed.

An Experimental Comparison of Two Interactive Visualization Methods for Multicriteria Portfolio Selection

We compare two visualization methods for interactive portfolio selection: heatmaps and parallel coordinates. To this end, we conducted an experiment to analyze differences in terms of subjective user evaluations and in terms of objective measures referring to effort, convergence, and the structure of the search process. Results indicate that subjects who used the parallel coordinates visualization found the method easier to use, perceived the selection process as being less effortful, and experienced less decisional conflict than subjects who used the heatmap visualization. Concerning objective measures, we did not find significant differences in the time taken to complete the selection task. However, we found that subjects who used parallel coordinates engaged in a more exploratory approach when investigating the space of efficient portfolios. Finally, the experiments clearly showed that decision-making styles play an important role in users’ attitude toward the visualization method. Our findings suggest that the choice of visualization method has a considerable impact on both the users’ subjective experiences when using a decision support system for portfolio selection, and on their objective performance.

Emotions in e-Negotiations

Emotions influence the course of a negotiation in at least two ways: First, emotions and cognition are strongly interrelated, thereby affecting negotiators’ decision making (intra-personal). Second, negotiators’ conveyed emotions fulfill important social functions during the negotiation interaction (inter-personal). In this chapter, we argue that negotiating electronically and employing a decision support system affect both the social functions of emotions in negotiations and the interplay between emotion and cognition—sometimes beneficially and sometimes detrimentally. We propose a model integrating theories and empirical results of intra- and inter-personal effects of emotions in negotiations with literature on electronic communication and decision support. The chapter concludes by exemplifying the interrelation between cognitive and social effects of emotions in negotiations, describes how this relationship is mediated by negotiating electronically, and discusses potential avenues for future research.

More Than Words: The Effect of Emoticons in Electronic Negotiations

While affect plays a similar fundamental role in both, electronic and face-to-face negotiations, the expression of emotions in computer-mediated communication differs considerably from face-to-face settings. The aim of this experimental study is to analyze how the systematic use of emoticons – facilitated with software – affects negotiation behavior in alternative computer-mediated negotiation settings. With a 2 × 2 design comparing system-induced emoticon use with a text-only condition in synchronous chat or asynchronous e-mail mode we isolate effects of emoticons in these different communication settings. Results show that emoticons are used in different functions, i.e. mainly to supplement and support text messages and less often to mitigate its content. Furthermore, emoticon support increases the communication of positive affect in asynchronous negotiations while it decreases communication of negative affect and distributive negotiation behavior in synchronous negotiations. These findings propose that advancing communication quality via contextualization of affective information in negotiation support systems is promising.

Integration of Behavioral and Analytic Decision Support in Electronic Negotiations

This paper presents the e-Nego-motion research project which attempts to enhance understanding of effects of and interaction between behavioral and analytic decision support in e-negotiations. Systems providing both kinds of decision support were used in a laboratory experiment. Analyses show that behavioral decision support is requested most often for issues where experienced conflict is high. When consulted early in the negotiation phase, the diagnosis, analysis and advice functions of behavioral support increase the efficiency of agreements. This effect is even stronger if analytic decision support is available to subjects. Additionally, communication patterns influence the quality of negotiations independent of decision support. The more formal offers and counteroffers are exchanged, the higher is the efficiency of outcomes measured by joint utility. Overall, there are no significant differences in the number and quality of agreements between support approaches. Nevertheless, the satisfaction of subjects with process and outcomes reflects the strengths of the support approaches: Subjects with behavioral support are most satisfied with outcomes while subjects with decision support are most satisfied with the negotiation process.

Aus Forschung und Praxis: Aktuelle Studie zur Akzeptanz von Online-Mediation

Für die Auswahl des geeigneten Verfahrens ist es erforderlich, die Verfahren und Unterscheidungskriterien so gut zu kennen, dass man unter Abwägung aller Vorund Nachteile eine informierte Verfahrensauswahl treffen kann. Alternativ kann man sich Auswahlinstrumenten bedienen, die diese Verfahren und die Unterscheidungskriterien bereits beinhalten und anhand von Fragen die Verfahrensinteressen des Nutzers ermitteln, um dann eine Empfehlung auszusprechen. Gleiches gilt für die Inanspruchnahme Dritter als Berater bei der Verfahrenswahl. Nutzer, die lieber Entscheidungen treffen, als Empfehlungen zu folgen, können hingegen Checklisten, die Matrix oder die Konfliktspinne nutzen. Damit stehen für jeden Nutzertyp hinreichend Möglichkeiten zur Verfügung, eine Entscheidung aus dem Bauch heraus zu vermeiden oder zumindest zu überprüfen. Anwälten mag dies zudem dazu dienen, die anwaltliche Beratung bei der Auswahl des geeigneten Konfliktbeilegungsverfahrens zu optimieren und vor allem zu dokumentieren und damit das Haftungsrisiko zu minimieren. Richter können so geeignete außergerichtliche Verfahren zur Konfliktbeilegung ermitteln und den Parteien nach § 278a Abs. 1 ZPO, § 36a Abs. 1 FamFG oder § 54a Abs. 1 ArbGG vorschlagen.