Skip to main content

Modeling International Negotiation Statistical and Machine Learning Approaches

  • Chapter
Programming for Peace

Part of the book series: Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation ((AGDN,volume 2))

Abstract

An earlier study by Druckman et al. (1999) showed that a variety of cases of international negotiation can be distinguished in terms of their objectives. A set of 16 features of negotiation effectively distinguished—by multidimensional scaling (MDS)—among the types of international negotiation objectives proposed by Iklé (1964). The features include aspects of the parties, issues, process, negotiating environment, and outcomes. The statistical analyses performed in that study showed a distinct profile for each of the Iklé categories: innovation, re-distribution, extension, normalization, and side effects. In addition, a sixth category was identified as being different than the others. This category was referred to as multilateral regime negotiations, a form that became prevalent twenty years after Iklés book appeared. These results were further supported by discriminant analysis classifications. When only information about the 16 features were known, 78 % (or 21 of 27 cases) were placed in the correct a priori category. These are impressive results. They provide empirical validation for this well-known typology of negotiation. In this chapter, an attempt is made to extend these analyses in several directions with the help of sophisticated methodological approaches not previously used to interpret data on negotiation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agrawal, R., Mannila, H., Srikant, R., Toivonen, H., and Verkamo, A.I., 1995, Fast discovery of association rules, in Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro G., Smyth, P., and Uthurusamy, R., eds., AAAI Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beriker, N. and Druckman, D., 1996, Simulating the Lausanne Peace Negotiations, 1922–1923: Power asymmetries in bargaining, Simulation & Gaming 27: 162–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartos, O. J., 1995, Modeling distributive and integrative negotiations, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542: 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., 2001, Statistical modeling: The two cultures, Statistical Science 16: 199–231. (With comments by D. R. Cox, B. Efron, B. Hoadley, and E. Parzen, a rejoinder by the author.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R. and Stone, C., 1984, Classification and Regression Trees, Wadsworth & Brooks, Pacific Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. W., 1995, Fast effective rule induction, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine Learning (ML-95), Lake Tahoe, CA, Prieditis, A., and Russell, S., eds., Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., 1997, Dimensions of international negotiations: Structures, processes, and outcomes, Group Decision and Negotiation 6: 395–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., 1994, Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis, Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 507–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., 1993, The situational levers of negotiating flexibility, Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 236–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., and Bonoma, T. V., 1976, Determinants of bargaining behavior in a bilateral monopoly situation II: Opponent concession rate and similarity, Behavioral Science 21: 252–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., Harris, R., and Ramberg, B., 2002, Computer-aided international negotiation: A tool for research and practice, Group Decision and Negotiation 11: 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., Rozelle, R., and Baxter, J., 1982, Nonverbal Communication: Survey, Theory, and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D., Martin, J., Allen Nan, S. and Yagcioglu, D., 1999, Dimensions of international negotiation: A test of Iklé's typology, Group Decision and Negotiation 8: 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J. H., and Fisher, N. I., 1999, Bump hunting in high-dimensional data, Statistics and Computing 9: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fürnkranz, J., 1999, Separate-and-conquer rule learning, Artificial Intelligence Review 13: 3-54

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürnkranz. J., 1997, Pruning algorithms for rule learning, Machine Learning 27: 139–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J., 1994, The effect of friendship on personal business transactions, Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 647–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., and Harris, M., eds., 1990, Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate, Sage , Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipp, J., Güntzer, U., and Nakhaeizadeh, G., 2000, Algorithms for association rule mining-a general survey and comparison, SIGKDD Explorations 2: 58–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iklé, F. C., 1964, How Nations Negotiate, Harper, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irmer, C. G., 2003, The Promise of Process: Evidence on Ending Violent International Conflict, unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohavi, R., 1995, A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection, in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Mellish, C. S., ed., Morgan Kaufmann, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R., 1993, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R., 1986, Induction of decision trees, Machine Learning 1:81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M., 1977, Asymptotics for and against cross-validation, Biometrika 64: 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M., 1974, Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 36:111–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trappl, R., Fürnkranz, J., Bercovitch, J., and Petrak, J., 1997, Machine learning and case-based reasoning: Their potential role in preventing the outbreak of wars or in ending them, in Learning, Networking, and Statistics, Riccia, G. D., Kruse, R., and Lenz, H., eds., Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, G. I., 2000, Efficient search for association rules, in Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-2000), Boston, MA, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witten. I. H., and Frank, E., 2000, Data Mining-Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Druckman, D., Harris, R., Fürnkranz, J. (2006). Modeling International Negotiation Statistical and Machine Learning Approaches. In: Trappl, R. (eds) Programming for Peace. Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4390-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics