NegotiAge: Development and pilot testing of an artificial intelligence-based family caregiver negotiation program.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's disease experience conflicts as they navigate health care but lack training to resolve these disputes. We sought to develop and pilot test an artificial-intelligence negotiation training program, NegotiAge, for family caregivers. METHODS: We convened negotiation experts, a geriatrician, a social worker, and community-based family caregivers. Content matter experts created short videos to teach negotiation skills. Caregivers generated dialogue surrounding conflicts. Computer scientists utilized the dialogue with the Interactive Arbitration Guide Online (IAGO) platform to develop avatar-based agents (e.g., sibling, older adult, physician) for caregivers to practice negotiating. Pilot testing was conducted with family caregivers to assess usability (USE) and satisfaction (open-ended questions with thematic analysis). RESULTS: Development: With NegotiAge, caregivers progress through didactic material, then receive scenarios to negotiate (e.g., physician recommends gastric tube, sibling disagrees with home support, older adult refusing support). Caregivers negotiate in real-time with avatars who are designed to act like humans, including emotional tactics and irrational behaviors. Caregivers send/receive offers, using tactics until either mutual agreement or time expires. Immediate feedback is generated for the user to improve skills training. Pilot testing: Family caregivers (n = 12) completed the program and survey. USE questionnaire (Likert scale 1-7) subset scores revealed: (1) Useful-Mean 5.69 (SD 0.76); (2) Ease-Mean 5.24 (SD 0.96); (3) Learn-Mean 5.69 (SD 0.74); (4) Satisfy-Mean 5.62 (SD 1.10). Items that received over 80% agreements were: It helps me be more effective; It helps me be more productive; It is useful; It gives me more control over the activities in my life; It makes the things I want to accomplish easier to get done. Participants were highly satisfied and found NegotiAge fun to use (91.7%), with 100% who would recommend it to a friend. CONCLUSION: NegotiAge is an Artificial-Intelligent Caregiver Negotiation Program, that is usable and feasible for family caregivers to become familiar with negotiating conflicts commonly seen in health care.

Transforming a Negotiation Framework to Resolve Conflicts among Older Adults and Family Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers of older people with Alzheimer's dementia (PWD) often need to advocate and resolve health-related conflicts (e.g., determining treatment necessity, billing errors, and home health extensions). As they deal with these health system conflicts, family caregivers experience unnecessary frustration, anxiety, and stress. The goal of this research was to apply a negotiation framework to resolve real-world family caregiver-older adult conflicts. METHODS: We convened an interdisciplinary team of national community-based family caregivers, social workers, geriatricians, and negotiation experts (n = 9; Illinois, Florida, New York, and California) to examine the applicability of negotiation and conflict management frameworks to three older adult-caregiver conflicts (i.e., caregiver-older adult, caregiver-provider, and caregiver-caregiver). The panel of caregivers provided scenarios and dialogue describing conflicts they experienced in these three settings. A qualitative analysis was then performed grouping the responses into a framework matrix. RESULTS: Upon presenting the three conflicts to the caregivers, 96 responses (caregiver-senior), 75 responses (caregiver-caregiver), and 80 responses (caregiver-provider) were generated. A thematic analysis showed that the statements and responses fit the interest-rights-power (IRP) negotiation framework. DISCUSSION: The interests-rights-power (IRP) framework, used in business negotiations, provided insight into how caregivers experienced conflict with older adults, providers, and other caregivers. Future research is needed to examine applying the IRP framework in the training of caregivers of older people with Alzheimer's dementia.

The science of culture and negotiation.

Recent negotiation research has produced a groundswell of insights about the effects of culture on negotiation. Yet, few frameworks exist to organize the findings. This review integrates recent research using a two-dimensional framework: The first dimension organizes the research into that which has taken: (1) a comparative intracultural approach, versus (2) an intercultural approach. The second dimension organizes the research by its emphasis on: (1) inputs into negotiation, (2) processes of negotiating, and (3) outcomes of negotiation. This framework helps to organize extant research and produces novel insights about the connections between disparate research streams, revealing both commonalities and culture-specificities in negotiation strategy and outcomes and suggesting that intercultural negotiations are difficult but not insurmountable. We conclude by discussing several areas in which more research on culture and negotiation is urgently needed in today's globalizing world.

Toward a culture-by-context perspective on negotiation: negotiating teams in the United States and Taiwan.

Within the United States, teams outperform solos in negotiation (Thompson, Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). The current research examined whether this team advantage generalizes to negotiators from a collectivist culture (Taiwan). Because different cultures have different social norms, and because the team context may amplify the norms that are salient in a particular culture (Gelfand & Realo, 1999), we predicted that the effect of teams on negotiation would differ across cultures. Specifically, we predicted that since harmony norms predominate in collectivist cultures like Taiwan, the team context would amplify a concern with harmony, leading Taiwanese teams to negotiate especially suboptimal outcomes. In support, 2 studies showed that Taiwanese teams negotiated less-optimal outcomes than Taiwanese solos. We also used a moderated-mediation analysis to investigate the mechanism (Hayes, 2012), documenting that the interactive effect of culture and context on outcomes was mediated by harmony norms. By showing that the same situational conditions (team negotiations) can have divergent effects on negotiation outcomes across cultures, our results point toward a nuanced, sociocontextual view that moves beyond the culture-as-main-effect approach to studying culture and negotiations.

Paying a price: culture, trust, and negotiation consequences.

Three studies contrasting Indian and American negotiators tested hypotheses derived from theory proposing why there are cultural differences in trust and how cultural differences in trust influence negotiation strategy. Study 1 (a survey) documented that Indian negotiators trust their counterparts less than American negotiators. Study 2 (a negotiation simulation) linked American and Indian negotiators' self-reported trust and strategy to their insight and joint gains. Study 3 replicated and extended Study 2 using independently coded negotiation strategy data, allowing for stronger causal inference. Overall, the strategy associated with Indian negotiators' reluctance to extend interpersonal (as opposed to institutional) trust produced relatively poor outcomes. Our data support an expanded theoretical model of negotiation, linking culture to trust, strategies, and outcomes.

How to manage your negotiating team.

You are leading a negotiating team for your company. When you sit down with the other party, someone on your side of the table blurts out: "Just tell us--what do we need to do to get more of your business?" And in that moment, you know you've lost the upper hand. Gaffes like this are more common than most businesspeople would care to admit, management professors Brett, Friedman, and Behfar have found in their research. Even though team members are all technically on the same side, they often have different priorities and imagine different ideal outcomes: Business development just wants to close the deal. Finance is most concerned about costs. Legal is focused on patents and intellectual property. The authors recommend taking four steps, either singly or in tandem, to align those goals: Map out each person's priorities, work out conflicts directly with departments, employ a mediator if that doesn't work, and use data to resolve differences. Once you are all on the same page, you can take steps to make sure everyone is coordinated during the negotiations themselves. Try simulating the negotiation beforehand, assigning roles to team members that take advantage of their strengths, and establishing the signals you will use to communicate with one another during the session. The payoff from working as a cohesive group is clear. With access to greater expertise and the ability to assign members to specialized roles, teams can implement more-complex strategies than a sole negotiator could ever pull off.

Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.

Negotiators' social motives (cooperative vs. individualistic) influence their strategic behaviors. In this study, the authors used multilevel modeling and analyses of strategy sequences to test hypotheses regarding how negotiators' social motives and the composition of the group influence group members' negotiation strategies. Four-person groups negotiating a 5-issue mixed-motive decision-making task were videotaped, and the tapes were transcribed and coded. Group composition included 2 homogeneous conditions (all cooperators and all individualists) and 3 heterogeneous conditions (3 cooperators and 1 individualist, 2 cooperators and 2 individualists, 1 cooperator and 3 individualists). Results showed that cooperative negotiators adjusted their use of integrative and distributive strategies in response to the social-motive composition of the group, but individualistic negotiators did not. Results from analyses of strategy sequences showed that cooperators responded more systematically to others' behaviors than did individualists. They also redirected the negotiation depending on group composition.

The timing and function of offers in U.S. and Japanese negotiations.

The authors examined the function of offers in U.S. and Japanese integrative negotiations. They proposed that early 1st offers begin information sharing and generate joint gains in Japan but have an anchoring effect that hinders joint gains in the United States. The data from the negotiation transcripts of 20 U.S. and 20 Japanese dyads supported 2 hypothesized interactions: Early offers generated higher joint gains for Japanese negotiators and lower joint gains for U.S. negotiators, and the exchange of information prior to the 1st offer generated higher joint gains for U.S. negotiators and lower joint gains for Japanese negotiators. Additional analyses supported predictions that early offer patterns represent information gathering in Japanese negotiations and information consolidation in U.S. negotiations. The results contribute to theories of negotiation and culture by showing that the use and efficacy of early offers and information exchange differ across cultures.

Managing multicultural teams.

Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring itto a stalemate. How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making. If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.

The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes.

Scholars have argued that anger expressed by participants in mediation is counterproductive; yet, there is also reason to believe that expressions of anger can be productive. The authors tested these competing theories of emotion by using data from online mediation. Results show that expression of anger lowers the resolution rate in mediation and that this effect occurs in part because expressing anger generates an angry response by the other party. However, when respondents are especially vulnerable, expressions of anger by the filer do not hinder settlement. The authors also examined precursors to anger, such as value of dispute and reputation, and the degree to which a focus on dispute resolution is reciprocated.

Working 61 plus hours a week: why do managers do it?

The authors investigated why some managers work extreme hours, defined as 61 or more hours per week. The authors tested explanations drawn from theories including the work-leisure tradeoff, work as an emotional respite, social contagion, and work as its own reward. In a demographically homogeneous sample of male managers, the best explanations for why some worked 61 or more hours per week were the financial and psychological rewards they received from doing so. The hypothesis derived from A. Hochschild's (1997) research that managers who work long hours seek relief at work from pressures at home was not supported. Findings in a small sample of managerial women were consistent with the work-leisure trade-off hypothesis, the social contagion hypothesis, and the work as its own reward hypothesis.

Cognitions and behavior in asymmetric social dilemmas: a comparison of two cultures.

This study investigated whether cognitions and behavior in an asymmetric social dilemma can be predicted by national culture. Results indicated that, as predicted, groups of decision makers from Japan--a collectivist, hierarchical culture-were more cooperative, expected others to be more cooperative, and were more likely to adopt an equal allocation distribution rule to resolve the dilemma than were groups of decision makers from the United States-an individualist, egalitarian culture. An opportunity for communication had a greater impact on expectations of others' behavior in groups of U.S. decision makers than in groups of Japanese decision makers.

Managing Workplace Conflict in the United States and Hong Kong.

We propose that managers have norms (standards of appropriate behavior) for resolving conflict, that these norms are culturally based, and that they explain cultural differences in conflict management outcomes. We confirm that the traditionally American norms of discussing parties' interests and synthesizing multiple issues were exhibited more strongly by American managers than by their Hong Kong Chinese counterparts. In addition, we confirm that the traditionally Chinese norms of concern for collective interests and concern for authority appeared more strongly among Hong Kong Chinese managers than among their American counterparts. American managers were more likely than Hong Kong Chinese managers, to resolve a greater number of issues and reach more integrative outcomes, while Hong Kong Chinese managers were more likely to involve higher management in conflict resolution. Culture had a significant effect on whether parties selected an integrative outcome rather than an outcome that involved distribution, compromise, higher management, or no resolution at all. Conflict norms explained the cultural differences that existed between reaching an integrative outcome and reaching an outcome involving distribution, compromise, or higher management; however, conflict norms did not fully explain the cultural differences that existed between reaching an integrative outcome and reaching no resolution. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.