User acceptance in different electronic negotiation systems - a comparative approach

In line with the progress of artificial intelligence, electronic negotiation theory has developed a great variety of promising negotiation models. These models have been evaluated in several ways. Besides formal evaluation, which could prove a lot of optimality properties, some researchers have already examined the user acceptance of these models. However, there are no studies that compare different negotiation models under identical frame conditions. This paper thus aims at contributing to IS research by filling this gap. From the perspective of temporary employment job allocation, we prototyped a pure auction negotiation system, a semi-structured argumentation-based negotiation system, and a structured argumentation-based negotiation system and evaluated these systems regarding their user acceptance with an identical test setting (application domain, tasks, and laboratory setting). The results contribute to IS-research by systematically revealing specific acceptance characteristics and differences between the negotiation approaches regarding performance, effort and usage intention.