[
Bottom W.P., Holloway J., Miller G.J., Mislin A. and Whitford A. (2006) Building a pathway to cooperation: negotiation and social exchange between principal and agent. Adm Sci Q 51:29–58.10.2189/asqu.51.1.29
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brinton, W. C. (1914) Graphic methods for presenting facts. The Engineering Magazine Company, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Croxton, F.E. and Stein, H. (1932) Graphic comparisons by bars, squares, circles, and cubes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 27, 54–60.10.1080/01621459.1932.10503227
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kersten, G.E. and Noronha, S.J. (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decision Support Systems 25, 135-154.10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00012-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kersten G.E., Roszkowska E. and Wachowicz T. (2016) An Impact of Negotiation Profiles on the Accuracy of Negotiation Offer Scoring System – Experimental Study. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 11, 77-103.10.22367/mcdm.2016.11.06
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kersten G.E., Roszkowska E. and Wachowicz T. (2017) The Heuristics and Biases in Using the Negotiation Support Systems. In: M. Schoop and M. Kilgur, eds., Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 293, Springer, 215-228.10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_16
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Korhonen P. and Wallenius J. (2008) Visualization in the multiple objective decision-making framework. In: J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen and R. Słowiński, eds., Multiobjective Optimization. Springer, Berlin, 195–212.10.1007/978-3-540-88908-3_8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Laffont J.-J. and Martimort D. (2009) The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model. Princeton University Press, Princeton.10.2307/j.ctv7h0rwr
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Liu S., Cui W., Wu Y. and Liu M. (2014) A survey on information visualization: recent advances and challenges. Vis Comput 30:1373–1393.10.1007/s00371-013-0892-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977) How numbers are shown. Audio-Visual Communication Review 25, 359–409.10.1007/BF02769746
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Miettinen K. (2014) Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteria decision-making problems. OR Spectrum 36, 3–37.10.1007/s00291-012-0297-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Orlovsky, S.A. (1978) Decision making with a fuzzy preference relation. Fuzzy Sets Systems 1, 155–167.10.1016/0165-0114(78)90001-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pratt, J. W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985) Principals and Agents: An Overview. In: J. W. Pratt and R. J. Zeckhauser, eds., Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Cambridge MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1-35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roselli L.R.P., Frej E.A. and de Almeida A.T. (2018) Neuroscience experiment for graphical visualization in the FITradeoff decision support system. In: Y. Chen, G.E. Kersten, R. Vetschera and H. Xu, eds., Group decision and negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 315, Springer, Cham 56–69.10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Roszkowska E. and Wachowicz T. (2015) Inaccuracy in Defining Preferences by the Electronic Negotiation System Users. In: B. Kaminski, G.E. Kersten and T. Szapiro, Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation GND 2015, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 218, Springer, Heidelberg, 131-143.10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_11
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spence, I. and Lewandowsky, S. (1991) Displaying proportions and percentages. Application Cognitive Psychology 5, 61–77.10.1002/acp.2350050106
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wachowicz, T., Kersten, G. E. and Roszkowska, E. (2019) How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes. Operational Research, 19(4), 993–1032.10.1007/s12351-018-00448-y
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weber M., Kersten G. and Hine M. (2006) Visualization in e-negotiations: an inspire ENS graph is worth 334 words, on average. Electronic Markets 16:186–200.10.1080/10196780600841571
]Search in Google Scholar
