## 5 Discussion  
Overall, the results support the main hypothesis of the study, i.e., that it is possible to delineate a clear pattern of pronoun usage that is distinctive for each of the [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s negotiation styles. These results also support the idea that the theoretical model reflects a specific difference in the language adopted in real daily-life contexts by negotiating individuals. The correlation analysis between the pronoun frequency and the ROCI-II scores showed that Integrating individuals use overall the highest amount of personal pronouns. This is consistent with the theory that highly Integrating individuals try to increase the level of mutual engagement in the negotiation and highlight possible decisions that can satisfy both parties, therefore proposing and involving both self and other's centred solution. An example of this strategy in the dataset is the following sentence extracted from an individual with a high Integrating dimension:  
\"We can share. Bikes can handle two people and we can coordinate our simultaneous return\". The lack of pronoun's usage shown by individuals with a high Dominating component can instead be viewed as the consequence of not discussing different approaches to solve the situation that involves the two parties nor trying to balance the person's own will and aim with the one of the other. Examples taken from highly Dominating individuals in the dataset are:  
\"Let's settle it now.\"  
or  
\"Eat your pizza with chopsticks.\"  
The second example also highlights the use of a typical Dominating \"You statement\", i.e., a statement that dictates something similar to an order in a highly assertive manner. Individuals with a high Avoiding and Obliging dimensions also use fewer pronouns than those with a higher Compromising and Integrating dimension, leading to a further step in the interpretation: styles with a theoretical high concern for self and for others show a generally high frequency in the use of personal pronouns, while styles with a low concern show the opposite pattern. The following sentence displays a highly Avoiding individual's strategy taken from the dataset:  
\"Okay whatever floats your boat.\"  
while highly Obliging participants, for example, proposed  
\"Sure thing!\"  
and  
\"Sounds like a good idea!\" \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Avo** & **Com** & **Dom** & **Int** & **Obl** \\ \hline Avo & 1 & 0.9664 & 0.9541 & 0.973 & 0.9437 \\ \hline Com & 0.9664 & 1 & 0.958 & 0.9799 & 0.9546 \\ \hline Dom & 0.9541 & 0.958 & 1 & 0.9688 & 0.9472 \\ \hline Int & 0.973 & 0.9799 & 0.9688 & 1 & 0.9613 \\ \hline Obl & 0.9437 & 0.9546 & 0.9472 & 0.9613 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Cosine similarity values between each of the TF-IDF matrices generated from the documentsIn agreement with the definition of Integrating style, highly Integrating individuals try to balance between self and other's interests during a negotiation, and the frequent use of relational pronouns is the most evident linguistic expression of this attempt, regardless of the style of the virtual agent. Even though, as it is observed, Compromising individuals may decide to solve the situation proposing a deal that is very similar to that of Integrating ones, the depth of the interest they have in others' is largely different, as displayed by the following sentence in the dataset:  
\"I can watch Masterchef with you. You should allow me to watch Report later on.\"  
The frequency of relational pronouns only correlates with the Compromising score when interacting with an Obliging virtual agent, and this could be explained by the fact that the Obliging style is the one that has the lowest concern for self, and a highly Compromising peer may wish to equally split the resources, feeling uncomfortable if the other party ended up with an unbalanced deal.