## 4 Results
### Analysis of the Relation between ROCI-II Scores, Enact Scenarios and Personal Pronouns  
This section reports the correlation analysis between the frequency of personal pronouns and the ROCI-II dimensional scores obtained by the user in the whole dataset of sentences. All the personal pronouns considered for this analysis are listed in Table 2. The analysis of personal pronouns (in all their forms, i.e., nominative, objective, possessive and reflexive), is crucial to investigate the level of engagement and concern shown by parties during negotiations [29]. Each sentence of the dataset was labelled with the five continuous values indicating the five negotiation styles obtained by its author. ROCI-II scores for each style can have values between 1 and 5, and were normalized to a range between 0 and 1. The results of the Pearson (or Spearman, where appropriate) correlation between the use of first person, second person, third person and relational pronouns with the ROCI-II \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Type** & **Pronouns** \\ \hline
1 st Person & I, Me, Mire, My, Myself \\ \hline
2 nd Person & You, Yourself, Yourselves \\ \hline  & He, Him, His, Himself, It, Itself \\
3 rd Person & Her, Hers, Herself, She, Their, Theirs \\  & Them, Themself, Themselves, They \\ \hline Relational & Our, Ours, Ourselves, Us, We \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: List of pronouns used for the natural language analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**List of Stopwords** & \\ \hline what, which, who, whom, this, that, these, those, am, is, are, was, ver, \\ be, been, being, have, has, had, having, do, does, did, doing, a, an, \\ the, and, but, if, or, because, as, until, while, of, at, by, for, \\ with, about, against, between, into, through, during, before, after, \\ above, below, to, from, up, down, in, out, on, off, over, under, again, \\ further, then, once, here, there, when, where, why, how, all, any, \\ both, each, few, more, most, other, some, such, no, nor, not, only, \\ own, same, so, than, too, very, s, t, can, will, just, don, should, now \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: List of stopwords used to pre-process the dataset. scores are shown in Figure 4. All ROCI-II dimensions show a very distinctive correlation pattern, and in particular Integrating and Dominating display correlations with a single sign, respectively positive and negative. The significance level indicates that the Dominating score obtained in the ROCI-II negatively correlates with the use of all pronouns, and significantly with the use of the first personal pronouns. This result is particularly meaningful if compared with the pronoun use of the \"opposite\" negotiation style, Integrating, with a high concern for self and concern for other. In fact, the Integrating component, instead, positively correlates with the frequency of all pronouns and significantly with the frequency of relational pronouns. Since in each of the five scenarios the bot displayed a different negotiation style, we conducted an analysis to account for this variable. Thus, a deeper per-scenario analysis was conducted considering the type of Enact scenario the user was interacting in to investigate the relationship between the negotiation style scores of the participant and the frequency of the pronouns according to the negotiation style of the virtual agent be or she was negotiating with. The results for each pronoun type are presented in Figures 5-9. Significance levels show that the frequencies of relational pronouns used during the interaction with an Avoiding, Compromising and Obliging virtual agent significantly correlates with the Integrating score obtained by participants in the ROCI-II. The frequency of first person pronouns used during the interaction with an Integrating virtual agent negatively correlates with the Dominating score obtained at the ROCI-II.