Abstract
Powered by large language models (LLMs), AI agents have become capable ofmany human tasks. Using the most canonical definitions of the Big Fivepersonality, we measure the ability of LLMs to negotiate within agame-theoretical framework, as well as methodological challenges to measuringnotions of fairness and risk. Simulations (n=1,500) for both single-issue andmulti-issue negotiation reveal increase in domain complexity with asymmetricissue valuations improve agreement rates but decrease surplus from aggressivenegotiation. Through gradient-boosted regression and Shapley explainers, wefind high openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are associated with fairtendencies; low agreeableness and low openness are associated with rationaltendencies. Low conscientiousness is associated with high toxicity. Theseresults indicate that LLMs may have built-in guardrails that default to fairbehavior, but can be "jail broken" to exploit agreeable opponents. We alsooffer pragmatic insight in how negotiation bots can be designed, and aframework of assessing negotiation behavior based on game theory andcomputational social science.