Negotiations chap005 perception, cognition, and emotion

• Frames: – Represent the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations – Lead people to pursue or avoid subsequent actions – Focus, shape and organ

Perception, Cognition,

and Emotion

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved.

Perception, Cognition, and

The Process of Perception

The process of ascribing meaning to messages and events is strongly influenced

by the perceiver’s current state of mind, role, and comprehension of earlier

communications

People interpret their environment in order to respond appropriately

The complexity of environments makes it impossible to process all of the information

People develop “shortcuts” to process information and these “shortcuts” can create perceptual errors

Stereotyping and Halo Effects

• Stereotyping:

– Is a very common distortion

– Occurs when an individual assigns attributes to another

solely on the basis of the other’s membership in a particular social or demographic category

• Halo effects:

– Are similar to stereotypes

– Occur when an individual generalizes about a variety of

attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an

individual

Selective Perception

and Projection

• Selective perception:

– Perpetuates stereotypes or halo effects

– The perceiver singles out information that supports a prior

belief but filters out contrary information

• Projection:

– Arises out of a need to protect one’s own self-concept

– People assign to others the characteristics or feelings that

they possess themselves

• Frames:

– Represent the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations

– Lead people to pursue or avoid subsequent actions

– Focus, shape and organize the world around us

– Make sense of complex realities

– Define a person, event or process

– Impart meaning and significance

How Frames Work in Negotiation

• Negotiators can use more than one frame

• Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of

conflict

• Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame

• Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain

Interests, Rights, and Power

Parties in conflict use one of three frames:

• Interests: people talk about their “positions” but often what is at stake is their underlying interests

• Rights: people may be concerned about who is

“right” – that is, who has legitimacy, who is correct,

and what is fair

• Power: people may wish to resolve a conflict on the

basis of who is stronger

The Frame of an Issue Changes as

the Negotiation Evolves

• Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues or concerns

that are raised every time the parties negotiate

• Each party attempts to make the best possible case for

his or her preferred position or perspective

• Frames may define major shifts and transitions in a

complex overall negotiation

• Multiple agenda items operate to shape issue

development

Some Advice about Problem

Framing for Negotiators

• Frames shape what the parties define as the key issues and how they talk about them

• Both parties have frames

• Frames are controllable, at least to some degree

• Conversations change and transform frames in ways

negotiators may not be able to predict but may be

able to control

• Certain frames are more likely than others to lead to

certain types of processes and outcomes

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

• Negotiators have a tendency to make systematic errors when

they process information These errors, collectively labeled

cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performance

Irrational Escalation of Commitment

and Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs

• Irrational escalation of commitment

– Negotiators maintain commitment to a course of action

even when that commitment constitutes irrational behavior

• Mythical fixed-pie beliefs

– Negotiators assume that all negotiations (not just some)

involve a fixed pie

Anchoring and Adjustment

and Issue Framing and Risk

• Anchoring and adjustment

– The effect of the standard (anchor) against which

subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are measured

– The anchor might be based on faulty or incomplete

information, thus be misleading

• Issue framing and risk

– Frames can lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral about risk in decision making and negotiation

Availability of Information and the Winner’s Curse

• Availability of information

– Operates when information that is presented in vivid or

attention-getting ways becomes easy to recall

– Becomes central and critical in evaluating events and

options

• The winner’s curse

– The tendency to settle quickly on an item and then

subsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes too

easily

Overconfidence and the Law of Small Numbers

• Overconfidence

– The tendency of negotiators to believe that their ability to

be correct or accurate is greater than is actually true

• The law of small numbers

– The tendency of people to draw conclusions from small

sample sizes

– The smaller sample, the greater the possibility that past

lessons will be erroneously used to infer what will happen

in the future

Self-Serving Biases and Endowment Effect

• Self-serving biases

– People often explain another person’s behavior by making attributions, either to the person or to the situation

– There is a tendency to:

• Overestimate the role of personal or internal factors

• Underestimate the role of situational or external factors

• Endowment effect

– The tendency to overvalue something you own or believe

you possess

Ignoring Others’ Cognitions

and Reactive Devaluation

• Ignoring others’ cognitions

– Negotiators don’t bother to ask about the other party’s

perceptions and thoughts

– This leaves them to work with incomplete information, and thus produces faulty results

• Reactive devaluation

– The process of devaluing the other party’s concessions

simply because the other party made them

Managing Misperceptions and

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

The best advice that negotiators can follow is:

• Be aware of the negative aspects of these biases

• Discuss them in a structured manner within the team and with counterparts

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

• The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three

characteristics:

– Specificity

– Intensity

– Duration

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

• Negotiations create both positive and negative

emotions

• Positive emotions generally have positive

consequences for negotiations

– They are more likely to lead the parties toward more

integrative processes

– They create a positive attitude toward the other side

– They promote persistence

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

• Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

• Negative emotions generally have negative

consequences for negotiations

– They may lead parties to define the situation as competitive or distributive

– They may undermine a negotiator’s ability to analyze the

situation accurately, which adversely affects individual

outcomes

– They may lead parties to escalate the conflict

– They may lead parties to retaliate and may thwart integrative

outcomes

– Not all negative emotion has the same effect

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

• Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to negative emotions

– Negative emotions may result from a competitive mind-set

– Negative emotions may result from an impasse

– Negative emotions may result from the prospect of

beginning a negotiation

• Effects of positive and negative emotion

– Positive feelings may generate negative outcomes

– Negative feelings may elicit beneficial outcomes

• Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation

gambits