Ch6 Flashcards
value is often created/destroyed due to psychological programming
perceptial errors
framing
cognitive biases
3 building blocks of social encounters
PERCEPTION
COGNITION
EMOTION
social encounters are guided by how we percieve, analyze and feel about another party
what is perception and what is it influenced by
the prcoess by which individuals connect to the environment
-past experiences and current attitudes/behaviours influnce our perception
goal of perception in a negotioan
to percieve things accuratley as they are
why do we take perceptual shortcuts
cuz environmets are often very complex and stimulating
what is the perceptual prcoess
stimulus > attention > recognition > translation > behaviour
A-> T are perception
when are u more prone to steroetype
time pressue. cognitive stress, mood, conflicts w/ values/ideologies/competition
4 types of perceptual errors
- stereotyping
- halo effects
- selective perception
- projection
stereotyping
individual assigns attributes to another based on the membership of other ina social group/demographic
age, gender, orientaiton sexual, ethincitiy
generalization that is often inaccurate
halo effects
when people generalize about a lot of attributes based on knowing one attribute of an individul
GOOD OR BAD!
when do halo effets occur
- little experience with person
- not well known person
when quaities have strong moral implications
Selective perception
selectively choosinginfo to reinforce a prior belief
THIS PERPETUATES HALO EFFECTS
Projection
when people assign to others the characteristics they possess themselves
arises out of ened to perserve own self concept
Negotiators may assume that the other party will respond in the same manner they would if positions were reversed. could lead a negotiatior to overestimate how much the other party knows!
framing
subjective mechanism through which people make sens of situations leading them to calibrate actions baout fturue sistuations
importanat because innegotiaont it is important to have common definitons and framing things differently is not good
can we avoid framing? what does it do in a nefotation?
We can not! it often occurs unitinionally based on past experiences/values/emotions
it is improtant cuz individual perceptiosn and reactions will likely eb affected
types of frames
- substantive: what the conflict is about!
- outcome: focus all strategy, tactics, comunication towards geting that outcome
- aspirations: predispopsed towards satisfying broader set of interests/needs in negotaiton rathan 1 outcome; more likely to be INTEGRATIVE
- process: parties caring mroe about the process of dispute reso
- identity: how the parties define who they are!
- charcaterization: how the parties define other parties!!
- loss or gain” how parties percieve a result (did they lose x or win y)
how frames work in negotaiton
- negotiatiros use multiple frames
- mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict
- parties neogtiate differently depening on frame
- specific frames may be likely to used with certain usses
- particular types of frames may lead to particular types of afreements
- parties are likely to assume a articular frame cuz of various factors
3 prong frame approach
for draming disputes for parties in conflict
interests: people are often concerned about what they need desire or want
rights: people may be concerned about who is right/ Disputes over rights are sometimes referred to formal or informal arbitrators to decide whose standards or rights are more appropriate.
power: people may elect to frame a negotiaon on the basis of power (physically/presusred/coerced) Disputes framed as contests of power usually create clear winners and losers,
does the frame of an issue stay stagnant?
no it changes as the negotiation evolves
Framing is about focusing, shaping, and organizing the world around us—making sense of complex realities and defining them in ways that are meaningful to us. We discussed the different types of frames and their importance for understanding strategic choices in negotiation. We can offer the following prescriptive advice about problem framing for the negotiator:
Page 146
Frames shape what the parties define as the key issues and how they talk about them. To the extent that the parties have preferences about the issues to be covered, outcomes to be achieved, or processes to be addressed, they should strive to ensure that their own preferred frames are accepted and acknowledged by the others.
Both parties have frames. When the frames match, the parties are more likely to focus on common issues and a common definition of the situation; when they do not match, communication between the parties is likely to be difficult and incomplete.
Frames are controllable, at least to some degree. If negotiators understand what frame they are using and the frame the other party is using, they may be able to shift the conversation toward the frame they would like the other to adopt.
Conversations transform frames in ways negotiators may not be able to predict but may be able to manage. As parties discuss an issue, introduce arguments and evidence, and advocate a course of action, the conversation changes, and the frame may change. It is critical for negotiators to be ready for and track these shifts, and to understand where they might lead.
Certain frames are more likely than others to lead to certain types of processes and outcomes. For example, parties who are competitive are likely to have positive identity frames of themselves, negative characterization frames of each other, and a preference for win–lose approaches to resolving their dispute. Recognizing these tendencies empowers negotiators to reframe their views of themselves, the other, or the dispute resolution mechanism in play in order to pursue a process that will resolve the conflict more productively.
Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues, or concerns, that are raised every time the parties negotiate. For example, wage issues or working conditions may always be discussed in a labor negotiation; the union always raises them, and management always expects them to be raised and is ready to respond. Negotiations over stock issues can be restructured to include more or fewer issues, increasing the likelihood that a resolution can be found.18
Seeking to make the best possible case for one’s preferred perspective, a party may assemble facts, numbers, testimony, or other evidence to persuade the other party of the validity of the argument or perspective. Early in a negotiation, it is not uncommon for the parties to “talk past each other,” with each trying to control the conversation with a certain frame or perspective rather than listening to and engaging with the other’s case. Eventually, arguments and frames begin to shift as the parties focus on either refuting the other’s case or modifying their own arguments on the basis of the other’s.19
Frames may define major shifts and transitions in a complex overall negotiation. In diplomatic negotiations, successful bargaining results from a two-stage process called “formula/detail.”20 In this process, parties start by developing a broad framework of principles and objectives upon which they can agree. Only after that is accomplished do they work toward detailed points of agreement. The framework lays out the set of issues that are on the table, and the detail phase brings packaging of issues to build a mutually agreeable settlement.21Page 145
Finally, multiple agenda items operate to shape issue development. Although parties usually have one or two major objectives, priorities, or core issues, there are often a number of secondary items. When brought into the conversation, these secondary concerns can transform the conversation about the primary issues. An analysis of teacher negotiations in two school districts showed how issues became transformed throughout a negotiation.22 For instance, an issue of scheduling was reframed as an issue of teacher preparation time, and a concern about the cost of personal insurance shifted to an issue about the extent of insurance benefits.q
Critical to issue development is the process of reframing—changes to the thrust, tone, and focus of a conversation as the parties engage in it. Reframing is a dynamic process that may occur many times in a conversation as parties challenge each other or search for ways to reconcile seemingly incompatible perspectives. At times, reframing will happen when a negotiation in progress is disrupted by unanticipated negative events, such as a newly apparent economic downturn during wage negotiations or trade talks.23 Reframing can also occur as one party uses metaphors, analogies, or specific cases to illustrate a point, leading the other to use the metaphor or case as a new way to define the situation. Reframing may be done intentionally by one side or it may emerge from the conversation as one person’s challenges fuel the other’s creativity and imagination. In either case, the parties often propose a new way to approach the problem.q
irrational escalation of commitment
commitment to an action even if its bad- sunk cost falacy
NO ONE LIKES TO ADMIT EERROR OR FAILURE
Mythical fixed pie belief
fail to see integrative elements
anchoring and adjustmetn
biase us toa lower number that we dont want
issue framing and risk
this creates a bias
availability of info
creates bias because we may know little
so when info presented in a vivid or attention grabbing way!! it is easy to recall
CHARTS GRAPHS AND SPREADSHEETS ARE AMAZING
the winners curse
mistake of settling quickly on an item and feeling discomfort that it came too easy!
overconfidence
can solidyf support for something even when it is flawed
can lead to negotiaors discoutn the worth of others jsugmeent
law of small numbers
tendency of peole to draw conclusions from small samle sizes
based on ones past experiecne WHICH IS OFTEN LIMITED we will extraolate onto future neogtions
eX:
My uncle got a 20% discount
on a Tesla, so I can get a 20%
discount”
* Forget about the fact that
99.9% of other people have
not been successful
selfserving biases
peolple explaingin away others behaviuors cuz of their own beliefs and expereinces
tendency is to overestimate the causal role of personal or internal factors and underestimate the causal role of situational or external factors. -> if someone is late its cuz they bad! not the situtiaton
and for internally> its cuz of situation not us
- Endowment Effect
bias to value something higher if I own it
11.ignoring others cognition
negotiatoes often dont aks about other partys perception and thoughts
- reactive devaluation
leads negotiatos to minimzed the magnitude of ac concession made by someone who they dont like
process of devaluing other partys concessions because they made them
Form of Bias
Escalation of commitment
Mythical fixed-pie beliefs
Anchoring and adjustment
Issue framing and risk
Information availability
The winner’s curse
Negotiator overconfidence
The law of small numbers
Self-serving biases
Endowment effect
Ignoring others’
cognitions
Reactive devaluation
mood vs emotion DIFFERENCE
speicifity, intensity, duration!
MOod: more diffuse, elss intense, and long term
emotion: more potent, INTENSE, short term
are positve emotions food for a negotiation?
yes! more integrativem positive attitude, proote feelings of persistence, set the stage for succesful subsequnet negotiations
how do positive feelings arise?
fair procedures and favourable social comparisons
negative emotions have what kinds of consquences on enegotiaon?
NEGATIVE? distirbutive, undermine ones ability to analyze situation accurately, conflict, retaliationa
are all engative emotions negative?
worry disspaointemnt guitl and regret
Negotiators tend to make smaller demands of worried or dispaointed oppornents
how to repsind to negative emotions in negotiations
separate emotion from its experssion
turn the table: step into their shoess
reflect the meotion begin expressed back to the other party
ask questions to uncover the issue or interest behind the emoiton
where do negative emotions arise from in a negotiation
- competitve mindset
- impasse
- prospect of starting a negotiation
- may carry over
crossover of positive and negative emotion in engotiation
POSITIVE FEEINGS MAY HAVE NEG CONSEQUENCES: u may not analyze other partys arguments closley; can be decived
NEG FEELINGS MAY HAVE POS OUTCOMES: if neg feelings expressed verbally can lead to pos org outcomes; also creates info value!!!!!
emotions can be falsified and used as gambits!!
can be used to manipulate to compel some actions
how to manage cog biases
The best advice:
* Be aware of the negative
aspects of these biases
* Discuss them in a structured
manner within the team and
with counterparts
* Consider how you can use
these biases to your strategic
advantag
what is flight in engotion
ANXIETY! feeling anxious: weak first offer, quicker concerssion
expressing anxiety: less confidence, more likely to consult others, cant discrimainted between good or bad advice
what is fight in negotiona
ANGGER
anger may claim value, but escalestes conflicts and reduce liking and trust
disappointment in negotion
at the end can cause ur counterpart ot reconsider
regret
negotioatns regreat actions they didnt take
ASK Q’s listen and be creative
The best negotiators achieve great deals for themselves
but leave their opponents believing that they, too, did
fabulously, even if the truth is differen
