Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

ULMS351 - Psychological approaches toDecision Making > Week 11 > Flashcards

Week 11 Flashcards

1
Q

why do people negotiate?

A
  1. To agree on how to share or divide a limited resource, such as land, or money, or time;
  2. To create something new that neither party could do on their own
  3. To resolve a problem or dispute between the parties.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is interdependence of parties?

A
  • Either they must coordinate with each other to achieve their own objectives, or they choose to work together because the possible outcome is better that they can achieve by working on their own.
  • When the parties depend on each other to help achieve their own preferred outcome, they are interdependent.
  • Having interdependent goals does not mean that everyone wants or needs exactly the same thing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is a competitive situation or zero-sum or distributive situation?

A

When the goals of two or more people are interconnected so that only one can achieve
the goal—such as running a race in which there will be only one winner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is mutual gain situation, or non-zero sum or integrative situation?

A

when parties’ goals are linked so that one person’s goal achievement helps
others to achieve their goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what are the two main approaches to negotiaion?

A
  1. Positional/ Distributive bargaining – win/lose; value claiming (gain largest piece of the pie)
  2. Principled/ Integrative negotiation – win-win; attempt to find solutions so that both parties can do well and achieve their goals
    - principled negotiation is a form of integrative negotiation, which is an umbrella term for approaches beyond positional/distributive bargaining
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is positional/ distributive bargaining?

A
  • In distributive bargaining, the goals of one party are usually in fundamental and direct conflict with the goals of the other party.
  • Resources are fixed and limited, and both parties want to maximize their share.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is principled/ integrative negotiation?

A
  • making decisions about how to deal with
    problems of differences and conflict
    -involves working towards a win/win by not negotiating over positions, but focusing on interests behind the positions of each party
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are the stages of principled negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 1992)?

A
  1. Separate the people from the problem.
  2. Focus upon interests, not positions.
  3. Invent options for mutual gain.
  4. Insist upon objective criteria.
  5. Prepare alternative options (BATNA)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what are some examples of objective criteria?

A
  • health and safety standards
  • professional standards criteria
  • Costs
  • Laws/regulations
  • Job description
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is power differentials?

A

the situation where you think what if the other party is more powerful?, they refuse to negotiate?, you dont trust the other party to keep their promise?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

how do you overcome power differentials?

A

Don’t attack their position = explore the interests and emotions that lie behind it.
- Don’t take up a fixed position= invite criticism and advice.
- Reframe personal attacks as an attack on the problem.
- Ask questions instead of making statements.
- Institute a pause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what are the other reasons why its difficult to achieve principled negotiation?

A
  1. The history of the relationship between the parties
  2. The belief that the issue can only be resolved distributively
  3. The mixed-motive nature of most bargaining situations
  4. Short time perspective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how does the history of the relationship between the parties affect principled negotiation?

A

The more competitive and conflict-laden their past relationship, the more likely negotiators are to approach the current negotiation with a defensive, win–lose attitude.
- Long-term opponents are not likely to trust each other or to believe that a cooperative gesture is for an ulterior motive/
- if one party has never shown any genuine concern to cooperate in the past, why would they act different now

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

how does the belief that an issue can only be resolved distributivity affect principled negotiation?

A

In addition, negotiators may be prone to several cognitive biases or heuristic decision rules that systematically bias their perception of the situation, the range of possible outcomes, and the likelihood of achieving possible outcomes, all of which tend to preclude negotiators from engaging in the behaviors necessary for integrative negotiation
(Neale and Bazerman, 1985, 1991)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

how does short time perspective affect principled negotiation?

A

Effective integrative negotiation requires sufficient time to process information, reach true understanding of one’s own and the other party’s needs, and manage the transition from creating value to claiming value.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what is better approach distributive or integrative negotiation?

A
  • Principled negotiation is more effective and often leads to better outcomes, but an understanding of both approaches is important:
  • no evidence that integrative/principled approach will work when you are
    faced with a strong, distributive bargainer who is unwilling to take an integrative/principled approach
  • Integrative situations may involve a claiming value portion and this may
    involve the use of distributive tactics e.g., you could be faced with someone who says they are win-win, but are in fact trying to steer a win-lose situation that benefits them.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What do Fisher and Ury (2012) say about positional bargaining?

A

Whether a negotiation involves a contract or a family disupute, people regularly engage in positional bargaining. Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what do fisher and ury (2012) say about arguing over positions?

A

when negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to get stuck in these places. the more one party tries to defend their side, the more committed you become to it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what do fisher and ury (2012) say individuals try to do in positional bargaining?

A

parties try to improve the chance that any settlement reached is advantageous to them by beginning with a strong, extreme position therefore deceiving the other party of your real views, then making small concessions as needed to keep the negotiation going.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what do fisher and ury (2012) say about soft vs. hard bargaining?

A
  • the soft game focuses on the importance of the relationship
  • however, taking this stance may make those who choose the soft game vulnerable to the party who chooses the hard game
  • as a hard bargainer may make threats to get to their settlement, to which the soft party agrees in order to, avoid confrontation
  • this will produce an agreement but not a wise one
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

In step 1 of Fisher and Ury’s (2012) method what do they say about people?

A
  • its easy to forget that negotiations involve people who have feelings, emotions, values and are unpredictable
  • misunderstanding can reinforce prejudice that create negative reactions, therefore preventing successful negotation
22
Q

In step 1 of Fisher and Ury (2012) method what do they say every negotiator wants?

A

they want to reach an agreement that fulfils their interests. after that, a negotiator also has an interest in his relationship with the other side also
- However, in a negotiation, relationships can become mixed in with the problem. Therefore, we can treat people and the problem as one.

23
Q

In step 1 of Fisher and Ury (2012) method what do they say about perception?

A
  • understanding the other side’s thoughts is an effective way to solve the problem. The way they think is the problem, differences are defined by the difference between the two parties’ thinking
  • it enables you to influence them through seeing how they view things
  • although understanding their view may lead to one party reviewing their own views, this is a benefit of understanding their view as you can reduce the conflict
  • discuss differing perceptions with the other side in an honest way is one way to understand them
24
Q

In step 1 of Fisher and Ury (2012) method what do they say about face-saving?

A
  • face saving shows a persons want to reconcile the stand they take in a negotiation with their values and with their past words
  • people may not back down in a negotiation due to not looking a particular way to the other party, therefore the importance of this notion shouldn’t be underestimated
25
Q

In step 1 of Fisher and Ury (2012) method what do they say about emotion?

A
  • recognise and understand all emotions involved
  • an effective way to deal with them, is to let the other party to release their emotions and to help them do it, as people can feel psychological release from doing it
26
Q

In step 1 of fisher and Ury (2012) method what do they say about communication?

A
  • listen actively and understand what is being said as it allows you to understand their emotions, perceptions etc
  • explain how something has impacted you not what the other party did to you
  • build the relationship
  • face the problem, not the people as if both parties saw themselves as partners in the search for a fair agreement is a better way to view things
27
Q

In step 2 what do fisher and ury (2012) say about interests?

A
  • the basic problem in a negotiation lies not in differing positions but the conflict in each sides wants, needs and fears
28
Q

in step 2 of fisher and ury (2012) method why do they believe reconciling interests works better than positions?

A
  • firstly, for every interest there is usually many positions that could fulfil it
  • secondly, behind every position there’s shared and conflicting interests between both parties, and there are usually many more shared ones than conflicting ones
29
Q

In step 2 of fisher and ury (2012) method what do they believe are the most powerful interests?

A
  • realise that each side has many interests
  • the most powerful interests are the basic human ones such as security, economic well-being and sense of belonging. If a party can fulfil such basic needs, you can increase the chance of reaching an agreement
30
Q

In step 2 of fisher and ury (2012) method what do they say about talking about interests?

A
  • important to communicate interests, explain them
  • people listen better if they feel that they’ve been understood
31
Q

In step 2 of fisher and ury method what do they say about the theory of cognitive dissonance?

A
  • the theory states that people don’t like inconsistency and will try to get rid of it.
  • therefore, by attacking a problem, and simultaneously giving the firm support one creates cognitive dissonance for them
  • to overcome this, the other party will try to dissociate themselves from the problem so that they can join you in overcoming it
  • fighting hard on the key issue increases the need for a solution, giving support to the other party aid in improving the relationship and so increases the likelihood of reaching an agreement
32
Q

In step 3 of Fisher and ury (2012) method what do they say are the main obstacles to inventing options for mutual gain?

A
  1. fear that free-floating discussion will delay the process
  2. each side sees the situation as either i get what i want or you do
  3. each sides own concern and worry of their interests
  4. fixed pie assumption
  5. premature judgement
33
Q

In step 3 of Fisher and ury (2012) method what do they are the ways we can overcome the main obstacles to inventing options for mutual gain?

A
  1. separate inventing from deciding, invent ideas first and decide which one too choose later
  2. brainstorm with the other side
  3. identify shared interests
  4. ask for the other parties’ preferences
34
Q

In step 4 of fisher and ury (2012) method what do they say about using objective criteria?

A

the more you encourage using standards of equality and fairness on a problem, the more likely you are to produce a solution that is wise and fair
- not doing this and instead trying to reconcile differences on the point of will, isn’t efficient

35
Q

In step 4 of fisher and ury (2012) method what do they say about developing an objective criteria?

A
  • needs to have fair standards, independent of each sides wants
  • needs to have fair procedures to resolve the problems
36
Q

In step 4 of fisher and ury (2012) method what do they say negotiating with an objective criteria?

A
  1. frame each problem as a joint search for objective criteria
  2. need to be open to reason, as principled negotiation means doesn’t involve one side pushing their position and principle ahead
    = as what one side thinks is fair may not be fair to the other
  3. don’t yield to pressure
37
Q

what do Fisher and Ury (2012) say about the bottom line?

A
  • negotiators try to protect themselves against specific outcomes by establishing beforehand the worst outcome - the bottom line
    = doing this involves high costs, it limits the ability to learn from the other party
38
Q

what do fisher and ury (2012) say about BATNA?

A

batna is the standard against which any proposed solution should be measured
- it provides the advantage of being flexible and allows you to see if a solution satisfies your interests
- the better the batna the more power a party has

39
Q

how do Fisher and ury (2012) say to develop a batna?

A
  1. creating a list of options that you might take if no agreement is reached
  2. improving some of the promising ideas and changing them to more practical ones
  3. choosing the one option that looks best
40
Q

what do Fisher and ury (2012) say about negotation jujitsu?

A

when one side announces a firm stance, the other party might be tempted to reject it, if they criticise your proposal you can be tempted to defend it.
- so if they push you hard, you will tend to push back
- therefore don’t push back on the other parties’ position, instead look for their interests behind it.
- recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem
- ask questions

41
Q

what do fisher and ury (2012) say are the two responses to dirty tactics?

A
  1. to put up with it, give the other side the BOD
  2. responding the same way but stronger, eg if they make threats you counterthreat which leads to negotiation breaking
42
Q

what are some tricky tactics used according to Fisher and Ury (2012)?

A
  1. misrepresentation of facts or intentions
  2. psychological warfare used to make the party feel at unease, so you will want the negotiation to end ASAP. can be done through personal attacks
  3. positional pressure tactics which are used to structure the situation so that one party is able to make concessions, eg one party may raise their demands for every concession he makes, therefore reducing overall concession making you want to agree quickly before they raise demands again
43
Q

what do Bazerman and Moore (2013) say about framing?

A
  • framing has strong impacts for the tactics used by negotiators, the framing effect states that to encourage concessionary behaviour in the opposite party, the negotiator should create anchors that lead the opposing party towards a positive frame
  • therefore you are negotiating in a way the shows the other side what they have to gain, increasing chances for compromise
44
Q

what do Lewicki et al (2023) say about interdependence?

A

parties either have to coordinate with each other to achieve their own goals or they choose to work together because the outcome is better than if they work alone this is interdependent
- when parties are interdependent they have to find an avenue to solve their differences,

45
Q

according to Lewicki et al (2013) what do they believe the success of integrative negotiation depends on?

A

looking for solutions that meet the needs of both sides, so negotiators have to be firm but flexible and their main interests

46
Q

what does Lewicki et al (2023) say about depersonalising the problem?

A

when parties are in conflict, they can become judgemental. they can see their own actions and wants in a positive light and the other parties’ wants in a negative light

47
Q

what does Lewicki et al (2023) say integrative negotiation needs?

A

they believe it needs trust between the parties, as when people trust each other they’re more likely to share info and communicate their wants accordingly.
- when there is distrust it makes negotiating more challenging

48
Q

what do malhotra and bazerman (2007) say about getting information from distrustful negotiators?

A
  • share information first and encourage the other party to reciprocate
  • in doing so, try to identify what they find most important.
49
Q

what is positional bargaining according to Brett and Thompson (2016)?

A

Positional bargaining according to Brett and Thompson (2016) is a ‘claiming’ approach that involves a party trying to influence the other party to make concessions through using threats and emotional appeals.

50
Q

what do brett and thompson (2016) say about integrative negotiation?

A

describe the approach as sharing information about interests and the creating options that generate joint gains

51
Q
A

ULMS351 - Psychological approaches toDecision Making (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions