Week 6 - Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

Question 1

Perception

Answer 1

The process by which individuals connect to their environment by ascribing meaning to messages and events

A sense-making process - Taking in so much data - we have to have shortcuts to process things quickly

Perception becomes selective, tuning in on some stimuli while tuning out others.

Question 2

The Role of Perception

Answer 2

• 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 be inaccurate

Stimulus –> Attention –> Recognition –> Translation –> Behaviour

Question 3

Four major perceptual errors

Answer 3

• Stereotyping
• Halo effects
• Selective perception
• Projection

Question 4

Stereotyping

Answer 4

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
- Hard to remove

Individuals are more likely to resort to stereotyping under certain conditions. Examples include time pressure, cognitive stress, and mood, conflicts involving values/ideologies

Question 5

Halo effects

Answer 5

Are similar to stereotypes
- Occur when an individual generalizes about a variety of attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an individual (rather than group membership)

A smiling person is judged to be more honest than a frowning or scowling person, for example, even though there is no consistent relationship between smiling and honesty - can be good or bad

Halo effects are most likely to occur in perception (1) when there is very little experience with a person along some dimension (and hence generalization occurs about that person from knowledge of him or her in other contexts), (2) when the person is well-known, and (3) when the qualities have strong moral implications.

Question 6

Selective perception

Answer 6

Perpetuates stereotypes or halo effects
- The perceiver singles out information that supports a prior belief but filters out contrary information

After forming quick judgments about individuals on the basis of limited information, people may then filter out further evidence that might disconfirm the judgment.

Question 7

Projection

Answer 7

Arises out of a need to protect one’s own self-concept - to see ourselves as consistent and good
- People assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves

Question 8

Framing

Answer 8

A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situation, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions

Important because different people look at the same situation (objectively) and interpret it quite differently (frame thing differently)

Emerge and converge as the parties talk about their preferences and priorities
- Allow parties to begin to develop a shared/common definition of the issues related to a situation and a process for resolving them

Question 9

Framing example

Answer 9

The country is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual new disease that is expected to kill six hundred people. What program would you prefer?

Group 1:
Program A, 200 lives saved
Program B, one-third probability all saved and two-thirds probability non saved

Group 2:
Program A, 400 will die
Program B, one-third probability all saved and two-thirds probability non saved

Results:
Group 1 - 76% chose program A and 24% chose program B

Group 2 - 13% chose program A and 87% chose program B

Why? Difference in framing
- one focuses on lives saved and one on lives lost
This example is called the gain/loss frame

Question 10

Gain/loss frame

Answer 10

Framing affects the reference point, defined as an arbitrary point used to evaluate an alternative as either a gain or a loss

In the new disease problem, participants who were asked to focus on lives saved tended to look at the problem from a perspective
that focused on gains. Thus, the choices they made tended to be risk averse.

The group with the reference point that focused on lives lost tended to make choices that were risk seeking, largely because they looked at the situation from a perspective that focused on losses.

Question 11

Other types of frames

Answer 11

Outcome: party’s predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation. More likely to engage in distributive negotiation

Aspiration: predisposition toward satisfying a broader set of interests or needs in negotiation rather than specific outcome. More likely to engage in integrative

Process: how the parties will go about resolving their dispute. less likely to be concerned about specific negotiation issues but more concerned about how the deliberations will proceed or how the dispute should be managed.

Identity: how the parties define who they are. Parties are members of a number of different social groups

Question 12

The frame of an issue changes as the negotiation evolves

Answer 12

Patterns of change (transformation) that occur as parties communicate with each other.
- At least four factors can affect how the conversation is shaped:

• Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues or concerns that are raised every time the parties negotiate (management always expects them to be raised and is ready to respond - stock issues can be restructured to include more or fewer issues, increasing the likelihood that a resolution can be found)
• Each party attempts to make the best possible case for his or her preferred position/perspective (Each party is interested in controlling the conversation by controlling the focus; however, each party’s argument eventually begins to shift as they both focus on either refuting the other’s case or modifying their own arguments on the basis of the other’s arguments. )
• Frames may define major shifts and transitions in a complex overall negotiation (Parties first seek a compromise that establishes some formula or framework of broad objectives and principles. Then they draw out a number of detailed points of agreement)
• Multiple agenda items operate to shape issues development (secondary concerns often transform the conversation about the primary issues)

Question 13

Naming, blaming, claiming

Answer 13

Naming occurs when parties in a dispute label or identify a problem and characterize what it is about.

Blaming occurs next, as the parties try to determine who or what caused the problem.

Finally, claiming occurs when the individual who has the problem decides to confront, file charges, or take some other action against the individual or organization that caused the problem.

Question 14

Reframing

Answer 14

Reframing is a dynamic process that may occur many times in a conversation. It comes as parties challenge each other, as they present their own case or refute the other’s, or as they search for ways to reconcile seemingly incompatible perspectives.

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 the other, 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.

Reframing might involve any of a number ofapproaches. For instance, rather than perceiving a particular outcome as a loss, the negotiator might reframe it as an opportunity to gain, that is, as a bright-side alternative to approaching a given situation.

Negotiators can also reframe by trying to perceive or understand the situation in a different way or from a different perspective.

Because reframing requires negotiators to be flexible during the negotiation itself, they should anticipate—during planning—that multiple contingencies may arise during negotiations.

Question 15

Advice about problem framing for negotiators

Answer 15

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 - 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 more win—lose processes

Question 16

Cognitive biases in negotiation

Answer 16

Negotiators have a tendency to make systematic errors when they process information. These errors collectively labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performance

Question 17

Cognitive biases list

Answer 17

• Irrational escalation of commitment
• Mythical fixed-pie beliefs
• Anchoring and adjustment
• Issue framing and risk
• Availability of information
• The winner’s curse
• Overconfidence
• The law of small numbers
• Self-serving biases
• Endowment effect
• Ignoring others’ cognitions
• Reactive devaluation

Question 18

Irrational escalation of commitment

Answer 18

Negotiators maintain commitment to a course of action even when that commitment constitutes irrational behaviour

e.g. country that continues to pour military resources into an unwinnable armed conflict

This desire for consistency is often exacerbated by a desire to save face and to maintain an impression of expertise or control in front of others.

One way to combat these tendencies is to have an adviser serve as a reality checkpoint—someone who is not consumed by the heat of the moment and can warn the negotiator when they’re behaving irrationally

Question 19

Mythical fixed-pie beliefs

Answer 19

Negotiators assume that all negotiations (not just some) involve a fixed pie

Assume there is no possibility for integrative settlements and mutually beneficial trade-offs, and they suppress efforts to search for them

Negotiators focusing on personal interests (as opposed to value) are most likely to come under the influence of fixed-pie beliefs

Question 20

Anchoring and adjustment

Answer 20

The effect of the standard (anchor) against which subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are measured

For example, research shows that real estate agents’ house appraisals are strongly affected by the asking price.

Goals in negotiation—whether set realistically or carelessly—can also serve as anchors.

Thorough preparation, along with the use of a devil’s advocate or reality check, can help prevent errors of anchoring and adjustment.

Question 21

Issue framing and risk

Answer 21

A frame is a perspective or point of view that people use when they gather information and solve problems

The way an issue is framed influences how negotiators perceive risk and behave in relation to it

Negotiations in which the outcomes are negatively framed tend to produce fewer concessions and reach fewer agreements, and negotiators perceive outcomes as less fair than negotiations in which the outcomes are positively framed.

Remedies are similar to those we have mentioned for other cognitive biases (e.g., sufficient information, thorough analysis, and reality checks) but can be difficult to achieve because frames are often tied to deeply held values and beliefs

Question 22

Availability of information

Answer 22

Operates when information that is presented in vivid, colourful, or attention-getting ways becomes easy to recall

Becomes central and critical in evaluating events and options

Question 23

The winner’s curse

Answer 23

The tendency to settle quickly on an item and then subsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes too easily

the negotiator is often left wondering, “Could I have gotten this for less?” or asking, “What’s wrong with the item/product/option?” The negotiator may suspect that the other party knows too much or has insight into an unseen advantage; thus, it becomes either “I could have done better” or “This must be a bad deal.”

The best remedy for the winner’s curse is to prevent it from occurring. Thorough investigation and preparation can provide negotiators with independent verification of appropriate settlement values

Question 24

Overconfidence

Answer 24

The tendency of negotiators to believe that their ability to be correct or accurate is greater than is actually true

(1) it can solidify the degree to which negotiators support positions or options that are incorrect or inappropriate, and (2) it can lead negotiators to discount the worth or validity of the judgments of others,

This does not mean, however, that negotiators should always seek to suppress confidence or optimism. Research on distributive bargaining found that negotiators biased toward optimism achieved more profitable settlements

Question 25

The law of small numbers

Answer 25

The tendency of people to draw conclusions from small sample sizes

In negotiation, the law of small numbers applies to the way negotiators learn and extrapolate from their own experience. If that experience is limited in time or in scope (e.g.,if all your prior negotiations have been hard-fought and distributive), the tendency is to extrapolate prior experience to future negotiations (e.g., all negotiations are distributive).

This tendency will often lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: people who expect to be treated in a distributive manner will (1) be more likely to perceive the other party’s behaviour as distributive and (2) treat the other party in a more distributive manner.

Question 26

Self-serving biases

Answer 26

People often explain another person’s behaviour by making attributions, either to the person (i.e., the behaviours were caused by internal factors, such as ability, mood, or effort) or to the situation (i.e., the behaviours were caused by external factors, such as the task, other people, or fate).

Perceptual biases are often exacerbated by the actor—-observer effect, in which people tend to attribute their own behaviour to situational factors but attribute others’ behaviours to personal factors, saying in effect, “If I mess up, it’s bad luck (the situation, someone else’s fault, etc.); if you mess up, it’s your fault!”

Perceptual error may also be expressed in the form of biases or distortions in the evaluation of data. For instance, the false consensus effect is a tendency to overestimate the degree of support and consensus that exists for our own position, opinions, or behaviours.

Question 27

Endowment effect

Answer 27

The tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you possess

Can lead to inflated estimations of value that interfere with reaching a good deal.

Question 28

Ignoring others’ cognitions

Answer 28

Failure to consider others’ cognitions allows negotiators to simplify their thinking about otherwise complex processes; this usually leads to a more distributive strategy and causes a failure to recognize the contingent nature of both sides’ behaviours and responses.

Although this “failure to consider” might be attributed to some basic, underlying bias against the other party, research suggests that it is more often a way to make the complex task of decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty more manageable

The drive to ignore others’ cognitions is very deep-seated, and it can be avoided only if negotiators explicitly focus on putting in the effort needed to form an accurate understanding of the other party’s interests,

Question 29

Reactive devaluation

Answer 29

The process of devaluing the other party’s concessions simply because the other party made them

Reactive devaluation leads negotiators to minimize the magnitude of a concession made by a disliked other, to reduce their willingness to respond with a concession of equal size, or to seek even more from the other party once a concession has been made.

Question 30

Managing misperceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation

Answer 30

The best advice that negotiators can follow is…

1. be aware of the negative aspects of these biases

• We encourage you to build awareness of these biases into the process of preparing for a negotiation; that is, each time you negotiate, ask yourself to what degree you might be susceptible to each of them. If you happen to dislike your negotiation counterpart, is it likely you will dismiss his or her honest efforts to share information (reactive devaluation)? If you are selling something that you own, is it possible that you inflate your expectations of its market value simply because you own it (an endowment effect)?

2. discuss them in a structured manner within the team and with counterparts

Question 31

Mood

Answer 31

States of feeling that are mild in intensity, last for an extended period of time and are not directed at anything

Question 32

Emotions

Answer 32

Intense feelings that often last for a short duration and are clearly directed at someone or something

Positive emotions often lumped under “happiness”

Negative emotions have many descriptors (angry, anxious, frustrated, disappointed, etc.)

Question 33

Negative emotions: dejection vs. agitation

Answer 33

Dejection-related emotions result from feeling disappointed, frustrated, or dissatisfied, while agitation-related emotions result from feeling anxious, fearful, or threatened.

Dejection-related emotions may lead negotiators to act aggressively, while agitation-related emotions may lead negotiators to try to retaliate or to get out of the situation

Question 34

Anger

Answer 34

• Signals irritation
• Creates hope of settling (reduction in concessionary behaviour)
• Effective if expressed by powerful party
• Can be detrimental in other circumstances

We suggest that to benefit from a display of anger, you would be wise to ensure your counterpart sees that the emotion is legitimate.

Question 35

Anxiety

Answer 35

• Anxious negotiators expected worse on outcomes, obtained worse outcomes, made smaller opening offers, exited earlier

Harmful effects were reduced when negotiators had a high level of confidence in their abilities to negotiate.

Question 36

Negative emotions generally have negative consequences

Answer 36

• May lead parties to define the situation as competitive or distributive
• May undermine a negotiator’s ability to analyze the situation accurately, which adversely affects individual outcomes
• May lead parties to escalate the conflict
• May lead parties to retaliate and may thwart integrative outcomes

Question 37

Summary of positive emotions

Answer 37

• More likely to lead the parties toward more integrative processes
• Create a positive attitude towards the other side
• Promote persistence in addressing issues and concerns in the negotiation

Question 38

Negotiation interactions can yield positive emotions

Answer 38

• Positive feelings result from fair procedures during negotiation
• Positive feelings result from favourable social comparisons (external social comparisons - comparing your outcome with others’ outside the negotiation that
  just took place; doesn’t hold the same for internal ones)

Question 39

Summary and key points

Answer 39

• Be on the lookout for your own tendency to be influenced by perceptual distortions and cognitive biases. However, it is just as important to watch out for these tendencies from your counter parts. These factors often help explain why negotiators perceive their counterparts to be acting irrationally. Perhaps their behaviour appears to be risk-seeking. Could it be caused by framing effects? Or perhaps they are selling something and can’t possibly imagine that someone else might value the thing they are selling less than they value it. Could this be caused by the endowment effect?

What for the effects of emotions and moods on your own and your counterpart’s behaviour. For the most part, positive emotions produce positive results, while negative emotions create tension and frustration. Do what you can to create the right mood because it can influence you likelihood of success.