Week 6 - Perception, Cognition, and Emotion Flashcards
Perception
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.
The Role of Perception
- 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
Four major perceptual errors
- Stereotyping
- Halo effects
- Selective perception
- Projection
Stereotyping
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
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 (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.
Selective perception
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.
Projection
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
Framing
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
Framing example
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
Gain/loss frame
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.
Other types of frames
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
The frame of an issue changes as the negotiation evolves
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)
Naming, blaming, claiming
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.
Reframing
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.
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 - 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
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
Cognitive biases list
- 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
Irrational escalation of commitment
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
Mythical fixed-pie beliefs
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
Anchoring and adjustment
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.
Issue framing and risk
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
Availability of information
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
The winner’s curse
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
Overconfidence
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
