Thursday, February 9, 2012
Perception, Cognition, and Emotion in Negotiation PO NC5
CHAPTER FIVE
The basic building blocks of all social encounters are:
• Perception
• Cognition
– Framing
– Cognitive biases
• Emotion
Perception
Perception is:
• The process by which individuals connect to their environment.
• A “sense-making” process
The Process of Perception
Perceptual Distortion
• Four major perceptual errors:
– Stereotyping
– Halo effects
– Selective perception
– Projection
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
• 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
Framing
• 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
Types of Frames
• Substantive
• Outcome
• Aspiration
• Process
• Identity
• Characterization
• Loss-Gain
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 types of issues
• Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements
• Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors
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.
Cognitive Biases
• 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 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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 positive emotions
– Positive feelings result from fair procedures during negotiation
– Positive feelings result from favorable social comparison
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment