Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

CHAPTER FIVE

Perception, Cognition, and Emotion in Negotiation

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 Role of Perception

The process of ascribing meaning to messages and events is 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 informationPeople develop shortcuts to process information and these shortcuts create perceptual errors

Perceptual Distortion

Four major perceptual errors:StereotypingHalo effectsSelective perceptionProjection

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 Perceptionand Projection

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 Particular types of frames may lead to particular

types of arguments Specific frames may be likely to be used with

certain types of issues 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

Approaches to Negotiation

Goal

Interests Rights Power

Approach

• Self-interest• Dispute resolution• Understanding others’ concerns

• Fairness• Justice

• Winning• Respect

Temporal focus

Distributive strategies (pie slicing)

Integrative strategies (pie expansion)

Implications for future negotiations and relationship

• Present (what needs and interests do we have right now?)

• Past (what has been dictated by the past?)

• Future (what steps can I take in the future to overpower others?)

• Compromise • Often produces a “winner” and a “loser”; thus, unequal distribution

• Often produces a “winner” and a “loser”; thus, unequal distribution

• Most likely to expand the pie via addressing parties’ underlying needs

• Difficult to expand the pie unless focus is on interests

• Difficult to expand the pie unless focus is on interests

• Resentment

• Possible retaliation

• Revenge

• Possible court action• Greater understanding

• Satisfaction

• Stability of agreement

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 and Issue Framing and Risk

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 Informationand the Winner’s Curse

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 and The Law of Small Numbers

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

Confidence or Overconfidence?

We came to Iceland to advance the cause of peace. . .and though we put on the table the most far-reaching arms control proposal in history, the General Secretary rejected it.

President Ronald Reagan to reporters, following completion of presummit arms control discussions

in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 12, 1986.

I proposed an urgent meeting here because we had something to propose. . .The Americans came to this meeting empty handed.

Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev,Describing the same meeting to

reporters.

Self-Serving Biasesand Endowment Effect

Self-serving biases People often explain another person’s behavior by

making attributions, either to the person or to the situation

Endowment effect The tendency to overvalue something you own or

believe you possess

Ignoring Others’ Cognitionsand Reactive Devaluation

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 also 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

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to

negative emotions Negative emotions may result from a competitive

mindset Negative emotions may result from an impasse

Effects of positive and negative emotion Positive emotions may generate negative outcomes Negative feelings may elicit beneficial outcomes

Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation gambits