Showing posts with label Perception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perception. Show all posts
20190923
PERCEPTION, COGNITION, AND EMOTION IN NEGOTIATION OUTLINE
The basic building blocks of all social encounters are:
Perception
Cognition
Framing
Cognitive biases
Emotion
Perception defined:
The process by which individuals connect to their
environment.
A complex physical and psychological process of
"sense-making"
Perception is
the process of ascribing meaning to messages and events.
It 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
information
- People develop shortcuts to process information and these shortcuts
can create perceptual errors
PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION
• Four major perceptual errors:
■ Stereotyping
■ Halo
effects
■ Selective
perception
■ 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
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
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 INFORMATION AND 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 |
SELF-SERVING BIASES AND ENDOWMENT EFFECT
Self-serving biases
People often explain another person's
behavior by making attributions, either to the person or to the situation
The tendency, known as fundamental attribution error, is to:
The tendency, known as fundamental attribution error, is 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 AND 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
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
They set the stage for
successful subsequent negotiations
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
• 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
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 emotions may generate
negative outcomes
Negative feelings may elicit
beneficial outcomes
Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation
gambits
20190922
PERCEPTION, COGNITION, AND EMOTION IN NEGOTIATION - En 6e C7 outline t
|
BASICS
What
DEFINITION
PERCEPTION PROCESS CHART
Perception
Stimulus
Attention Recognition
Transition
Behavior
PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION
SELECTIVE PERCEPTION AND PROJECTION
FRAMING
TYPES OF FRAMES
HOW FRAMES WORK
INTERESTS, RIGHTS, AND POWER
CHANGING
FRAMES
ADVICE ABOUT PROBLEM FRAMING
COGNITIVE BIASES
IRRATIONAL ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT AND MYTHICAL
FIXED-PIE BELIEFS
ANCHORING AND ADJUSTMENT AND ISSUE FRAMING AND
RISK
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND THE WINNER'S CURSE
OVERCONFIDENCE AND THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS
SELF-SERVING BIASES AND ENDOWMENT EFFECT
IGNORING OTHERS' COGNITIONS AND REACTIVE
DEVALUATION
MANAGING MISPERCEPTIONS AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN
NEGOTIATION
|
The basic building blocks of all social encounters are:
Perception
Cognition
Framing
Cognitive biases
Emotion
Perception defined:
The process by which individuals connect to their environment.
A complex physical and psychological processA
"sense-making" process
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 information
- People develop shortcuts to process information and these
shortcuts create perceptual errors
PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION
• Four major perceptual errors:
■ Stereotyping
■ Halo effects
■ Selective perception
■ 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
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
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 INFORMATION AND 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 |
SELF-SERVING BIASES AND ENDOWMENT EFFECT
Self-serving biases
People
often explain another person's behavior by making attributions, either to the
person or to the situation
The tendency, known as fundamental attribution error, is 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 AND 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
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
They
set the stage for successful subsequent negotiations
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
• 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
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
emotions may generate negative outcomes
Negative
feelings may elicit beneficial outcomes
Emotions can be used strategically as [
negotiation gambits
|
20150618
Perception, Cognition and Emotion EN C5
Chapter 5: Perception, Cognition and Emotion
Perception is the process by which individuals
connect to their environment. In layman’s terms, it is a sense-making process
where people interpret their environment so to respond appropriately. As
perception depends on the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and comprehension,
here could always be errors in the interpretation and subsequent communication.
Some forms of such distortions are as follows;
- Assign
attributes to one solely on the basis of the membership to
a particular large group or category (social, racial, religious or sexual orientations).
- Eg:
He is an Italian so he must know so much about Rome.
- Very
common, highly resistant to change once formed
– Halo
effect
- Generalize
many attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of the individuals
without any consistent relationship between them
- Positive
effect à good attribute, negative effect à bad attribute
- Reasons
for occurrence
- Very
little experience with the other party
- When
the person is well known
- When
the qualities have strong moral implications
- Eg:
He is smiling so he must be telling the truth!
–
selective perception
- Singles
out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out
information that does confirm the belief.
–
Projection
- Assign
to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves.
- Eg: I
feel upset to postpone things, so he also will probably get frustrated if
I tell him to delay our meeting.
Framing
- Disposition
about key issue and concern in the conflict
- Neglects
how parties will resolve the dispute
Outcome
- Predisposition
to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation
- Primarily
used by distributive negotiators
Aspiration
- Predisposition
to a broader set of interests, needs and concern other than a specific
outcome.
- Primarily
used by integrative negotiators
Process
- Procedure
on how parties will resolve their dispute.
- Does
not care much about specific key issues and concern in the conflict
Identity
- Definition
of oneself, based on membership of a number of different social groups
such as gender, religion, ethnic origin, etc
- Used
to differentiate themselves from others and tend to be positive
Characterization
- One’s
definition of the other parties, shaped by prior or early experience and
knowledge about others.
- Tend
to be negative in conflicts
Loss/ Gain
- Definition
of risk and reward associated with different outcomes
- Can
frame the outcome as loss or reward based on risk preference of other
parties
- For
instance, a car buyer can view the transaction as a monetary cost of the
purchase (loss) or the value (gain) of the item.
How frames work in Negotiation
- Negotiators
can use more than one frame
- Mismatches
in frames between parties are sources of conflict
- Different
types of frames or content from the two parties can cause misunderstanding
and conflict escalation
- Can
reframe the conflict into the frame that is more compatible for both
parties3. Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of
agreements
- Aspiration
frames lead to integrative agreement
- Outcome
or negative frames can lead to distributive agreement
- Specific
frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues
- People
discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frame.
- People
discussing relationship may be likely to use characterization frame
- Parties
are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors
- Differences
in personality
- Value
differences
- Power
differences
- Differences
in background
- Social
context
Different approach on how frames work in negotiation
- Interests
- Frame
the conflicts based on interest, not on their positions and demands
- Rights
- Use
some standards and rules to decide who has legitimacy, who is correct and
fair in resolving the problem
- Power
- Create
win-lose situation
- Resolve
the conflict based on power – ability to coerce the other by
imposing other types of forces – economic pressures, expertise,
legitimate authority, etc
II. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
- Irrational
Escalation of Commitment – stick with a failing course of action
- Eg:
a country continues to pour resources into an unwinnable war because the
conflict has already happened.
- Mythical
Fixed-Pie Beliefs – assume that all negotiations are win-lose
- Anchoring
and Adjustment – effect of standard against which subsequent adjustments
are made during negotiation
- Issue
Framing and Risk – more risk averse when a decision problem is framed as
gain, and risk seeking when framed as a loss
- Availability
of Information- depends on how easily information can be recalled and used
- The
Winner’s curse – tendency to settle quickly and subsequently feel
discomfort about a win that comes easily
- Eg:
the other party gives in too easily, so there might be something wrong
with the outcome or I could have done better.
- Overconfidence
– tendency to believe their ability to be correct or accurate is greater
than for real.
- The
Law of Small Numbers- tendency to draw conclusions from small sizes
- Eg:
assuming all negotiations as distributive based on a number of past
negotiations or prior experiences
- Self-Serving
Biases- explain behaviors by making attributions to the person or
situation
- Eg:
If I mess up, it’s bad luck. If you mess up, it’s your fault!
- Endowment
Effect – tendency to overvalue something you posess
- Eg:
One is likely to pay $3 for a mug if he is to buy from others, but values
$7 on the same mug he owns.
- Ignoring
Others’ Cognitions – ignoring the other party’s perceptions and thoughts
hence working with incomplete information
- Reactive
Devaluation- devaluing the other party’s concessions simply because the
other party made them
Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in
Negotiation
- Be
aware that misperceptions and cognitive biases can occur as negotiators
gather and process information and discuss them in a structured manner
within their team and with their counterparts
- Careful
discussion of the issues and preference can reduce the effects of
perceptual biases
III. Mood, Emotion and Negotiation
- Mood
and emotion are different in specificity (emotion is
directed at more specific targets), intensity (mood is less
intense) and duration (mood is more enduring)
- Negotiations
create both positive (happiness)and negative (dejection-related,
agitation-related) emotions
- Positive
emotions generally have positive consequences for negotiations (lead
parties to integrative process)
- Negative
emotions generally have negative consequences for negotiations (lead
parties to competitive or distributive process or escalate conflicts)
- Emotions
can be used strategically as negotiation gambits
- The
effect of positive and negative emotion in negotiation
1) Positive feelings may have
negative consequences
- More
susceptible to a competitive opponent’s deceptive tactics
- Less
focus on arguments of other party, leading to less-than-optimal outcomes
- Create
strong positive expectations, experiencing the defeat more strongly and
treating other more harshly if an satisfying integrative agreement is not
found
2) Negative feelings may
create positive outcomes
- Negative
emotion has information value
- Motivate
people to either leave the situation or resolve the problem
- Alerting
other party of a problem in relationship, leading both to work on fixing
the problem
from
- Very
little experience with the other party
- When
the person is well known
- When
the qualities have strong moral implications
- Eg:
He is smiling so he must be telling the truth!
- Aspiration
frames lead to integrative agreement
- Outcome
or negative frames can lead to distributive agreement
- People
discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frame.
- People
discussing relationship may be likely to use characterization frame
- Differences
in personality
- Value
differences
- Power
differences
- Differences
in background
- Social
context
- Frame
the conflicts based on interest, not on their positions and demands
- Use
some standards and rules to decide who has legitimacy, who is correct and
fair in resolving the problem
- Create
win-lose situation
- Resolve
the conflict based on power – ability to coerce the other by
imposing other types of forces – economic pressures, expertise,
legitimate authority, etc
- Eg:
a country continues to pour resources into an unwinnable war because the
conflict has already happened.
- Eg:
the other party gives in too easily, so there might be something wrong
with the outcome or I could have done better.
- Eg:
assuming all negotiations as distributive based on a number of past
negotiations or prior experiences
- Eg:
If I mess up, it’s bad luck. If you mess up, it’s your fault!