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;
I. Types of Perceptual Distortions
–
Stereotyping
- 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
Frame is the subjective mechanism through which people
evaluate and make sense out of situations based on their own experiences,
leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.
Type of Frames Used in Disputes
Substantive
- 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
