Perception - Cognition - Emotion - Notes and Links

Map of Cognitive Psychology:  https://www.mindmeister.com/95862231/dd303-cognitive-psychology Slides - http://www.slideshare.net/jonrwallace/negotiation-perception-cognition-emotion-13283480

Prezi Map:  https://prezi.com/meorqatqw4ks/mind-map/https://prezi.com/meorqatqw4ks/mind-map/
http://cln-kieshahaggerty.blogspot.com/2010/09/perception-cognition-and-emotion-mind.html 
Images of the mental processes:

 Negotiation: Perception, Cognition & Emotion

1. 1. Perception,Cognition, and Emotion (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
2. 2. Perception, Cognition, Emotion Social encounters build upon: – Perception – Cognition • Framing • Cognitive biases – Emotion (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
3. 3. Perception Process (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
4. 4. Perceptual Distortion• Common errors: – Stereotyping – Halo effects – Selective perception – Projection (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
5. 5. Perceptual Distortion Stereotyping Reality? HaloProject Effects Selective Perception (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
6. 6. Framing• Subjective way we evaluate and make sense out of situations• Lead us to pursue or avoid subsequent actions• Focus, shape and organize our paradigms• Make sense of complex realities• Define a person, event or process• Impart meaning and significance (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
7. 7. Frames Types Use in Negotiations• Substantive  Multiple• Outcome  Mismatches cause conflict• Aspiration  Negotiate differently• Process  Specific with certain types• Identity of issues  Particular frames lead to• Characterization particular agreements• Loss-Gain  Parties assume particular frames for many reasons (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
8. 8. Interests Rights Power (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
9. 9. Frames Change as Talks Evolves• Stock issues• Best possible case• Shifts and transitions• Multiple agenda items (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
10. 10. Framing Summary • Define key issues and discussion • Both sides • Somewhat controllable • Conversations change and transform frames unpredictably, but controllably • Some lead to certain types of processes and outcomes (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
11. 11. Cognitive Biases• Irrational escalation of commitment• Mythical fixed-pie beliefs• Anchoring and adjustment• Issue framing and risk• Availability of information (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
12. 12. Cognitive Biases • The winner’s curse • Overconfidence • The law of small numbers • Self-serving biases • Endowment effect • Ignoring others’ cognitions • Reactive devaluation (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
13. 13. Managing Cognitive Biases• Be aware of the negative aspects of these biases• Discuss them in a structured manner within the team and with counterparts (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011) 5-13
14. 14. Mood or Emotion? • Three distinct characteristics: – Specificity – Intensity – Duration (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011) 5-14
15. 15. Positive Emotions• Positive emotions – positive consequences – Lead toward more integrative processes – Create a positive attitude toward the other side – Promote persistence – Fair procedures & favorable social comparisons build positive feelings (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
16. 16. Negative Emotions • Negative emotions - negative consequences – Lead to competitive or distributive negotiations – Degrade situation analysis adversely affecting outcomes – Conflict escalation – Retaliation – Not always (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
17. 17. Negative Emotions • Process may cause negativity – A competitive mind-set – Impasses – The beginning of negotiation • Effects aren’t absolute – Positive feelings - negative outcomes – Negative feelings - beneficial outcomes • Emotions can be used strategically (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)
18. 18. Are You in Control of You? (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry. 2011)

Student Map and Summary of Essentials of Negotiation Chapter5. Summary of Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

Essentials of Negotiation Chapter5. Mindmap and Summary

Essentials of Negotiation Chapter5.

Summary of Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

In the chapter five, we learn that perception, cognition, and emotion are the three basic elements in the negotiation. First, the chapter begins with the definition of perception. It shows that perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. Then it introduces four type of perceptual distortion: stereotyping, halo effect, selective perception and projection. Second, this chapter discusses the framing which is a key issue in perception and negotiation. It presents seven types of frames and how frames work in the negotiation. Then, the chapter discusses the ways to manage misperceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation. Final, it talks about the role of mood and emotion in negotiation which has been the subject of an increasing body of recent theory and research during the last decade.

x C-hN5e-M-C06-Communication During Negotiation

Chapter 6: Communication During Negotiation

Offers, Counteroffers, and Motives

-The communicative framework for negotiation

1). the communication of offers is a dynamic process

2). the offer process is interactive

3). various internal and external factors drive the interaction and “motivate” a bargainer to change his or her offer.

Ÿ   Information about Alternatives

Negotiators with an attractive BATNA should tell the other party about it if they expect to receive its full benefits.

-The style and tone used to convey information about an attractive BATNA

1).Politely making the other party aware of one’s good alternative can provide leverage without alienating the other party.

2).Waving a good BATNA in the other party’s face in an imposing or condescending manner may be construed as aggressive and threatening.

Ÿ   Information about Outcomes

Negotiators should be cautious about sharing their outcomes or even their positive reactions to outcomes with the other party, especially if they are going to negotiate with that party again in the future.

Ÿ   Social Accounts

Three explanation types:

1).Explanations of mitigating circumstances

2).Explanations of exonerating circumstances

3).Reframing explanation

Ÿ   Communication about Process

How well it is going or what procedures might be adopted to improve the situation.

Consider: Is More Information Always Better?

“Information-is-weakness Effect”: Negotiators who know the complete preferences of both parties may have more difficulty determining fair outcomes that negotiators who do not have this information.

l  How People Communicate in Negotiation

Ÿ   Use of Language

-Two levels of language operation: Logical level & Pragmatic level: The meaning conveyed by a statement or proposition is combined with a logical surface message and several pragmatic levels.

Parties whose statements communicated interests in both the substance of the negotiation and the relationship with the other party achieved better, more integrative solutions.

Ÿ   Use of Nonverbal Communication

1).Make Eye Contact

–When listening: show others you are paying attention and listening that you consider them important

–When delivering: emphasize the importance of the message that is being sent

2).Adjust Body Position

One’s body position indicates whether one is paying attention to the other party.

–To show you are attentive: hold your body erect, lean slightly forward, and face the other person directly

–To show strong rejection or disapproval: crossing arms, bowing the head, furrowing the brow, and squeezing eyebrows together.

3).Nonverbally Encourage or Discourage What the Other Says

Indicate encouragement: brief eye contact, a smile, or a nod of the head.

Indicate discouragement: a frown, a scowl, a shake of the head, or a grab of one’s chest in mock pain

Ÿ   Selection of a Communication Channel

–Face-to-face negotiators are more easily to develop personal rapport, more inclined to disclose information truthfully, increasing their ability to attain mutual gain.

–What e-mail negotiations lack is schmoozing—off-task or relationship-focused conversations.

l  How to Improve Communication in Negotiation

Ÿ   The Use of Questions

Questions in Negotiation:

1).Manageable: cause attention or prepare the other person’s thinking for further questions, get information, generate thoughts

2).Unmanageable: cause difficulty, give information, bring the discussion to a false conclusion

–collect and diagnose information, assist the other party in addressing and expressing needs and interests

–pry or lever a negotiation out of a breakdown or an apparent dead end

Ÿ   Listening

1). Passive listening

Receive the message while providing no feedback to the sender about the accuracy or completeness of reception. (Can be used as the best strategy when the counterpart is talkative)

2).Acknowledgment:

Receivers occasionally nod their heads, maintain eye contact, or interject responses like “I see,” “mm-hmm.” “interesting,” “really,” and the like.

3).Active listening

Restate or paraphrase the sender’s message in their own language

Ÿ   Role Reversal

Gain an understanding of the other party’s perspective or frame of reference: allow negotiators to understand more completely the other party’s position by actively arguing these positions until the other party is convinced that he or she is understood.

l  Special Communication Considerations at the Close of Negotiations

Ÿ   Avoiding Fatal Mistakes

Ÿ   Achieving Closure

–avoid surrendering important information needlessly, and to refrain from making “dumb remarks” that push a wavering counterpart away from the agreement

–recognize the other party’s faux pas and dumb remarks for what they are and refuse to respond or be distracted by them

N5e-C05-M- Outline-Perception, Cognition and Emotion

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
  1. Aspiration frames lead to integrative agreement
  2. Outcome or negative frames can lead to distributive agreement
• Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues
  1. People discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frame.
  2. People discussing relationship may be likely to use characterization frame
• Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors
  1. Differences in personality
  2. Value differences
  3. Power differences
  4. Differences in background
  5. Social context

Different approach on how frames work in negotiation

1. Interests
   1. Frame the conflicts based on interest, not on their positions and demands
2. Rights
   1. Use some standards and rules to decide who has legitimacy, who is correct and fair in resolving the problem
3. Power
   1. Create win-lose situation
   2. 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

Ref.: https://nego4biz.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/chapter-5-perception-cognition-and-emotion/