Chapter 5
Perception,
Cognition, and Emotion
Overview
We
begin the chapter by examining how psychological perception is related to the process of negotiation, with particular attention to
forms of perceptual distortion that can cause
problems of understanding and meaning making for negotiators. We then look at
how negotiators use information to make
decisions about tactics and strategy—the process of cognition.
Our discussion here pursues two angles. First, we focus on framing. Second, we discuss
the various kinds of systematic errors, or cognitive biases, in information
processing that negotiators
are prone to make and that may compromise negotiator performance. This section will also consider how negotiators can
manage misperceptions and cognitive
biases
in order to maximize strategic advantage and minimize their adverse effects.
Social encounters
are, however, more than just occasions for perception and cognition. We
experience and express emotion
when
we interact with others and negotiating is certainly no exception. In the final
major section of this chapter, we discuss the role of moods and emotions in
negotiation—both as causes of behavior and as consequences of negotiated
outcomes.
Learning Objectives
1.
Perception – the process by which individuals connect
to their environment.
2.
Framing
3.
Cognitive biases in negotiation
4.
Mood, emotion and negotiation
I.
Perception
A. Perception
defined
1. Perception is the
process by which individuals connect to their environment, by ascribing meaning
to messages and events. This process is
strongly influenced by the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and
comprehension of earlier communications.
2. Perception is a
“sense-making” process where people interpret their environment so they can
respond appropriately.
B. Perception
distortion
1. A perceiver’s own
needs, desires, motivation and personal experiences may create a predisposition
about the other party. This can lead to
biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication.
a. Stereotyping – occurs when one individual assigns attributes to
another solely on the basis of the other’s membership in a particular social or
demographic category.
(1) Highly resistant
to change
(2) Commonly used as
a resort during conflicts involving values, ideologies, and direct competition
for resources.
b. Halo effects occur when people generalize about a variety of
attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an individual.
(1) Research shows
halo effects are most likely to occur in perception
(i) Where
there is very little experience with a person along some dimension
(ii) When the person
is well known
(iii)
When the qualities have strong moral implications
c.
Selective perception occurs when
the perceiver singles out certain information that supports or reinforces a
prior belief and filters out information that does not confirm that belief.
d.
Projection occurs when people assign to others the
characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves. Projection usually
arises out of a need to protect one’s own self-concept— to see oneself as
consistent and good.
II. Framing
A frame is the
subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of
situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions
A.
Types of Frames
1.
Substantive—what the conflict
is about. Parties taking a substantive frame have a particular
disposition about the key issue or concern in the conflict.
2.
Outcome—a party’s predisposition to achieving a specific
result or outcome from the negotiation.
3.
Aspiration—a predisposition toward satisfying a broader set of
interests or needs in negotiation.
4.
Process—how the parties will go about resolving their
dispute.
5.
Identity—how the parties define “who they are.”
6.
Characterization—how the parties define the other
parties.
7.
Loss–gain—how the parties define the risk or reward associated
with particular outcomes.
B.
How frames work in
negotiation
1.
It is difficult to know
what frame a party is using unless the party tells you
2.
Frames of those who hear or
interpret communication may create biases of their own.
3.
Linguistic analyses of
negotiation transcripts provides insight into how parties define a negotiation,
and how frames are used in the process:
a.
Negotiators can use more
than one frame.
b.
Mismatches in frames
between parties are sources of conflict.
c.
Particular types of frames
may lead to particular types of agreements
d.
Specific frames may be
likely to be used with certain types of issues
e.
Parties are likely to
assume a particular frame because of various factors.
C.
Another approach to frames: Interest, rights, and
power
1.
Ury, Brett, and Goldberg (1988) proposed an approach
to framing disputes that view parties in conflict as using one of three frames:
a.
Interests - People are often
concerned about what they need, desire, or want. People talk about their
“positions,” but often what is at stake is their underlying interests.
b.
Rights - People may also
be concerned about who is “right”—that is, who has legitimacy, who is correct,
or what is fair.
c.
Power - Negotiations resolved by power
are sometimes based on who is physically stronger or is able to coerce the
other, but more often, it is about imposing other types of costs— economic
pressures, expertise, legitimate authority, and so on.
2.
The different frames are likely to lead to very
different discussions between parties.
3.
The way a party approaches the problem will likely
influence how the other party responds.
D.
The frame of an issue changes as the negotiation
evolves
1. The
issue development approach focuses on the patterns of change (transformation)
that occur in the issues as parties communicate with each other.
a. Several
factors shape a frame, the negotiation context clearly affects the way both
sides define the issue and conversations that the parties have with each other
about the issues in the bargaining mix.
b. At
least four factors can affect how the conversation is shaped:
(1) Negotiators
tend to argue for stock issues, or
concerns that are raised every time the parties negotiate.
(2) Each party
attempts to make the best possible case
for his or her preferred position or perspective.
(3) In a more
“macro” sense, frames may also define major shifts
and transitions in the overall negotiation.
(4) Multiple agenda items operate to shape
the issue development frames.
III. Cognitive
Biases in Negotiation
A. Irrational
escalation of commitment
1. An
“escalation of
commitment” is the tendency for an
individual to
make decisions that stick with a failing course of action
2. Escalation of
commitment is due in part to biases in individual perception and judgment.
B. Mythical
fixed-pie beliefs
1. Many negotiators
assume that all negotiations involve a fixed pie
2. Those who believe
in the mythical fixed pie assume there is no possibility for integrative
settlements and mutually beneficial trade-offs, and they suppress efforts to search
for them.
C. Anchoring
and adjustment
1. Anchoring and
adjustment are related to the effect of the standard (or anchor) against
which subsequent adjustments are made during negotiation.
2. Once the anchor
is defined, parties
tend to treat it as a real, valid benchmark by which to adjust other judgments,
such as the size
of one side’s opening offer.
D. Issue
framing and risk
1. A
frame is a perspective or point of view that people use when they gather
information and solve problems.
2. The way an issue
is framed influences how negotiators perceive risk and behave in relation
to it.
E.
Availability of information
1.
The availability bias operates when information that is presented in vivid,
colorful, or attention-getting ways becomes easy to recall, and thus also becomes central and
critical in evaluating events and options.
2.
The availability of information also affects
negotiation through the use of established search patterns.
F.
The winner’s curse
1.
The winner’s curse refers to the tendency of
negotiators, particularly in an auction setting, to settle quickly on an item and then subsequently
feel discomfort about a negotiation win that comes too easily.
G.
Overconfidence
1.
Overconfidence is the tendency of negotiators to
believe that their ability to be correct or accurate is greater than is actually true.
2.
Overconfidence has a double-edged effect:
a.
It can solidify the degree to which negotiators support
positions or options that are incorrect or inappropriate, and
b.
It can lead negotiators to discount the worth or
validity of the judgments of others, in effect shutting down other parties as
sources of information, interests, and options necessary for a successful integrative
negotiation.
H.
The law of small numbers
1.
The law of small numbers refers to the tendency of
people to draw conclusions from small sample sizes.
2.
This tendency leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy -
people who expect to be treated in a distributive manner will:
a.
Be more likely to perceive the other party’s behaviors
as distributive
b.
Treat the other party in a more distributive manner.
I.
Self-serving biases
1.
People often explain another person’s behavior by
making attributions, either to the person or the situation.
2.
Self-serving biases effect the negotiation process in
a number of ways, for example:
a.
Perception of greater use of constructive tactics than
the other party
b.
Less accurate in estimating the other’s preferred
outcomes
c.
Influences perception of fairness in a negotiation
context.
J.
Endowment effect
1.
The endowment effect is the tendency to overvalue
something you own or believe you possess.
2.
The endowment effect can lead to inflated estimations
of value that interfere with reaching a good deal.
K.
Ignoring others’ cognitions
1.
Failure to consider others’ cognitions allows negotiators to simplify
their thinking about otherwise complex processes; this usually leads to a more distributive
strategy and causes a failure to recognize the contingent nature of both sides’
behaviors and responses.
L.
Reactive devaluation
1.
Reactive devaluation is the process of devaluing the
other party’s concessions simply because the other party made them.
2.
Reactive devaluation leads negotiators to:
a.
Minimize the magnitude of a concession made
by a disliked other
b.
Reduce their willingness to respond with a concession of equal size, or
c.
Seek even more from the other party once a concession
has been made
M.
Managing misperceptions and cognitive biases in
negotiation
1.
Misperceptions and cognitive biases typically arise
out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information.
2. How
best to manage the negative consequences of misperception
a. Be aware
that they occur
b. Tell people
about a perceptual or cognitive bias - discuss them in a structured
manner within the team and with the party’s counterparts.
N. Reframing
1. Reframing might
involve any of a number of approaches.
a. Rather than
perceiving a particular outcome as a loss, the negotiator might reframe it as an
opportunity to gain.
b. Trying to
perceive or understand the situation in a different way or from a
different perspective
2. Because reframing
requires negotiators
to be flexible during the negotiation itself, they should anticipate—during
planning—that
multiple contingencies may arise during negotiations.
IV. Mood,
Emotion, and Negotiation
A. Negotiations
create both positive and negative emotions
1. Positive
emotions can result from being attracted to the other party, feeling good about
the development of the negotiation process and the progress that the parties
are making or liking the results that the negotiations have produced.
2. Negative emotions can
result from being turned off by the other party, feeling bad about the development
of the
negotiation process and the progress being made, or disliking the results
B. Positive
emotions generally have positive consequences for negotiations
1. Positive feelings are more likely to lead the parties toward more
integrative processes.
2. Positive feelings also create a positive attitude toward the other side.
3. Positive feelings promote persistence in addressing issues and concerns in
the negotiation.
C. Aspects of the
negotiation process can lead to positive emotions.
1. Positive feelings result from fair procedures during negotiation.
2. Positive feelings result from favorable social comparisons.
D. Negative
emotions generally have negative consequences for negotiations.
1. Negative emotions may lead parties to define the situation as
competitive or distributive.
2. Negative emotions may undermine a negotiator’s ability to analyze the
situation accurately, which adversely
affects individual outcomes.
3. Negative emotions may lead parties to escalate the conflict.
4. Negative emotions may lead parties to retaliate and may thwart
integrative outcomes.
E. Aspects
of the negotiation process can lead to negative emotions
1. Negative emotions may result from a competitive mindset.
2. Negative emotions may result from impasse.
F. The
effects of positive and negative emotion in negotiation
1. Positive feelings may have negative consequences.
2. Negative feelings may create positive outcomes.
G. Emotions
can be used strategically as negotiation gambits.
1. Given the power
that emotions may have in swaying the other side toward one’s own point of
view, emotions may also be used strategically and manipulatively as influence
tactics within negotiation.
2. Negotiators may
also engage in the regulation or management of the emotions of the other
party.
Summary
In this chapter
we have taken a multifaceted look at the role of perception, cognition, and
emotion in negotiation. The first portion of the chapter presented a brief
overview of the perceptual process and discussed four types of perceptual
distortions: stereotyping, halo effects, selective perception, and projection.
We then turned to a discussion of how framing influences perceptions in
negotiation and how reframing and issue development both change negotiator
perceptions during negotiations.
The chapter then
reviewed the research findings from one of the most important recent areas of
inquiry in negotiation, that of cognitive biases in negotiation. The effects of
12 different cognitive biases were discussed: irrational escalation of
commitment, mythical fixed-pie beliefs, anchoring and adjustment, framing,
availability of information, the winner’s curse, overconfidence, the law of
small numbers, self-serving biases, endowment effects, ignoring others’
cognitions, and reactive devaluation. This was followed by consideration of
ways to manage misperception and cognitive biases in negotiation, an area that
has received relatively little research attention. In a final section of the
chapter we considered mood and emotion in negotiation.
