Chapter 06
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
complex physical and psychological process of screening, selecting and
interpreting stimuli so that they have meaning to the individual.
3. Perception is a
“sense-making” process where people interpret their environment so they can
respond appropriately.
B. Perceptual
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)
Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame.
d)
Specific frames may be
likely to be used with certain types of issues.
e)
Particular types of frames
may lead to particular types of agreements.
f)
Parties are likely to
assume a particular frame because of various factors.
C.
Another approach to frames: Interests, 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
positive/negative framing process is important because the same offer can
elicit markedly different courses of action depending on how it is framed in
gain–loss
terms.
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, and
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.
Perceptual biases are often exacerbated by the
actor-observer effect in which people tend to attribute their own behavior to
situational factors but attribute other's behaviors to personal factors.
3.
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.
IV. Managing
misperceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation
A. Misperceptions and cognitive biases typically
arise out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information.
B. How best to manage the negative consequences
of misperception.
1. Be aware that they occur.
IV. Mood,
Emotion, and Negotiation
A. Negotiations
create both positive and negative emotions.
1. A cognitive
assessment of a “good outcome” leads parties to feel happy and satisfied.
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.
4. Positive feelings
set the stage for successful subsequent negotiations.
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.
5. Not all negative
emotions have the same effect.
E. Aspects
of the negotiation process can lead to negative emotions.
1. Negative emotions may result from a competitive mind-set.
2. Negative emotions may result from impasse.
3. Negative emotions
may result merely from the prospect of beginning a negotiation.
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 discussed
one of the most important recent areas of inquiry in negotiation, that of cognitive
biases in negotiation. This was followed by consideration of ways to manage
misperception and cognitive biases in negotiation. In a final section we
considered mood and emotion in negotiation.
