Chapter 5 - Perception, Cognition, Emotion, and [Framing]

~ Perception & Negotiation

- Perception Process by which individuals connect to the environment.
- Negotiations approach each situation guided by their perceptions of past situations and current
attitudes/behaviors.
- In negotiation the goal is to perceive and interpret with accuracy the other party is saying and meaning.
- We must also use selective perception since so much complexity comes with perception.
~ Perceptual Distortions/Perceptual Errors
1. Stereotyping When an individual assigns attributes to another solely on the basis of the other's membership in
particular social or demographic category.
- I.E. Men/Women, Young/Old
2. Halo Effects Creating multiple attitudes about someone based on one attribute of an individual.
- I.E. A smiling person is judged as more honest, than a frowning person.
- Often occurs when you have little experience with the person, or even well known
- When qualities have strong moral implications.
** Halo Effects & Stereotyping = Hazards in Negotiation Negotiations form rapid impressions of each other
based on very limited initial information.
3. Selective Perception When the perceived singles out certain information that only supports or REINFORCES
a PRIOR BELIEF, and filters out information that does not confirm that belief.
- Selective Perception can Stereotypes Halo Effects
4. Projection When people assign to others the characteristics or feelings that
THEY POSSESS THEMSELVES.
- I.E. Negotiators may assume the other party would respond in the SAME manner they would if the
positions were reversed, [causing overestimations of the other party's preferences or desires]
------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Framing
- Framing Use of strategic information to define and articulate a negotiating issue or situation.
- People evaluate and make sense out of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.
- Framing is about focusing/shaping/organizing the world around us to make sense of a complex reality and
defining it in terms that are meaningful to us.
- ** Frames allow parties to voice their preferences and priorities.
~ Types of Frames
1. Substantive What the conflict is about, focus on the key issue/concern in the conflict.
2. Outcome Party's tendency to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation.
- Strong outcome frame emphasizes = self-interest, and downplays concern for other party [primarily
distributive bargaining, win/lose or lose/lose]
3. Aspiration Aims towards satisfying a broader set of interests and needs in the negotiation.
- Negotiator tries to ensure other party's basic interests/needs, and concerns are met.
- [Integrative Bargaining]
4. Process How the parties will go about resolving their disputes.
- Negotiators with a strong process frame are less concerned about the specific negotiation issues, but more
concerned about how the disputes should be managed.
5. Identity How parties distinguish themselves from others.
- I.E. Gender (male), religion (Buddhist), place of birth (Brooklyn).
6. Characterization How parties define the other parties.
- Characterization frame = shaped by experience with the other party, by party's
reputation or how they come across early in the negotiation.

- * Identity frames of self = Positive

- * Characterization frames of others tend to be = Negative.
7. Loss Gain How the parties define the risk or reward associated with particular outcomes.
- I.E. Buyer in a sales negotiation can view the transaction in loss terms (cost of the purchase) or gain terms
(value of the item)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------~ How Frames Work in Negotiation
1. Negotiators can use MORE THAN ONE Frame I.E. In the labor union negotiation, we used Aspiration
(wanted both parties better off), Characterization (made inferences of other party as part of our frame), Loss-Gain
(how much it cost management, how much union was gaining)
2. Mismatches In Frames between Parties = Sources of Conflict Outcome vs. Procedural would inevitably cause
conflict.
- Using different content in the SAME frame, [Process] have strong preferences for a particular way of
doing things = Conflict.
- Parties would need to reframe the conflict into frames more compatible.
3. Parties Negotiate Differently depending on the Frame Since frames evoke certain strategies and
cognitive/emotional responses from negotiators.
4. Specific Frames may be likely to be used with Certain types of Issues and lead to Particular types of
agreements Parties who achieve integrative agreements, may likely use aspiration frames
~ Another Approach to Frames: Interests, Rights, and Power
- Another approach to framing disputes suggests that parties in conflict use 1/3 frames.
1. Interests People are concerned about what they need, desire, or want.
- Their "positions" state what is at stake and their *underlying interests*.
-

I.E. A kid says he "needs" a new text messaging cell phone, but what he really wants is a new electronic
toy, because all his friends have one.

2. Rights People may be concerned about who is "right", who has the legitimacy, or what is fair.
- Disputes about rights are often resolved by helpingthe parties find a fair way to determine who is "right",
- or they can both be right; by using a standard of "taking turns" or "split it down the middle"
3. Power Using the basis of power to frame a negotiation.
- Legitimate authority/expertise power/economic pressures.
- Disputes by power usually create clear winners and losers.
- In a single negotiation dispute, if you use choose to use one particular frame over the other, the outcome may be
completely different, as well as drive the other party to follow/go against you.
- I.E. Student who has a dispute with a car repair shop, over the cost of fixing the car; student thinks she was
overcharged, and used the most expensive replacement parts; did not get a chance to review the bill before work was
done.
-

Interests Tries to understand the shop owner's system for pricing, and talk about what is a fair price and
pay for it, and go back to the shop again.

Rights Student worked in a garage herself and knows car repairs are priced on standard manuals, and
costs of labor.
- She will go ask for the manual and invoice for the parts, and go to the garage where she worked to see if
the bill is inflated, and pay accordingly.

- Power Call a lawyer to sue the owner, tell others not to go to this repair shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ The Frame of an Issue Changes as the Negotiation Evolves
-

Reframing Dynamic process that may occur many times in a conversation as parties challenge each other
or search for ways to reconcile seemingly incompatible perspectives.

- Factors that Affect how Conversations and Frames are Shaped

1. Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues or concerns that are raised every time the parties negotiate.
- I.E. Wage issues/working conditions may always be discussed in labor negotiations.
2. Making the Best Possible Case Parties want to present their evidence to persuade the other party of the validity
of their perspective.
- Results in parties talking past each other, instead of listening/engaging to each other.
- Arguments and frames begin to shift as the parties focus on modifying their own arguments on the basis
of the others.
3. Frames may define major Shifts and Transitions in a complex overall negotiation Parties start by developing a
broad framework of principles and objectives, which they can agree.
- Only after that can they work toward detailed points of agreement.
4. Multiple Agenda Items Shape issue development; while parties usually have 1 or 2 major objectives, priorities
or core issues, there are often a number of lesser/secondary items.
- When brought into the conversation, these 2ndary concerns transform the conversation about the primary
issues.
- I.E. Teacher negotiating scheduling, brought to a concern about cost of personal insurance.
[Pg 122] Section Summary for Framing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
1. Irrational Escalation of Commitment Negotiators sometimes maintain commitment to a course of action,
even when the commitment constitutes irrational behavior on their part.
- Escalation of Commitment = Inability to make decisions and stick with a failing course of action.
-

Once a course of action is decided, negotiators often seek supportive evidence, confirming their choice,
while ignoring to seek disconfirming information.
- Desires to Save face and Remain Consistent exacerbates this.

2. Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs Those who believe all negotiations involve a fixed pie; and believe even in
integrative negotiation, there is a fixed pie; rather than possibility for mutual benefits.
- Negotiators focusing on personal inters, come under fixed-pie beliefs.
3. Anchoring and Adjustment - By using an anchoring offer (initial offer) and making subsequent adjustments to
the anchor offer during negotiation.
- Anchors = Potentially Trap negotiator as they believe the anchor is the only valid benchmark, and
everything MUST be negotiated around it.
4. Issue Framing and Risk [124] Frames can lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral about risk in negotiation.
- When negotiators are risk averse, they are more likely to accept any viable offer simply because they are
afraid of losing.
- When negotiators are risk-seeking, they want to wait for a better offer or for future concessions.
5. Availability of Information Way of presenting information, how easily it can be recalled or used to evaluate a
process or decision
- I.E. Presenting information through a clear message/diagram/formula, will be more believed than
information in a confusing detailed format.
6. The Winner's Curse [Buyer's Remorse] Tendency for negotiator, especially in auction setting to settle quickly
on an item, then subsequently feel discomfort about the win as it comes too easily.
7. Overconfidence Negotiators believe their ability to be correct is greater than reality.
- It can lead negotiators to discount validity of others (shutting down other parties).
- It can also lead to support incorrect positions.
8. Law of Small Numbers Tendency of people to draw conclusions based on [limited experiences]
- The less the negotiation experience, the tendency people recall on those experiences in negotiation,
causing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

- I.E. People who expect to be treated in a distributive manner, will more likely perceive the other party's
behavior as distributive, and therefore treat the other party in a distributive manner .
9. Self-Serving Biases- Tendency to explain another person's behavior by making attributions either to the person
with (internal factors of ability/effort) or to the situation (caused by external factors)
- I.E. Student shows up late to class, internal explanation = she is lazy; external = had a flat tire.
10. Endowment Effect - Tendency to OVERVALUE something you own or believe you possess.
- In negotiation, the endowment effect can lead to INFLATED estimations of value that interfere with
reaching a good deal.
- ** Max Bazerman, the endowment effect has "potentially dysfunctional anchor point, making mutually
beneficial trades more difficult"
11. Ignoring Other's Cognitions Failure to consider other party's thoughts/perceptions, leads to simplified
thinking, than about complex processes. - This leads to a more distributive strategy.
12. Reactive Devaluation Process of devaluing the other party's concessions, simply because the other party made
them.
- Devaluation reactions occur "I just don't like them", leads to negotiators to minimize the
magnitude of a concession made by a disliked other, therefore reduces their willingness to respond with a
concessions of equal in size.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation
- Negotiations create both Positive & Negative Emotions
- Positive = Result from being attracted to the other party; feeling good about the development of the
negotiation process/progress made.
- Negative = Result from lack of progress/process, disliking the results.
- Dejection-Related Emotions Disappointed, frustrated, or dissatisfied.
- Agitation-Related Emotions May lead to retaliate or get out of situation.
-

Negative Emotions = Competitive/Distributive Bargaining.

- Negative Emotions = undermine a negotiator's ability to analyze the situation accurately; adversely
affecting outcomes.

Negative Emotions Arise From:

1. Competitive Mind Set Fixed-pie perception, tends to lead to less satisfied outcomes.
2. Result from Impasse Anger/frustration when fail to reach progress or an agreemtn.

~ Opposite Effects of Positive and Negative Emotion

-

Positive Feelings may lead to Negative Consequences Positive moods make one less likely to examine
closely to the other party's arguments.
- May therefore be more susceptible to a competitive opponents deceptive tactics.

Negative feelings may create Positive Outcomes Negative feelings can act as a danger signal, that needs
attention and signals to the other party to search for a resolution.