Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

CHAPTER FIVE

Perception, Cognition, and

Emotion in Negotiation
The basic building blocks of all social
encounters are:
Perception
Cognition
Framing
Cognitive biases

Emotion

Perception
Perception is:

The process by which individuals connect

to their environment.

A sense-making process

The Role of Perception

The process of ascribing meaning to messages and events is strongly influenced

by the perceivers current state of mind, role, and comprehension of earlier
communications
People interpret their environment in order to respond appropriately
The complexity of environments makes it impossible to process all of the
information
People develop shortcuts to process information and these shortcuts create
perceptual errors

Perceptual Distortion
Four

major perceptual errors:

Stereotyping
Halo

effects
Selective perception
Projection

Stereotyping and Halo Effects

Stereotyping:

Is a very common distortion

Occurs when an individual assigns attributes to
another solely on the basis of the others membership
in a particular social or demographic category

Halo effects:

Are similar to stereotypes

Occur when an individual generalizes about a variety
of attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute
of an individual

Selective Perception
and Projection

Selective perception:

Perpetuates stereotypes or halo effects

The perceiver singles out information that supports a
prior belief but filters out contrary information

Projection:

Arises out of a need to protect ones own self-concept

People assign to others the characteristics or feelings
that they possess themselves

Framing

Frames:

Represent the subjective mechanism through which

people evaluate and make sense out of situations
Lead people to pursue or avoid subsequent actions
Focus, shape and organize the world around us
Make sense of complex realities
Define a person, event or process
Impart meaning and significance

Types of Frames
Substantive
Outcome
Aspiration
Process
Identity
Characterization
Loss-Gain

How Frames Work in Negotiation

Negotiators can use more than one frame

Mismatches in frames between parties are sources
of conflict
Particular types of frames may lead to particular
types of arguments
Specific frames may be likely to be used with
certain types of issues
Parties are likely to assume a particular frame
because of various factors

Interests, Rights, and Power

Parties in conflict use one of three frames:

Interests: people talk about their positions but

often what is at stake is their underlying interests
Rights: people may be concerned about who is
right that is, who has legitimacy, who is
correct, and what is fair
Power: people may wish to resolve a conflict on
the basis of who is stronger

Approaches to Negotiation
Approach
Interests

Rights

Power

Goal

Self-interest

Fairness

Winning

Dispute resolution
Understanding others
concerns

Justice

Respect

Temporal focus

Present (what needs and

Past (what has been dictated

by the past?)

Future (what steps can I

take in the future to
overpower others?)

Often produces a winner

Often produces a

and a loser; thus, unequal

distribution

winner and a loser;

thus, unequal distribution

Difficult to expand the pie

Difficult to expand the

interests do we have right

now?)

Distributive
strategies (pie
slicing)

Compromise

Integrative
strategies (pie
expansion)

Most likely to expand the pie

Implications for
future negotiations
and relationship

via addressing parties

underlying needs
Greater understanding

Satisfaction
Stability of agreement

unless focus is on interests

Possible court action

pie unless focus is on

interests
Resentment

Possible retaliation
Revenge

The Frame of an Issue Changes as

the Negotiation Evolves

Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues or

concerns that are raised every time the parties
negotiate
Each party attempts to make the best possible
case for his or her preferred position or
perspective
Frames may define major shifts and transitions
in a complex overall negotiation
Multiple agenda items operate to shape issue
development

Some Advice about Problem

Framing for Negotiators

Frames shape what the parties define as the key

issues and how they talk about them
Both parties have frames
Frames are controllable, at least to some degree
Conversations change and transform frames in
ways negotiators may not be able to predict but
may be able to control
Certain frames are more likely than others to
lead to certain types of processes and outcomes

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

Negotiators have a tendency to make

systematic errors when they process
information. These errors, collectively
labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede
negotiator performance.

Cognitive Biases

Irrational escalation
of commitment
Mythical fixed-pie
beliefs
Anchoring and
adjustment
Issue framing and
risk
Availability of
information

The winners curse

Overconfidence
The law of small
numbers
Self-serving biases
Endowment effect
Ignoring others
cognitions
Reactive devaluation

Irrational Escalation of Commitment

and Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs

Irrational escalation of commitment

Negotiators maintain commitment to a course of

action even when that commitment constitutes
irrational behavior

Mythical fixed-pie beliefs

Negotiators assume that all negotiations (not just

some) involve a fixed pie

Anchoring and Adjustment

and Issue Framing and Risk

Anchoring and adjustment

The effect of the standard (anchor) against which

subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are
measured
The anchor might be based on faulty or incomplete
information, thus be misleading

Issue framing and risk

Frames can lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral

about risk in decision making and negotiation

Availability of Information
and the Winners Curse

Availability of information

Operates when information that is presented in vivid

or attention-getting ways becomes easy to recall.
Becomes central and critical in evaluating events and
options

The winners curse

The tendency to settle quickly on an item and then

subsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes
too easily

Overconfidence and
The Law of Small Numbers

Overconfidence

The tendency of negotiators to believe that their

ability to be correct or accurate is greater than is
actually true

The law of small numbers

The tendency of people to draw conclusions from

small sample sizes
The smaller sample, the greater the possibility that
past lessons will be erroneously used to infer what
will happen in the future

Confidence or Overconfidence?
We came to Iceland to advance the cause of peace.
. .and though we put on the table the most farreaching arms control proposal in history, the
General Secretary rejected it.
President Ronald Reagan to reporters,
following completion of presummit arms control discussions
in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 12,
1986.

I proposed an urgent meeting here because we had

something to propose. . .The Americans came to this
meeting empty handed.
Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev,
Describing the same meeting to reporters.

Self-Serving Biases
and Endowment Effect

Self-serving biases

People often explain another persons behavior by

making attributions, either to the person or to the
situation

Endowment effect

The tendency to overvalue something you own or

believe you possess

Ignoring Others Cognitions

and Reactive Devaluation

Ignoring others cognitions

Negotiators dont bother to ask about the other partys

perceptions and thoughts
This leaves them to work with incomplete information,
and thus produces faulty results

Reactive devaluation

The process of devaluing the other partys

concessions simply because the other party made
them

Managing Misperceptions and

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
The best advice that negotiators can follow
is:

Be aware of the negative aspects of these

biases
Discuss them in a structured manner within the
team and with counterparts

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

The distinction between mood and

emotion is based on three characteristics:
Specificity
Intensity
Duration

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

Negotiations create both positive and negative

emotions
Positive emotions generally have positive
consequences for negotiations

They are more likely to lead the parties toward more

integrative processes
They also create a positive attitude toward the other
side
They promote persistence

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to

positive emotions

Positive feelings result from fair procedures during

negotiation
Positive feelings result from favorable social
comparison

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

Negative emotions generally have negative

consequences for negotiations

They may lead parties to define the situation as

competitive or distributive
They may undermine a negotiators ability to analyze the
situation accurately, which adversely affects individual
outcomes
They may lead parties to escalate the conflict
They may lead parties to retaliate and may thwart
integrative outcomes

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to

negative emotions

Effects of positive and negative emotion

Negative emotions may result from a competitive

mindset
Negative emotions may result from an impasse
Positive emotions may generate negative outcomes
Negative feelings may elicit beneficial outcomes

Emotions can be used strategically as

negotiation gambits