Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

1

• CHAPTER 5
• Perception, Cognition, and Emotion

2
The Titles

1. Perception
2. Framing
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
4. Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases in
   Negotiation
5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation
6. Chapter Summary

3
1. Perception

• Perception Defined
• Perception is the process by which individuals
  connect to their environment. The process of
  ascribing meaning to message and events is
  strongly influenced by the perceivers current
  state of mind, role, and comprehension of earlier
  communications.
• Perception Distortion
• In a given negotiation, the perceivers own
  needs, desires, motivation, and personal
  experiences may create a predisposition about the
  other party (pre-conceived view). This is cause
  for concern when it leads to biases and errors in
  perception and subsequent communication.

4
The Perceptual Process

• Figure 5.1
• Perception is a sense-making process people
  interpret their environment so that they can
  respond appropriately.

Attention
Stimulus
Recognition
Translation
Behavior
Perception
5
Perception Distortion -1

• Stereotyping
• It occurs when one individual assigns
  attributions to another solely on the basis of
  the others membership in a particular social or
  demo-graphic category.
• Halo Effects
• It occurs when people generalize about a
  variety of attributes based on the knowledge of
  one attribute of an individual.

6
Perception Distortion -2

• Selective Perception.
• It 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.
• Projection.
• It occurs when people assign to others the
  characteristics or feelings that they possess
  themselves. It usually arises out of a need to
  protect ones own self-conceptto see oneself as
  consistent and good.

7
2. 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.
• The popularity of framing has come with the
  recognition that often two or more people who are
  involved in the same situation or in a complex
  problem see it or define it in different ways.
• Frames are critical in negotiation for several
  reasons. Understanding framing helps negotiators
  evaluate the process, and better controlling it.
  (p.135)

8
2.1 Types of Frames

• (1) Substantivewhat the conflict is about.
• (2) Outcomea partys predisposition to achieving
  a specific result or outcome.
• (3) Aspirationa predisposition toward
  satisfying a broader set of interest or needs.
• (4) Process how the parties will go about
  resolving their dispute.
• (5) Identity how the parties define who they
  are.
• (6) Characterizationhow the parties define the
  other parties.
• (7) Loss-gainhow the parties define the risk or
  reward associated with particular outcomes.

9
2.2 How Frames Work in Negotiation

• Negotiators can use more than one frame.
• Mis-matches in frames between parties are sources
  of conflict.
• Particular types of frames may lead to particular
  types of agreements.
• 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 (Box 5.1, p.139).

10
2.3 Another Approach to Frames Interests,
Right, and Power

• Parties have a choice about how they approach
  a negotiation in terms of interests, rights, and
  power, the same negotiation can be framed in
  different ways and will likely lead to different
  consequences
• Illustration the situation of a student who has
  a dispute with a local car repair shop over the
  cost of fixing an auto (p. 140)

11
2.4 The Frame of an Issue Changes as Negotiation
Evolves

• 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) Frames may define major shifts and
  transitions in a complex overall negotiation.
• (4) Multiple (agenda) items operate to shape
  issue development (e.g. addition, deletion,
  packaging).

12
Reframing

• The process of reframing, i.e. the manner in
  which the thrust, tone, and focus of a
  conversation change as the parties engage in it.
  (p. 142)
• e.g. Focus is changed (ref. Table 3.1
  Refocusing Questions to Reveal Win-Win Options,
  p.86) for effect.
• Case illustration ??
• Whether intentional or emergent, reframing
  introduces a new way to approach the problem (a
  new perspective).
• Q What does the Cartoon (p.142) mean to you
  in the context of framing?

13
2.5 Summary-1

• Framing is about focusing, shaping, and
  organizing the world around us---making sense of
  complex realities and defining them in ways that
  are meaningful to us. (what?)
• Different types of frames exist, which helps to
  understand strategic choices in negotiation.
  (how?)
• How a negotiation problem is defined or framed,
  and reframed are critical elements for
  negotiators to consider in developing and
  implementing their strategy. (why?)

14
2.5 Summary-2

• Prescriptive advices about problem framing (A
  negotiator Must/should bear in mind)
• Frame 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.

15
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -1

• Irrational Escalation of Commitment.
• It is an tendency for an individual to make
  decisions that stick with a failing course of
  action.
• Escalation of Commitment is due in part to
  biases in individual perception and judgment.
• One way to combat these tendencies is to have
  an advisor to serve as a reality checkpoint.
• Mythical Fixed-Pie Belief.
• The tendency to see negotiation in fixed-pie
  terms varies depending on how people view the
  nature of a given conflict situation.
• It can also be diminished by holding
  negotiators accountable for the way the negotiate.

16
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -2

• Anchoring and Adjustment
• The choice of an anchor might well be based on
  faulty or incomplete information and thus be
  misleading in and of itself.
• Through preparation, along with the use of
  devils advocate or reality check, can help
  prevent errors .
• Issue Framing and Risk.
• The way an issue is framed influences how
  negotiators perceive risk and behave in relation
  to it.
• The tendency to either seek or avoid risk may
  be based on the reference point against which
  offers and concessions are judged.

17
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation-3

• Availability of Information.
• Negotiators must also be concerned with the
  potential bias caused by the availability of
  information or how easy information is to
  retrieve.
• The availability of information also affects
  negotiation through the use of established search
  patterns.
• The Winners Curse .
• The winners curse refers to the tendency of
  negotiators to settle quickly on a item and then
  subsequently feel discount about a negotiation
  win that comes too easily. The best remedy
  for winners curse is to prevent it from
  occurring.

18
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -4

• Overconfidence
• It is the tendency of negotiators to believe
  that their ability to be correct or accurate is
  greater than is actually true. It has a
  double-edged effect.
• It appears that negotiators have a tendency
  to be overconfident about their own abilities and
  that this overconfident affects a wide variety of
  perceptions and behaviors.
• The Law of Small Numbers.
• It applies to the way negotiators learn and
  extrapolate from their own experience.
• Example of hot hand fallacy.

19
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -5

• Self-Serving Biases
• Fundamental Attribution Error.
• The effects of self-serving biases.
• Self-serving biases have recently been
  shown to influence perceptions of fairness in a
  negotiation context.
• Perceptual error may also be expressed
  in the form of biases or distortions in the
  evaluation of data.

20
3. Cognitive Biases in Negotiation -6

• Endowment Effect.
• It is the 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 .
• Ignoring Others Cognitions .
• Reactive Devaluation.
• It is the process of devaluing the other
  partys concessions simply because the other
  party made them. Such devaluation may be based in
  emotionality or on distrust fostered by past
  experience.

21
4. Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive
Biases in Negotiation

• They are typically arise out of conscious
  awareness as negotiators gather and process
  information. Box 5.4 presents a sizeable
  inventory of the variety of decision traps that
  can occur.
• Merely discussing how to set opening offers,
  aspiration levels, and bottom lines with team
  members will not reduce the effects of perceptual
  biases.
• Careful discussion of the issues and preferences
  by both negotiators may reduce the effects of
  perceptual biases.
• Reframing.

22
5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-1

• The role of mood and emotion in negotiation has
  been subject of an increasing body of recent
  theory.
• The distinction between mood and emotion is based
  on three characteristics specificity, intensity,
  and duration.
• Some select findings are available as following.

23
5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-2

• Negotiations Create Both Positive and Negative
  Emotions
• Most researchers agree that emotions
  tend to move the parties toward some of action I
  their relationship, such as initiating a
  relationship, maintaining to fixing the
  relationship, or terminating the relationship.
• Positive Emotions Generally Have Positive
  Consequences For Negotiations.
• Positive feelings are more likely to
  lead the parties toward more integrative
  processes.
• Positive feelings are also create a
  positive attitude toward the other side.
• Positive feelings promote persistence.

24
5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-3

• Aspects of the Negotiation Process Can Lead to
  Positive Emotions
• Positive feelings may result from fair
  procedures during negotiation.
• Positive feelings may result from favorable
  social comparisons.
• Negative Emotion Generally Have Negative
  Consequences for Negotiators
• Negative Emotions may lead parties to define
  the situation as competitive or distributive.
• Negative Emotions may undermine a
  negotiators ability to analyze the situation
  accurately.
• Negative Emotions may lead parties to
  escalate the conflict. Negative Emotions may
  lead parties to retaliate and may thwart
  integrative outcomes.

25
5. Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation-4

• Aspects of the Negotiation Process Can Lead to
  Negative Emotions
• Negative Emotions may result from a competitive
  mindset.
• Negative Emotions may result from impasse.
• The Effects of Positive and Negative Emotion in
  Negotiation.
• Positive feelings may have negative
  consequences.
• Negative feelings may create positive
  outcomes
• Emotions Can Be Used Strategically as Negotiation
  Gambits
• Given the power that emotions may have in
  swaying the other side toward ones own point of
  view, elements may also be used strategically and
  manipulatively as influence tactics within
  negotiation.

26
6. Chapter Summary

• In this chapter we have taken a multifaceted look
  at the role of perception, cognition, and emotion
  in negotiation.
• First we presented a brief overview of the
  perceptual process and discussed four types of
  perceptual distortions, then turned to a
  discussion of how framing influences perceptions
  in negotiation and how reframing and issue
  development both change negotiator perceptions.
• And then we reviewed a research findings of
  cognitive biases in negotiations.