Ch6 Flashcards
(51 cards)
value is often created/destroyed due to psychological programming
perceptial errors
framing
cognitive biases
3 building blocks of social encounters
PERCEPTION
COGNITION
EMOTION
social encounters are guided by how we percieve, analyze and feel about another party
what is perception and what is it influenced by
the prcoess by which individuals connect to the environment
-past experiences and current attitudes/behaviours influnce our perception
goal of perception in a negotioan
to percieve things accuratley as they are
why do we take perceptual shortcuts
cuz environmets are often very complex and stimulating
what is the perceptual prcoess
stimulus > attention > recognition > translation > behaviour
A-> T are perception
when are u more prone to steroetype
time pressue. cognitive stress, mood, conflicts w/ values/ideologies/competition
4 types of perceptual errors
- stereotyping
- halo effects
- selective perception
- projection
stereotyping
individual assigns attributes to another based on the membership of other ina social group/demographic
age, gender, orientaiton sexual, ethincitiy
generalization that is often inaccurate
halo effects
when people generalize about a lot of attributes based on knowing one attribute of an individul
GOOD OR BAD!
when do halo effets occur
- little experience with person
- not well known person
when quaities have strong moral implications
Selective perception
selectively choosinginfo to reinforce a prior belief
THIS PERPETUATES HALO EFFECTS
Projection
when people assign to others the characteristics they possess themselves
arises out of ened to perserve own self concept
Negotiators may assume that the other party will respond in the same manner they would if positions were reversed. could lead a negotiatior to overestimate how much the other party knows!
framing
subjective mechanism through which people make sens of situations leading them to calibrate actions baout fturue sistuations
importanat because innegotiaont it is important to have common definitons and framing things differently is not good
can we avoid framing? what does it do in a nefotation?
We can not! it often occurs unitinionally based on past experiences/values/emotions
it is improtant cuz individual perceptiosn and reactions will likely eb affected
types of frames
- substantive: what the conflict is about!
- outcome: focus all strategy, tactics, comunication towards geting that outcome
- aspirations: predispopsed towards satisfying broader set of interests/needs in negotaiton rathan 1 outcome; more likely to be INTEGRATIVE
- process: parties caring mroe about the process of dispute reso
- identity: how the parties define who they are!
- charcaterization: how the parties define other parties!!
- loss or gain” how parties percieve a result (did they lose x or win y)
how frames work in negotaiton
- negotiatiros use multiple frames
- mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict
- parties neogtiate differently depening on frame
- specific frames may be likely to used with certain usses
- particular types of frames may lead to particular types of afreements
- parties are likely to assume a articular frame cuz of various factors
3 prong frame approach
for draming disputes for parties in conflict
interests: people are often concerned about what they need desire or want
rights: people may be concerned about who is right/ Disputes over rights are sometimes referred to formal or informal arbitrators to decide whose standards or rights are more appropriate.
power: people may elect to frame a negotiaon on the basis of power (physically/presusred/coerced) Disputes framed as contests of power usually create clear winners and losers,
does the frame of an issue stay stagnant?
no it changes as the negotiation evolves
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. We discussed the different types of frames and their importance for understanding strategic choices in negotiation. We can offer the following prescriptive advice about problem framing for the negotiator:
Page 146
Frames shape what the parties define as the key issues and how they talk about them. To the extent that the parties have preferences about the issues to be covered, outcomes to be achieved, or processes to be addressed, they should strive to ensure that their own preferred frames are accepted and acknowledged by the others.
Both parties have frames. When the frames match, the parties are more likely to focus on common issues and a common definition of the situation; when they do not match, communication between the parties is likely to be difficult and incomplete.
Frames are controllable, at least to some degree. If negotiators understand what frame they are using and the frame the other party is using, they may be able to shift the conversation toward the frame they would like the other to adopt.
Conversations transform frames in ways negotiators may not be able to predict but may be able to manage. As parties discuss an issue, introduce arguments and evidence, and advocate a course of action, the conversation changes, and the frame may change. It is critical for negotiators to be ready for and track these shifts, and to understand where they might lead.
Certain frames are more likely than others to lead to certain types of processes and outcomes. For example, parties who are competitive are likely to have positive identity frames of themselves, negative characterization frames of each other, and a preference for win–lose approaches to resolving their dispute. Recognizing these tendencies empowers negotiators to reframe their views of themselves, the other, or the dispute resolution mechanism in play in order to pursue a process that will resolve the conflict more productively.
Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues, or concerns, that are raised every time the parties negotiate. For example, wage issues or working conditions may always be discussed in a labor negotiation; the union always raises them, and management always expects them to be raised and is ready to respond. Negotiations over stock issues can be restructured to include more or fewer issues, increasing the likelihood that a resolution can be found.18
Seeking to make the best possible case for one’s preferred perspective, a party may assemble facts, numbers, testimony, or other evidence to persuade the other party of the validity of the argument or perspective. Early in a negotiation, it is not uncommon for the parties to “talk past each other,” with each trying to control the conversation with a certain frame or perspective rather than listening to and engaging with the other’s case. Eventually, arguments and frames begin to shift as the parties focus on either refuting the other’s case or modifying their own arguments on the basis of the other’s.19
Frames may define major shifts and transitions in a complex overall negotiation. In diplomatic negotiations, successful bargaining results from a two-stage process called “formula/detail.”20 In this process, parties start by developing a broad framework of principles and objectives upon which they can agree. Only after that is accomplished do they work toward detailed points of agreement. The framework lays out the set of issues that are on the table, and the detail phase brings packaging of issues to build a mutually agreeable settlement.21Page 145
Finally, multiple agenda items operate to shape issue development. Although parties usually have one or two major objectives, priorities, or core issues, there are often a number of secondary items. When brought into the conversation, these secondary concerns can transform the conversation about the primary issues. An analysis of teacher negotiations in two school districts showed how issues became transformed throughout a negotiation.22 For instance, an issue of scheduling was reframed as an issue of teacher preparation time, and a concern about the cost of personal insurance shifted to an issue about the extent of insurance benefits.q
Critical to issue development is the process of reframing—changes to the thrust, tone, and focus of a conversation as the parties engage in it. Reframing is a dynamic process that may occur many times in a conversation as parties challenge each other or search for ways to reconcile seemingly incompatible perspectives. At times, reframing will happen when a negotiation in progress is disrupted by unanticipated negative events, such as a newly apparent economic downturn during wage negotiations or trade talks.23 Reframing can also occur as one party uses metaphors, analogies, or specific cases to illustrate a point, leading the other to use the metaphor or case as a new way to define the situation. Reframing may be done intentionally by one side or it may emerge from the conversation as one person’s challenges fuel the other’s creativity and imagination. In either case, the parties often propose a new way to approach the problem.q
irrational escalation of commitment
commitment to an action even if its bad- sunk cost falacy
NO ONE LIKES TO ADMIT EERROR OR FAILURE
Mythical fixed pie belief
fail to see integrative elements
