Framing, Perception,
Cognitive Biases
Chapter 2 & 5
Framing the Problem
“Often two or more people who are involved in the same
situation see it or define it in different ways.”
People use frames to define problems
 Strong reflection of what they define as critical
 Expectations and preferences for possible outcomes
 What info they seek and use
 Procedures used to present their case
 Way they evaluate outcomes
Frames are inevitable, but changeable
 Choosing one aspect of a complex situation, ignores other
aspects
 Due to past experiences, attitudes and values, strong emotions
 Shaped by type of info, setting or context
Language Strategies to Facilitate
Communication--Reframe
Critique……………………
Fight……………………….
Debate…………………….
The other side…………….
Having an argument…….
Provocative……………….
Most controversial……….
Polarize……………………
Automatic opposition…….
Win the argument………..
Comment
Discussion
Discuss
Another side
Making an argument
Thought-provoking
Most important
Unify
Genuine opposition
Understand another
point of view
Understanding Frames
Frames As Cognitive Heuristics (mental
shortcuts)




Set of rules for simplifying complex situations, making
decisions.
Perceive and shapes outcome
Frame tends to persist regardless of events and info
that follows.
Cognitive biases (ch 5)
Advice About Framing
Frames shape the key issues. Work to assure
your own frames are accepted and
acknowledged.
When two people’s frames match, they focus
on common issues. When not, communication
is difficult and incomplete.
Negotiators can shift conversation toward the
frame they want.
Conversations change frames. Negotiators
should track changes.
Certain frames lead to certain processes and
outcomes.
Perception and Negotiation
The role of perception


“Perception is the process of screening, selecting, and
interpreting stimuli so that they have meaning to the
individual.”
Complex environments. Perceptual shortcuts
Perceptual errors in negotiation




Stereotyping: assign attributes to another solely on basis
of other’s membership in a social or demographic group
Halo effects: generalize based on one attribute
Selective perception: single out certain info to support a
prior belief, filters out info that doesn’t confirm
Projection: ascribe to others the characteristics of
feelings they possess themselves.
“No Milk” Homework
http://www.viahealth.org/disease/digestive/lactose.htm
Stereotyping
A distortion of the perceptual process
where one individual assigns attributes
to another solely on the basis of the
other’s membership in a particular social
or demographic group.
Recognizing differences is NOT
necessarily “stereotyping.”
More Cognitive Biases
Mythical fixed-pie
beliefs

Ugli Orange
Anchoring &
adjustment

Small movements from
a stated point,
regardless of reality
Winners’ curse

Settle quickly, feel bad.
Also, buyer’s remorse
Overconfidence
Law of small numbers

Draw conclusions from
small sample
Self-serving biases

“I mess up, it’s bad luck.
You mess up, it’s your
fault.”
Ignoring of others’
cognitions (don’t listen)
Reactive devaluation

Don’t like you, so don’t
value your opinion, even
if right
Managing Misperceptions and
Cognitive Biases in Negotiation
Be aware of biases, but hard to change
Reframing


“Opportunity to gain” rather than “a loss”
Perceive situation from different
perspective
 Broader/narrower, bigger/smaller, riskier/less
risky
 Be flexible, invent options
How to Improve
Communication in Negotiation
Use of questions


Manageable vs. unmanageable questions (p. 125)
“Why not” vs. “why” to unblock negotiations
Listening


Active listening, reflecting
Levels of listening
Role reversal

Actively arguing the other parties’ position until
they are convinced they are understood
Goals
Determine goals: what you want to achieve



Goals, goal priorities, multi-goal packages
Agendas, bargaining histories
Tangible and intangible
Direct effects of goals on choice of strategy




Wishes are not goals
Our goals often linked to other party’s goals
There are boundaries/limits to what goals can be
Effective goals must be concrete, specific,
measurable.
Indirect effects of goals on choice of strategy
Strategy
The overall plan to achieve one’s goals
Strategy, tactics, planning



Strategy: long-term, overall approach
Tactics: short-term, adaptive moves
Planning: action component
Strategic options: vehicles for achieving
goals


Concern for others vs concern for self
Substantive outcomes vs relationship
Getting Ready to Implement
Strategy-- The Planning Process
Understanding the need for planning
Defining the issues
Assembling issues and defining the bargaining
mix
Defining your interests
Consulting with others
Knowing your limits
Setting targets
Developing supporting arguments: research
Analyzing the other party
Frames
Processes of Issue Development

Patterns of change that occur as parties
communicate
 How conversation changes the dispute
 Naming, blaming and claiming

Factors shape a frame
 Bargaining context
 Conversations




Stock issues
Best possible case for their preferred position
Shifts and transitions in negotiation
Multiple agenda items
Frames As Categories of
Experience
Define important,
unimportant,
expectations, what
see or seek.
Predispose to pay
attention to certain
aspects and ignore
others
Types







Substantive
Loss-gain
Characterization
Outcome
Aspiration
Process
Evidentiary
Download

Framing, Strategizing, and Planning