CHAPTER 5
Perception, Cognition, and
Emotion
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
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
perceiver’s current state of mind, role, and
comprehension of earlier communications.
• Perception Distortion
In a given negotiation, the perceiver’s own needs,
desires, motivation, and personal experiences may
create a predisposition about the other party (preconceived view). This is cause for concern when it
leads to biases and errors in perception and subsequent
communication.
The Perceptual Process
• Figure 5.1
Stimulus
Attention
Recognition
Translation
Behavior
Perception
• Perception is a “sense-making ” process; people
interpret their environment so that they can respond
appropriately.
Perception Distortion -1
• Stereotyping
It occurs when one individual assigns attributions to
another solely on the basis of the other’s 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.
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 one’s own self-concept—to see
oneself as consistent and good.
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)
2.1 Types of Frames
(1) Substantive—what the conflict is about.
(2) Outcome—a party’s predisposition to achieving a
specific result or outcome.
(3) Aspiration—a 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) Characterization—how the parties define the other
parties.
(7) Loss-gain—how the parties define the risk or reward
associated with particular outcomes.
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).
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)
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).
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”?
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?)
2.5 Summary-2
Prescriptive advices about problem framing (A negotiator
Must/should bear in mind) :
(1) Frame shape what the parties define as the key issues
and how they talk about them.
(2) Both parties have frames.
(3) Frames are controllable, at least to some degree.
(4) Conversations change and transform frames in ways
negotiators may not be able to predict but may be able
to control.
(5) Certain frames are more likely than others to lead to
certain types of processes and outcomes.
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.
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 devil’s
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.
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 Winner’s Curse .
The winner’s 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 winner’s curse is to prevent it from
occurring.
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.
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.
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 Other’s Cognitions .
• Reactive Devaluation.
It is the process of devaluing the other party’s
concessions simply because the other party made them.
Such devaluation may be based in emotionality or on
distrust fostered by past experience.
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.
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.
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.
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 negotiator’s 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.
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 one’s own point of view, elements may
also be used strategically and manipulatively as influence
tactics within negotiation.
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.