Perception, Cognition, and Emotion McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. The basic building blocks of all social encounters are: Perception Cognition Framing Cognitive biases Emotion 5-2 Perception is: The process by which individuals connect to their environment. A sense-making process 5-3 5-4 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 can create perceptual errors Four major perceptual errors: Stereotyping Halo effects Selective perception Projection 5-5 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 5-6 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 5-7 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 5-8 Substantive Outcome Aspiration Process Identity Characterization Loss-Gain 5-9 Negotiators can use more than one frame Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors 5- 10 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 5- 11 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 5- 12 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 5- 13 Negotiators have a tendency to make systematic errors when they process information. These errors, collectively labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performance 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 5- 15 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 5- 16 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 5- 17 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 5- 18 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 5- 19 Self-serving biases People often explain another persons behavior by making attributions, either to the person or to the situation There is a tendency to: Overestimate the role of personal or internal factors Underestimate the role of situational or external factors Endowment effect The tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you possess 5- 20 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 5- 21 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 5- 22 The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three characteristics: Specificity Intensity Duration 5- 23 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 create a positive attitude toward the other side They promote persistence 5- 24 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 5- 25 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 Not all negative emotion has the same effect 5- 26 Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to negative emotions Negative emotions may result from a competitive mind-set Negative emotions may result from an impasse Negative emotions may result from the prospect of beginning a negotiation Effects of positive and negative emotion Positive feelings may generate negative outcomes Negative feelings may elicit beneficial outcomes Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation gambits 5- 27