Perception Theory

7/22/2019 Perception Theory

1/27

CHAPTER FIVE

Perception, Cognition,

and Emotion

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyri ght 2011 by The McGraw-H il l Companies, Inc. All ri ghts reserved.


2/27

5-2

Perception, Cognition, and

Emotion in Negotiation

The basic building blocks of all social

encounters are:

Perception

Cognition

FramingCognitive biases

Emotion


3/27

5-3

Perception

Perception is:

The process by which individuals connect totheir environment.

A sense-making process


4/27

5-4

The Process of Perception

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 theinformation

People develop shortcuts to process information and these shortcuts can

create perceptual errors


5/27

5-5

Perceptual Distortion

Four major perceptual errors:

Stereotyping

Halo effects

Selective perception

Projection


6/27

5-6

Stereotyping and Halo Effects

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


7/27

5-7

Selective Perception

and Projection

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


8/27

5-8

Framing

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


9/27

5-9

Types of Frames

Substantive

Outcome

Aspiration Process

Identity

Characterization Loss-Gain


10/27

5-10

How Frames Work in Negotiation

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 typesof agreements

Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because

of various factors


11/27

5-11

Interests, Rights, and Power

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 thebasis of who is stronger


12/27

5-12

The Frame of an Issue Changes as

the Negotiation Evolves Negotiators tend to argue forstock issuesor concerns

that are raised every time the parties negotiate

Each party attempts to make the best possible caseforhis or her preferred position or perspective

Frames may define majorshifts and transitionsin acomplex overall negotiation

Multiple agenda itemsoperate to shape issuedevelopment


13/27

5-13

Some Advice about Problem

Framing for Negotiators 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


14/27

5-14

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

Negotiators have a tendency to make

systematic errors when they process

information. These errors, collectively labeled

cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator

performance.


15/27

5-15

Cognitive Biases

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 otherscognitions

Reactive devaluation


16/27

5-16

Irrational Escalation of Commitment

and Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs

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


17/27

5-17

Anchoring and Adjustment

and Issue Framing and Risk 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 aboutrisk in decision making and negotiation


18/27

5-18

Availability of Information

and the Winners Curse 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 thensubsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes too

easily


19/27

5-19

Overconfidence

and the Law of Small Numbers 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 smallsample sizes

The smaller sample, the greater the possibility that pastlessons will be erroneously used to infer what will happenin the future


20/27

5-20

Self-Serving Biases

and Endowment Effect Self-serving biases

People often explain another persons behavior by makingattributions, 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 believeyou possess


21/27

5-21

Ignoring Others Cognitions

and Reactive Devaluation 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 concessionssimply because the other party made them


22/27

5-22

Managing Misperceptions and

Cognitive Biases in Negotiation

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


23/27

5-23

Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation

The distinction between mood and emotion is

based on three characteristics:

Specificity

Intensity

Duration


24/27

5-24


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


25/27

5-25


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


26/27

5-26


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


27/27

5-27


Aspects of the negotiation process can lead tonegative emotions

Negative emotions may result from a competitive mind-set

Negative emotions may result from an impasseNegative emotions may result from the prospect ofbeginning 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 negotiationgambits

Documents

Perception Theory