Negotiations Midterm

The value of ZOPA equals _______ minus _____. When ZOPA is _____, there is room for reaching an agreement. A.Sellers' RP, buyers' RP, positive B.Buyers' aspiration, sellers' RP, negative C.Buyers' RP, sellers' RP, positive D.Sellers' aspiration, buyers' RP, negative

C. Buyers RP-sellers RP, positive

Multiple Dimensions of value

Can find a way to a win-win situation. EX; Divide household chores, compensation package

Economic outcome

EX: getting more or less resources

Big 5

Openness Conscientiousness extraversion agreeableness neuroticism

Advocacy for self vs.others

Backlash can be reduced when females negotiate on behalf of others' interest.

Gender differences in emotions

Both men and women are emotionally reactive however, women are more likely to externalize their emotional reaction whereas men tend to internalize

Differentiation-before-integration

The process that begins in a tough and competitive ways go coming to the realization that this leads nowhere and a big change is needed. As time passes, negotiators switched from being competitive to cooperative

Aspiration

Your most desired outcome in a negotiation

competing

claiming value/distributive strategy

Cream puff

make (even unconditioned) concession

When goals are perceived to be positively correlated,

negotiators are more likely to opt for cooperation and joint problem solving

When counterparts appear soft

negotiators place high demands

fixed pie assumptions

through lack of information about counterparts' preferences or priorities, they tend to assume that the counterparts want and value the same things in the same way they do. The size of the air is fixed, thus the perceive that their own and counterparts' interests are diametrically opposed

Escalated commitment

"too invested to quit." partly due to the need to justify and rationalize prior moves and to recoup incurred losses

Anchoring effect

>Human's tendency to base their estimates on irrelevant information and fail to adjust these estimates sufficiently. >Form of cognitive heuristics that people rely on to simplify the complicated world, such like negotiated problems. >Leads to inadequately high or low aspiration > However it leads to suboptimal negotiated outcomes and foregoes the possibility of maximizing gains

Framing a gain or loss

A phenomenon that people tend to simply the negotiation by coding prospective outcomes above a salient anchor (or reference point) as gains and outcomes below that anchor as losses. hardly possible to persuade negotiators using a loss framing

Treat activation theory

A specific trait-relevant cue in the environment will activate the corresponding trait related behavior

Which of the following impacts negotiators' use of strategy?Note: This is a Multiple-Answer Question. A.Negotiation parties' goal interdependence B.Negotiators' concern for self vs. for others C.Time pressure D.Negotiators' personality E.The strategy used by one party

A, B, C, E

Impact of positive illusions

Adaptive/functional: Selection of salesman, specifically, positive illusions helps us maintain and protect our self esteem and self efficacy, keep us on track or persist on challenging tasks or during the hardship. Dysfunctional: bias or judgement, which may lead to impasse in spite of ZOPA

Collaborating

Also referred to as creating value/integrative strategy. It is a typical strategy used in integrative negotiations, seeking for joint gains. Ex: Heuristic trial and error, logrolling

Practical implication 1:

Although anchoring effect is highly robust, it may be overcome by "consider the opposite" strategies

lose-lose agreement

An agreement that fails to capitalize on shared interests, failing to identify and optimize compatible interests

Distributive Negotiation

Any gain on one party's outcome means a loss for the other party's outcome

The complexity of negotiated issues

As the negotiated issues are more complicated, people are more likely to reply on heuristics

Who is hardly to make an concession in a negotiation? A.Negotiators with a framing of gain B.Negotiators with a framing of loss C.Both D.It depends.

B. Framing a loss

In negotiation, which of the following group is more likely to exhibit gendered stereotype reactance. A.Men B.Women C.Both men and women D.It depends

B.Women

When female negotiators posses a higher status

Backlash against them was diminished. People tend to construe these female negotiators with higher status through a authority position lens rather than through a gender lens.

ZOPA

Bargaining zone: the range between the negotiators RP. If value is positive, there is room for negotiation.

Situational Perspective

Challenged and criticized basic tenant of the trait perspective- cross situational consistency. Instead, the situational perspective claims that situational or contextual factors are important determinancts of people's behavior- that is, this perspective believes in the cross-situational inconsistency

Trait perspective

Claims that personality or trait is an important determinant of people's behavior. Cross-situational consistency: exhibiting stable behavioral pattern across time and situations

Strong situation

Clear rules and guidelines as to how people behave. Less discretion. Strong situation attenuates the effect of personality/trait on peoples's exhibiting trait-related behavior

Dual concern theory 5 dimensions

Competition, collaborate, compromise, avoidance, accommodation

Which dimension is the only predictor of performance?

Conscientiousness

Avoiding

Could be genuine and could be a strategic play of competition. By (threatening to) withdraw from the negotiation, the counterpart may realize making a concession is better than having no agreement

integrative negotiation

Creating value (identifying multiple dimensions. Called Pareto optimality when their is an ideal integrative outcome with no resources left on the table.

To avoid a negative bargaining zone or impasse

Creatively identify more dimensions of value

Researchers have found that people have a stronger preference to choose the lottery number on their own, relative to getting the number generated randomly. This finding illustrates ________. A.Confirmatory information search B.Self-serving attribution C.False polarization effect D.Illusion for control E.Reactive devaluation bias

D. Illusion for control

Direct influence strategies (persuasion, demands, positional commitment)

Direct verbal communication strategy, a more competitive bargaining strategy and signals high status relative to counterpart

Single dimension of value

Divide a fixed amount of money or divide a pie. Your gain is my loss. Distributive negotiating: claiming value

Practical implication 2

Excessive persuasion efforts, such as in exaggerating selling or adveritsing, are likely to be less effective. DOn't overdo it

Which dimension is an important predictor of leadership?

Extraversion

Naive realism is reflected in some ways:

Fixed-pie assumption Confirmatory information search (or self-fulfilling prophecy) Reactive devaluation bias

Agreeableness motivators

Harmony and Affiliation need

Factors of interdependence

Importance, discretion, alternatives

Naive realism

Individual's tendency to assume that they are rational, reasonable, see the world as it is, and that the other rational people therefore will share these perceptions. If others appear to see the world differently, this must be due to others being less intelligent, less informed, or due to some hidden agenda

Women-Communal

Interpersonally oriented, concerned with others, accomodating, value getting along. Women are characterized as being helpful, kind, and sympathetic

Unilateral escalation

Only one party escalates. Usually this is a party seeking change in its counterpart who has little or no incentive to change and instead wants to preserve the status quo.

Time pressure

People are more likely to base their decisions on heuristics or rigid thoughts when they suffer higher time pressure

Pygmalion effect (self-fulfilling prophecy)

People internalize their positive labels

Social-psychological outcome

People sometimes are not only concerned about the economic outcomes but are also concerned about something beyond that (ex: image, reputation). Social values of negotiation have long lasting effects on employees' satisfaction with the compensation, job attitudes, and turnover intention.

Interactionism

People's behavior is a function of personality and situation

Epistemic motivation

People's desire to develop and hold accurate and well-informed conclusions about the world or any given situation

Sinister attribution error

People's tendency to attribute sinister motivations to their opponents even when the basis for opponents behaviors are ambiguous or neutral

Positive illusion

Peoples positive perceptions of themselves or their situation

Personality

Peoples relatively stable cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns. Helps us understand and interpret past and current behaviors and predict future behaviors

False polarization effect

Peoples tendency to exaggerate the difference/distance between opposing parties in a negotiation to conflict resolution situation

Matching

Powerful strategy or behavioral tendency because its simple-just do what your counterpart did, because it rewards cooperation

Low need for cognitive closure

Prefer to do extensive info searching, collect data or fact, compare different perspectives, and then make a decision.

Four factors that impact epistemic motivation

Process/outcome accountability, power difference, time pressure, the complexity

Reciporicating counterpart

Reciporicating the tough strategies by counterpart's leads to impasse, providing neither party w positive outcomes. May be unwise when the counterpart takes cooperation as a strategic play making us vunerable to being exploited

Reactive devaluation bias

Tendency for negotiators to devalue or dislike proposals offered by their counterparts when the same proposals presented by their own side or neutral party would be deemed more acceptable

Dual concern theory

Two motives: concern for self vs. concern for other. Two motives are independent of each other

How is positive illusion reflected

Unrealistically positive views of the self, unrealistic optimism, illusion for control, self-serving attributions

RP (reservation point/price)

Walkaway price or bottom line price. Least favorable point/price willing to accept. If buyer: most expensive price willing to pay

Men or women, who use direct influence?

When negotiating against men, high-performing female negotiators tend to use more indirect influence than direct influence. Comparatively speaking, there is no significant difference between the use of direct and indirect strategies in other three groups

Matching pattern

When negotiating with "liar manipulators" and "tough but honest", people acted tougher and competitive in a defensive fashion

Mismatching pattern

When negotiating with a "cream puff", people acted tough and competitive in a opportunistic fashion

Boomerang effect

When people perceive a message as a persuasion attempt, a reactance effect is likely to cause them to generate counterargument

Aiding argument to first offer

When you make the first offer and add argument to justify the first offer the added argument will likely cause the counterpart to search for counterarguments, and this, in turn, lead the counterpart to present counteroffers that are further away from your first offer

A spinal circle of confirmation

With a tough negotiator, people acted less competitively. This further induces the tough negotiators aggressive behavior, making people come to a firm conclusion about the toughness of the negotiator

If buyers RP- sellers RP is positive

ZOPA exists

Negotiator should be willing to

accept any offer superior batna and reject any offer that is worse than batna

Power originates from

asymmetrical interdependence

Relative to embracing gains, people would rather

avoid the pain of losses

BATNA

best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Most commonly investigated source of power What you are going to do/choose if you walk away from a negotiation.

Nice and reasonable

compromising to severe mutual interest

Liar-manipularion

do anything for personal interest

Higher aspirations can produce

higher demands and smaller concession

Process/outcome accountability

higher level of accountability promotes deep thinking

In string situation (low autonomy), the effect of personality

is weakened relative to the weak situation (high autonomy)

Interdependence

people depend on each other to make a settlement. That is, we cannot achieve it without others' cooperation. Grants people negotiating power over each other.

It has been found that negotiators' situationally determined bargaining behaviors sometimes are falsely attributed to

personality trits

Any slight change in situational or contextual features often

swamp any individual differences effects

Self-serving recall bias

tendency to interpret and remember neutral facts in a way that favors themselves

When counterparts appear tough

the place high demands

Tough but honest

tough negotiators who make few concession but never tell lies

Bilateral escalation

usually develops through conflict spirals entailing repeated retaliation and counterralliation, or defense and counterdefense

We negotiate if

we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly. We believe an agreement is potentially better than no agreement.

empathy-altruism hypothesis

when people feel empathy toward another person, they will help this person regardless of what they may gain from helping her/him

Accommodating

yielding/ conceding

Four reputation profiles

Liar-manipulator, tough-but-honest, nice-and-reasonable, cream puff

What two dimensions characterize a "happy personality"

Low Neuroticism and High extraversion

Power difference

Low power negotiators tend to pay close and careful attention to high-power negotiators' needs and interests

Indirect influence strategies (body language, tone of voice, facial expression of disappointment, frustration...)

Low status influence strategy

High need for cognitive closure

Make decisions based on intuition, prior experience, or rigid thoughts.

Flirtation

May increase their likability and "sugarcoat" demands without being perceived as too aggressive. Aids women in the tradeoff they often face between likability and competence. Females who flirted were judged to be less authentic and more manipulative than those who refrain from exercising their sexual power.

Who is more persistent?

Men showed no different between negotiating with men vs women. Women showed significant difference as they were more persistent when negotiating with men vs women.

When goals are separate or even negatively correlated

Negotiators are more likely to chose competing/ contending strategies

Analyze how negotiators' framing of gain or loss impacts their competitive, compromising, or conceding behavior? Discuss the practical implication.

Negotiators do not view a decrease in gain and an increase in loss in the same way. People are much more sensitive to a loss relative to the pleasure of a gain. It is hardly possible to persuade negotiators with a loss framing into conversing or cooperating, relative to those with a gain framing. It is much easier to push a person with a gain framing to concede them than to push them with a loss framing. The implication of this is that it is important to set a well-grounded aspiration for yourself and be able to manage to or influence your counterpart's aspiration. It is important to set a higher and feasible aspiration for yourself and understand your counterpart's aspiration since it decides whether you in the gain or the loss mindset. It in turn, impacts the level of competitive or conceding behaviors.

Drawing on the theory of cooperation and competition and dual concern theory, Analyze under what conditions negotiators are more likely to use cooperative or compromising strategies and under what conditions negotiators are more likely to use competitive strategies. Discuss the practical implications.

Negotiators have two motives in negotiation under there theory of cooperation and competition: to compete vs. to cooperate. Which motive dominates the other is dependent on goal interdependence. When goals are perceived to be positively correlated, negotiators are more likely to opt for cooperation and joint problem solving. When goals are perceived as separate or negatively correlate, negotiators are more likely to use competitive strategies. According to the dual concern theory, the two motives when negotiating are concern for self vs. concern for others. While these motives are independent of each other, it is possible that concern for others can reflect "enlightened self-interest." That means there is a self-serving bias underlying a prosocial or cooperative behavior. Concern for other can also be genuine such as when negotiators feel their counterpart's claims are justified and feel empathy. The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that when people feel empathy towards another person, they will help this person regardless of what they may gain from helping him/her. Along the 2 dimensions of concern for self vs. others, there is a 5 way taxonomy consisting of: Competing, accommodating, compromising, avoiding, collaborating. Competing, also referred to as claiming value/distributive strategy involves using persuasive arguments, positional commitment, threats, and bluffs. Compromising involves matching the counterpart's concession, making conditional promises and threats, and actively searching for a middle ground.

Heuristic Trial and Error

Negotiators make a series of offers each having the same overall value to one party but different value to the counterpart. Used when low trust and high fear of being exploited

Egocentricism leads to

Negotiators more likely to view themselves as entitled to more resources. Unrealistic aspiration which in turn increase contentious behaviors, delay or fail to reach a settlement. Can lead to an impasse.

Confirmatory info search

Negotiators or disputants tend to engage in confirmatory info search. They often seek confirmation rather than disconfirmation of their initial beliefs, plans, and strategies

First offer and its anchoring effect on negotiators

Negotiators tend to anchor on their counterpart's first offer and inadequately adjust this when making a counter proposal.

Weak situation

No/lack of clear rules and guidelines as to behavior. More discretion. Weak situation strengths the effect of personality/trait on people's exhibiting trait-related behavior.

Openness motivators

Novelty and variety stimulus

Escalation

Occurs when a party to conflict first uses a contentious or aggressive tactic or employs a heavier contentious tactic as a retaliatory response to another party's contentious tactic

Exceptional fallacy

Occurs when people tend to come to a conclusion for a larger group or population based on a few particular individuals or cases.

Ecological Fallacy

Occurs when you apply the research findings generated from a large population to a few particular individuals or cases

Generally speaking, is it good to propose the first offer in the negotiation? Discuss the rationale -why it is (not) good to propose the first offer. Analyze under what condition one party's first offer may lead the other party to propose a counteroffer that is far away from the first offer. In short, when does the first offer have the boomerang effect?

Research has reflected that the first offer does impact the other party's counteroffer and the final settlement price. Proposing first offer is usually good because it gives negotiators and advantageous position. Because of the anchoring effect, the purchase price is higher when the seller made the first offer compared to when buyer made first offer. When you make the first offer and add argument to justify the first offer, the added argument will likely cause the counterpart to search for counterarguments, and this, in turn, leads to the counterpart presenting counteroffers further away from your first offer. Even though its commonsense that providing argument will help convince the recipient, it may also create a boomerang effect. A boomerang effect is when people perceive a message as a persuasion attempt, and a reactance effect is likely to cause them to generate counterargument, especially when the counterargument is easily available.

Conscientiousness motivators

Responsibility and achievement

Neuroticism motivators

Security and avoidance-oriented

Compromising

Seeking middle ground

Egocentricism

Self serving bias in which negotiators tend to overweigh fairness rules that favor themselves

Men-Agentic

Self-oriented, task-focused, concerned with mastery and dominance, value getting ahead. Men are characterized as being aggressive, forceful, rational, and decisive

Extraversion motivators

Social attention and social status

Negotiation

The communication between parties with perceived divergent interests to reach an agreement on the distribution of resources . Structural features: interdependence and dimensions of value

Discretion

The extent to which the interest people/groups has the discretion over resource allocation

Importance

The extent to which the interest people/groups require it for sustainable function or survival

Alternatives

The extent to which there are alternatives to replace such resource

Theory of cooperation and competition:

There are to motives in a negotiation: to compete vs. to cooperate. Goal interdependence dominance choice of strategy.

Enlightened self-interest

There is a self-serving motive underlying a prosocial or cooperative behavior

Give female negotiators three pieces of evidence-based advice regarding how they can improve their negotiation outcomes. Is it usually women or men that are in a more advantageous position in negotiation? Explain why. Give three pieces of evidence-based advice regarding how female negotiators may avoid the backlash of gendered stereotype and gain some advantages in negotiation.

To improve negotiations, female negotiators can advocate for others versus self, use soft influence tactics such as flirtation, body language, and facial expression, and activate the disadvantageous gender identity. Men are usually in an advantageous position because people tend to view negotiating as a masculine game and reward masculine saviors. Research has found that female negotiators tend to suffer social and economic costs if they exhibit masculine-style negotiating behaviors. Females who are assertive and aggressive tent to face negative judgements and impacts. To avoid backlash or gendered stereotype and gain advantage women can advocate for others, which would allow them to be aggressive and assertive without invoking negative social consequences or judgements. This is because advocating for others is reflective with overall female stereotypes. When women are of a higher status negotiate, backlash against them is diminished because people tend to view them through an authority position instead of a gender lens. High performing female negotiators tend to use indirect strategies negotiating with men. Indirect influences include body language, tone of voice, facial expression of disappointment and frustration.