Negotiation and Social decision making
Negotiation and bargaining
There are two research paradigms:
1) Distributive (bargaining) - focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in
social dilemma research
2) Integrative - finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision
making negotiation tasks with multiple issues.
Negotiation styles: distributive is characterized by forcing, yielding, compromising while
integrative by problem solving.
The fifth one is avoiding - parties choose not to negotiate
What affects negotiation?
- Cognitions and emotions affect negotiation behavior and outcomes
- Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements
- Emotions can have a intrapersonal and interpersonal effect and can help or hinder
negotiation outcomes
- Gender, power, cultural differences, group constellation - affect negotiation
- Situational factors such as time, communication media, conflict issues also affect
negotiation
Situational factors
Communication media - differ whether they contain visual, acoustic channels, and whether
they permit synchronous communication.
Richness of communication media (sound, sight, synchrony) can help unacquainted
negotiators to reach a good agreement. Yet, it can lead negotiators that have negative
relationships into a conflict spiral.
Conflict issues - can roughly be characterized in scarce resources on one hand and values
and norms on the other.
,Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources but when norms get into play
negotiators have a harder time reaching the agreement since the usual give and take situation
is no longer feasible.
Definition of negotiation
A back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and your
counterpart have some interests that are shared and some that are opposed.
Lewicki made a distinction between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation.
Distributive bargaining - a situation where a fixed amount of resources is divided so that
one person’s gains are another person's losses. Negotiators usually take a competitive
approach to maximize their outcomes.
Integrative negotiation - a situation where the goals and objectives of two parties are not
mutually exclusive or connected in a win-lose fashion. In such complex situations that
usually involve several issues (rather than distribution of only one resource) parties try to find
a mutually acceptable solution and may even search for win-win situations.
Research Paradigms
Game theoretic approaches - Prisoner’s dilemma - contains conflict between immediate self
interest and longer term collective interests.
Ultimatum bargaining game - a person offers a division of a certain amount (100$ 50/50) and
the other person can either accept it or deny in which case they both get nothing.
Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, has predominantly been studied in richer contexts
that simulate real life decision making.
Goals of negotation
Goal: deal making or dispute resolution
Well prepared negotiators define goals they want to achieve and issues they need to address
in order to achieve these goals.
Deal making - two or more parties who have some common goals and some incompatible
goals and try to negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo.
Preparation for negotiation
Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets and limits.
, - Target point - a point to which a person aspires to reach an agreement
- Resistance point - price below which the settlement is not acceptable
- The zone of potential agreement (ZOPA) - a zone between two parties resistance
points
Well prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reach an agreement in the
upcoming negotiation (BATNA - best alternative to the negotiated agreement).
- The quality of negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement and
thus, their dependency on their counterpart.
- Attractive BATNAs increase negotiator’s power.
better BATNA - lower need to reach an agreement - lower dependency on the
counterpart - more power
Deal making differs in the way the parties are dependent on each other. In deal making, both
parties have their own, independent alternatives that they can unilateral use instead of
reaching an agreement.
Disputes between parties who share a common fate (flatmates, family etc) can only be solved
by working together.
Negotiation behavior
- Dual concern model - describes how types of concerns jointly determine negotiation
style.
- The two types of concerns are: 1) concern about party’s own outcome 2) concern
about others outcome
- They both range in intensity from indifference to high concern
, yielding problem solving
concern about
other’s outcome
compromising
avoiding forcing
concern about self
1) Avoiding - low concern for self and other
2) Yielding - low concern for self and high concern for the other person. It involves
making large concessions or accepting another person's demands. This strategy is
used when a negotiator feels weaker than his counterpart or has a strong need for
harmony.
3) Forcing - high concern for self and low concern for the other. Imposing solutions
onto the other person while aiming to achieve their own goals. It could include using
threats or pressure which is detrimental for the relationship and leads to conflict spiral
especially if counterparts are similar in power.
4) Compromising - intermediate concern both for self and the other (meeting in the
middle). Parties who compromise, however, might settle for simple solutions and
overlook creative solutions.
5) Problem solving - high concern for self and the other. It involves aiming to reach a
win-win agreement. Instead of focusing on positions, they focus on interests.
Distributive strategies - yielding, compromising, forcing
Integrative strategies - problem solving
Distributive behaviors - parties distribute the value of the deal in a win-lose fashion. Each
side takes a position, argues for it and makes concessions in order to move towards a
compromise.
Negotiation and bargaining
There are two research paradigms:
1) Distributive (bargaining) - focuses on dividing scarce resources and is studied in
social dilemma research
2) Integrative - finding mutually beneficial agreements and is studied in decision
making negotiation tasks with multiple issues.
Negotiation styles: distributive is characterized by forcing, yielding, compromising while
integrative by problem solving.
The fifth one is avoiding - parties choose not to negotiate
What affects negotiation?
- Cognitions and emotions affect negotiation behavior and outcomes
- Most cognitive biases hinder the attainment of integrative agreements
- Emotions can have a intrapersonal and interpersonal effect and can help or hinder
negotiation outcomes
- Gender, power, cultural differences, group constellation - affect negotiation
- Situational factors such as time, communication media, conflict issues also affect
negotiation
Situational factors
Communication media - differ whether they contain visual, acoustic channels, and whether
they permit synchronous communication.
Richness of communication media (sound, sight, synchrony) can help unacquainted
negotiators to reach a good agreement. Yet, it can lead negotiators that have negative
relationships into a conflict spiral.
Conflict issues - can roughly be characterized in scarce resources on one hand and values
and norms on the other.
,Negotiation is more feasible when dividing scarce resources but when norms get into play
negotiators have a harder time reaching the agreement since the usual give and take situation
is no longer feasible.
Definition of negotiation
A back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and your
counterpart have some interests that are shared and some that are opposed.
Lewicki made a distinction between distributive bargaining and integrative negotiation.
Distributive bargaining - a situation where a fixed amount of resources is divided so that
one person’s gains are another person's losses. Negotiators usually take a competitive
approach to maximize their outcomes.
Integrative negotiation - a situation where the goals and objectives of two parties are not
mutually exclusive or connected in a win-lose fashion. In such complex situations that
usually involve several issues (rather than distribution of only one resource) parties try to find
a mutually acceptable solution and may even search for win-win situations.
Research Paradigms
Game theoretic approaches - Prisoner’s dilemma - contains conflict between immediate self
interest and longer term collective interests.
Ultimatum bargaining game - a person offers a division of a certain amount (100$ 50/50) and
the other person can either accept it or deny in which case they both get nothing.
Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, has predominantly been studied in richer contexts
that simulate real life decision making.
Goals of negotation
Goal: deal making or dispute resolution
Well prepared negotiators define goals they want to achieve and issues they need to address
in order to achieve these goals.
Deal making - two or more parties who have some common goals and some incompatible
goals and try to negotiate an agreement that is better for both than the status quo.
Preparation for negotiation
Negotiators are advised to define their alternatives, targets and limits.
, - Target point - a point to which a person aspires to reach an agreement
- Resistance point - price below which the settlement is not acceptable
- The zone of potential agreement (ZOPA) - a zone between two parties resistance
points
Well prepared negotiators are aware of the alternative they have to reach an agreement in the
upcoming negotiation (BATNA - best alternative to the negotiated agreement).
- The quality of negotiator’s BATNA defines their need to reach an agreement and
thus, their dependency on their counterpart.
- Attractive BATNAs increase negotiator’s power.
better BATNA - lower need to reach an agreement - lower dependency on the
counterpart - more power
Deal making differs in the way the parties are dependent on each other. In deal making, both
parties have their own, independent alternatives that they can unilateral use instead of
reaching an agreement.
Disputes between parties who share a common fate (flatmates, family etc) can only be solved
by working together.
Negotiation behavior
- Dual concern model - describes how types of concerns jointly determine negotiation
style.
- The two types of concerns are: 1) concern about party’s own outcome 2) concern
about others outcome
- They both range in intensity from indifference to high concern
, yielding problem solving
concern about
other’s outcome
compromising
avoiding forcing
concern about self
1) Avoiding - low concern for self and other
2) Yielding - low concern for self and high concern for the other person. It involves
making large concessions or accepting another person's demands. This strategy is
used when a negotiator feels weaker than his counterpart or has a strong need for
harmony.
3) Forcing - high concern for self and low concern for the other. Imposing solutions
onto the other person while aiming to achieve their own goals. It could include using
threats or pressure which is detrimental for the relationship and leads to conflict spiral
especially if counterparts are similar in power.
4) Compromising - intermediate concern both for self and the other (meeting in the
middle). Parties who compromise, however, might settle for simple solutions and
overlook creative solutions.
5) Problem solving - high concern for self and the other. It involves aiming to reach a
win-win agreement. Instead of focusing on positions, they focus on interests.
Distributive strategies - yielding, compromising, forcing
Integrative strategies - problem solving
Distributive behaviors - parties distribute the value of the deal in a win-lose fashion. Each
side takes a position, argues for it and makes concessions in order to move towards a
compromise.
