Chapter 11 Negotiator Cognition
Multiple Choice
1. When different parties to a social dilemma openly discuss the issues, this causes:
a. A decrease in the magnitude of self-serving biases.
b. Escalation of conflict.
c. A decrease in the effect of the affect heuristic.
d. A decrease in the width of the positive bargaining zone.
Ans: a
Response: p. 202
2. How do anchors affect judgments of experts in negotiations?
a. The effect of anchors is eliminated by expertise.
b. The effect of anchors is significantly reduced, but not eliminated.
c. The effect of anchors remains strong even for experts.
d. The effect of anchors is even stronger for experts than it is for non-experts.
Ans: c
Response: p. 202-203
3. An extreme offer made by one side:
a. Increases the likelihood of a better deal for the side that makes the offer.
b. Increases the likelihood of reaching an impasse.
c. Will have less influence if the other side has a good sense of the bargaining zone. d.
All of the above.
Ans: d
Response: p. 204
4. Assuming that one’s interests conflict directly with those of the other side without attempting
to find points of initial agreement constitutes which error?
a. Reactive devaluation
b. The mythical fixed pie
c. Escalation of conflict
, d. Self-serving bias
Ans: b
Response: p. 193
5. Creating anchors that lead negotiators toward a positive frame may cause these negotiators to:
a. Reactively devalue given offers.
b. Put more emphasis on value creation.
c. Make more concessions.
d. Reach an avoidable impasse.
Ans: c
Response: p. 195
6. The fixed-pie assumption leads negotiators to interpret most situations as:
a. Overly risky
b. Win-lose
c. Integrative
d. Unfair
Ans: b
Response: p. 194
True/False
7. Adding multiple parties and more perspectives to a negotiation situation helps to reduce
selfserving biases of the negotiating parties.
Ans: False
Response: p. 201
8. The fixed-pie assumption makes the value claiming component of negotiation too salient.
Ans: True
Response: p. 193-194
9. Because they are risk-averse, negotiators in final-offer arbitrations tend to believe that the
chance of their final offers to be accepted is lower than it actually is.
Multiple Choice
1. When different parties to a social dilemma openly discuss the issues, this causes:
a. A decrease in the magnitude of self-serving biases.
b. Escalation of conflict.
c. A decrease in the effect of the affect heuristic.
d. A decrease in the width of the positive bargaining zone.
Ans: a
Response: p. 202
2. How do anchors affect judgments of experts in negotiations?
a. The effect of anchors is eliminated by expertise.
b. The effect of anchors is significantly reduced, but not eliminated.
c. The effect of anchors remains strong even for experts.
d. The effect of anchors is even stronger for experts than it is for non-experts.
Ans: c
Response: p. 202-203
3. An extreme offer made by one side:
a. Increases the likelihood of a better deal for the side that makes the offer.
b. Increases the likelihood of reaching an impasse.
c. Will have less influence if the other side has a good sense of the bargaining zone. d.
All of the above.
Ans: d
Response: p. 204
4. Assuming that one’s interests conflict directly with those of the other side without attempting
to find points of initial agreement constitutes which error?
a. Reactive devaluation
b. The mythical fixed pie
c. Escalation of conflict
, d. Self-serving bias
Ans: b
Response: p. 193
5. Creating anchors that lead negotiators toward a positive frame may cause these negotiators to:
a. Reactively devalue given offers.
b. Put more emphasis on value creation.
c. Make more concessions.
d. Reach an avoidable impasse.
Ans: c
Response: p. 195
6. The fixed-pie assumption leads negotiators to interpret most situations as:
a. Overly risky
b. Win-lose
c. Integrative
d. Unfair
Ans: b
Response: p. 194
True/False
7. Adding multiple parties and more perspectives to a negotiation situation helps to reduce
selfserving biases of the negotiating parties.
Ans: False
Response: p. 201
8. The fixed-pie assumption makes the value claiming component of negotiation too salient.
Ans: True
Response: p. 193-194
9. Because they are risk-averse, negotiators in final-offer arbitrations tend to believe that the
chance of their final offers to be accepted is lower than it actually is.
