CSR 344 REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM – Purdue University | CSR344 REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM – A Grade

CSR 344 REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM – Purdue University CSR 344 REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM Wednesday, December 17th, 1:00pm to 3:00 pm, KRAN G016 CHAPTER 5: PERCEPTION, COGNITION, AND EMOTION (p. 112-135) 1. DEFINE PERCEPTION (P.113). Perception is: • A “sense-making” process where people interpret their environment so they can respond appropriately. • The process by which individuals connect to their environment. • Many things influence how a person understands and assigns meaning to messages, including the perceiver’s current: • Role • State of mind • Comprehension of earlier communications. 2. DEFINE PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION BY GENERALIZATION (P.113). Perceptual Distortion: a perceiver’s own needs, desires, motivation, and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. • This can lead to biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication. • Four major perceptual errors: o Stereotyping o Halo Effects o Selective Perception o Projection 3. DEFINE STEREOTYPING AND HALO EFFECTS (P.113, 114). Stereotyping: Occurs when an individual assigns attributes to another solely on the basis of the other’s membership in a particular social or demographic category. • Very common distortion of the perceptual process • Formed about a wide variety of groups; i.e., the younger generation, males or females, Italians or Germans, or people of different races, religions, or sexual orientations. Halo Effects: Occur when an individual generalizes about a variety of attributes based on the knowledge of one attribute of an individual (i.e., smiling = honest); Similar to stereotypes. • Halo effects may be positive or negative; a good attribute may be generalized so that people are seen in a very positive light, whereas a negative attribute has the reverse effect. • Halo Effects are most likely to occur in perception o When there is very little experience with a person along some dimension (and so the perceiver generalizes about that person from knowledge acquired in other contexts) o When the person is well known o When the qualities have strong moral implications 4. HOW DO SELECTIVE PERCEPTION AND PROJECTION OCCUR (P. 114, 115)? Selective perception: The perceiver singles out information that supports a prior belief but filters out contrary information. • Perpetuates stereotypes or halo effects. Projection: People assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves. • Arises out of a need to protect one’s own self-concept 5. WHAT IS FRAMING, A KEY ISSUE IN PERCEPTION AND NEGOTIATION (P. 115)? Frame: the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions. Framing: helps explain “how bargainers ceonceive of ongoing sets of events in light of past experiences”; framing and reframing, along with reevaluation of information and positions, “are tied to information processing, message patters, linguistic cues, and socially constructed meanings. • Framing is about focusing, shaping, and organizing the world around us- making sense of a complex reality. • Frames, in short, define a person, event, or process and separate it from the complex world around it. 6. HOW ARE FRAMES CRITICAL IN NEGOTIATIONS (P.115, 116)? Frames are important in negotiation because disputes are often nebulous and open to different interpretations as a result of differences in people’s backgrounds, personal histories, and prior experiences. • A frame is a way of labeling these different individual interpretations of the situation. • How parties frame and define a negotiation issue or problem is a clear and strong reflection of what they define as critical to negotiation objectives: o What their expectations and preferences are for certain possible outcomes o What information they seek and use to argue their case o The procedures they use to try to present their case o The manner in which they evaluate the outcomes actually achieved. 7. HOW DOES AN OUTCOME FRAME FUNCTION IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE (P.116)? Outcome frame: a party’s predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation. • To the degree that a negotiator has a specific, preferred outcome he or she wants to achieve, the dominant frame may be to focus all strategy, tactics, and communication toward getting that outcome. • Parties with a strong outcome frame that emphasizes self-interest and downplays concern for the other party are more likely to engage primarily in distributive (win-lose or lose-lose) negotiations than in other types of negotiations. 8. WHY ARE MISMATCHES IN FRAMES BETWEEN PARTIES SOURCES OF CONFLICT (P.117)? • Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflicts: Two negotiators may be speaking to each other from different frames (one has an outcome frame and the other has a procedural frame); Using different content in the same frame (they both have a procedural frame but have strong preferences for different procedures); Using different levels of abstractions (a broad aspiration frame versus a specific outcome frame. • Such mismatches cause conflict and ambiguity, which may: o Create misunderstanding o Lead to conflict escalation and even stalemate o Lead one or both parties to “reframe” the conflict into frames that are more compatible and that may lead to resolution. For highly polarized disputes, mutual reframing may not occur without the help of a third party. 9. IDENTIFY AND DEFINE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COGNITIVE BIASES (P.123-128). Rather than being perfect processors of information, it is quite clear that negotiators (like all decision makers) have a tendency to make systematic errors when they process information; these errors, collectively labeled cognitive biases, tend to impede negotiator performance, and include: • Irrational Escalation of Commitment: Negotiators maintain commitment to a course of action even when that commitment constitutes irrational behavior; is due in part to biases or individual perception and judgment. • Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs: Negotiators assume that all negotiations (not just some) involve a fixed pie; Assume there is no possibility for integrative settlements and mutually beneficial trade-offs. • Anchoring and Adjustment: The effect of the standard (or anchor) against which subsequent adjustments (gains or losses) are measured; the anchor might be based on faulty of incomplete information, thus be misleading; i.e., Asking price for a real estate appraiser. • Issue Framing and Risk: The way an issue is frame influences how negotiators perceive risk and behave in relation to it; i.e., negotiating to gain (risk-averse) versus not to lose (risk-seeking). • Availability of Information: Operates when information that’s presented in vivid or attention-getting ways becomes easy to recall; becomes central and critical oin evaluating events and options. • The Winner’s Curse: The tendency to settle quickly on an item and then subsequently feel discomfort about a win that comes too easily; i.e., “Could I have gotten a better deal? Is there something wrong with the item/option?” • Overconfidence: The tendency of negotiators to believe that their ability to be correct or accurate is greater than is actually true; has a double-edged effect: o It increases the degree to which negotiators support positions or options that is incorrect or inappropriate. o It can lead negotiators to discount the worth or validity of the judgments of others. • The Law of Small Numbers: The tendency of people to draw conclusions from small sample sizes; the smaller the sample, the greater the possibility that past lessons will be erroneously used to infer what will happen in the future. • Self-Serving Biases: People often explain another person’s behavior by making attributions, either to the person or to the situation; There’s a tendency to: o Overestimate the role of personal or internal factors (ability, mood, effect). o Underestimate the role or external factors (other people, luck); o EX: Perhaps she’s lazy (internal, dispositional explanation), perhapr she had a flat tire driving to class (external, situational explanation) • Endowment Effect: The tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you possess; can lead to inflated estimations of value that interfere with reaching a good deal. • Ignoring Others’ Cognitions: Negotiators don’t both to ask about the other party’s perceptions and thoughts; this leaves them to work with incomplete information, and thus produces faulty results. • Reactive Devaluation: The process of devaluing the other party’s concessions simply because the other party made them; Reactive devaluation leads negotiators to: o Minimize the magnitude of a concession made by a disliked other o Reduce their willingness to respond with a concession of equal size o Seek even more from the other party once a concession has been made 10. DEFINE MOOD AND EMOTION AND THEIR DIFFERENCES (P.129). The distinction between mood and emotion is based on three characteristics: • Specificity • Intensity • Duration Mood states: more diffuse, less intense, and more enduring than emotion states Emotion states: more intense and directed at more specific targets than mood states - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • High Familiarity: o Embrace the other negotiator’s approach (unilateral strategy): Adopting completely the approach of the other negotiator (negotiator needs to be completely bilingual and bicultural). o Improvise an approach (joint strategy): Crafts an approach that’s specifically tailored to the negotiation situation, the other party, and circumstances. o Effect symphony (joint strategy): The parties create a new approach that may include aspects of either home culture or adopt practices from a third culture. CHAPTER 12: BEST PRACTICES IN NEGOTIATIONS 1. NAME THE 10 BEST PRACTICES FOR NEGOTIATORS. • Be prepared. • Diagnose the fundamental structure of the negotiation. • Work the BATNA. • Be willing to walk away. • Master paradoxes. • Remember the intangibles. • Actively manage coalitions. • Savor and protect your reputation. • Continue to learn from the experience. 2. WHY IS PREPARATION SO IMPORTANT FOR NEGOTIATORS? Negotiators who are better prepared have numerous advantages, including the ability to: • Analyze the other party’s offers more effectively and efficiently, and to achieve your negotiation goals. • Understand and articulate your goals and interests. • Understand the other party’s communication in order to find an agreement that meets the needs of both parties. • Set high but achievable aspirations for negotiation. • Adjust promptly and effectively as the negotiation proceeds. 3. WHY DO NEGOTIATORS NEED TO DIAGNOSE THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF THE NEGOTIATION? • Make conscious decisions about the nature of the negotiation: is it distributive, integrative, or a blend of the two? • Choose strategies and tactics accordingly. • Many negotiations will consist of a blend of both and there will be distributive and integrative phases. • There are also times when accommodation, avoidance, and compromise may be appropriate strategies. 4. WHAT IS BATNA AND WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF POWER IN A NEGOTIATION? BATNA: Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement • A BATNA is especially important because this is the option that likely will be chose should an agreement not be reached. • Know your BATNA and consciously work to improve it. • Be aware of the other party’s BATNA and identify how it compares to what you’re offering. • There are three things negotiators should do with respect to the other negotiator’s BATNA: o Monitor it carefully in order to retain your competitive advantage. o Remind the other negotiator of the advantages to your offer relative to his/her BATNA. o Suggest that the other negotiator’s BATNA may not be as strong as he or she thinks it is. 5. NAME THE KEY PARADOXES OF NEGOTIATION. • Claiming value versus creating value. • Sticking by your principles versus being resilient to the flow. • Sticking with the strategy versus opportunistic pursuit of new options. • Facing the dilemma of honesty: honest and open versus closed and opaque. • Facing the dilemma of trust: trust versus distrust. 6. EXPLAIN THE DILEMMA OF HONESTY. The Dilemma of Honesty: How open and honest should the negotiator be with the other party. • The challenge of this paradox is deciding how much information to reveal and how much to conceal, for pragmatic and ethical reasons. • Negotiators who are completely open and tell the other party everything expose themselves to the risk that the other party will take advantage of them. • Negotiators who are completely closed off will not only have a negative effect on their reputation, but it’s also an ineffective negotiation strategy because they don’t disclose enough information to create the groundwork for agreement. 7. EXPLAIN THE DILEMMA OF TRUST. The Dilemma of Trust: How much to trust what the other party tells them. • Trust can be built by being honest and sharing information with the other side, which hopefully will lead to reciprocal trust and credible disclosure by the other side. • Negotiators who believe everything the other party tells them make themselves vulnerable to being taken advantage of by the other party. • Negotiators who don’t believe anything the other party tells them will have a very difficult time reaching an agreement. 8. NAME TWO MORE WAYS TO DISCOVER INTANGIBLES THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTING THE OTHER PARTY IN A NEGOTIATION. Intangibles frequently affect negotiation in a negative way, and they often operate out of the negotiator’s awareness; negotiators must learn what intangible factors are influencing the other negotiator by: • Looking for changes in their behavior from one negotiation to another. • Gathering information about the other party before negotiation begins. There are at least two more ways to discover intangibles that might be affecting the other: • Ask questions. • Take an observer or listener with you to the negotiation. Negotiators also need to remember that intangible factors influence their own behavior. 9. NAME THE THREE TYPES OF COALITIONS A NEGOTIATOR SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND THEIR POTENTIAL EFFECTS. Negotiators should recognize three types of coalitions and their potential effects: • Coalitions against you. • Coalitions that support you. • Loose, undefined coalitions that may materialize either for or against you. Strong negotiators need to monitor and manage coalitions proactively, and while this may take considerable time throughout the negotiation process, it will likely lead to large payoffs at the implementation stage. 10. WHY DO NEGOTIATORS NEED TO REMEMBER THAT RATIONALITY AND FAIRNESS ARE RELATIVE? People tend to view the world in a self-serving manner and define the “rational” thing to do or a “fair” outcome or process in a way that benefits them. • Negotiators are often in the position to collectively define what’s right or fair as a part of the negotiation process; in most situations, neither side holds the keys to what’s absolutely right, rational, or fair. Reasonable people can disagree, and often the most important outcome that negotiators can achieve is: o A common, agreed-upon perspective. o Definition of the facts. o Agreement on the right way to see a problem. o Standard for determining what is a fair outcome or process. 11. NAME THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO ESTABLISH AND PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION. • Start negotiation with a positive reputation. • Shape your reputation by acting in a consistent and fair manner. • Seek feedback from others about the way you’re perceived and use that information to strengthen your credibility and trustworthiness in the marketplace. 12. WHAT ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT NEGOTIATORS CAN DO TO MANAGE THE PERCEPTIONS OF FAIRNESS AND RATIONALITY PROACTIVELY? • Question your perceptions of fairness and ground them in clear principle. • Find external benchmarks of fair outcomes. • Engage in dialogue to reach consensus on fairness.