Deception in negotiations. Creating the vision of desired states (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations
Negotiation Journal, 2003
The authors examined whether negotiators are prone to an "illusion of transparency, " or the belief that their private thoughts and feelings are more discernible to their negotiation partners than they actually are. In Study One, negotiators who were trying to conceal their preferences thought that their preferences had "leaked out" more than they actually did. In Study Two, experienced negotiators who were trying to convey information about some of their preferences overestimated their partners' ability to discern them. The results of Study Three rule out the possibility that the findings are simply the result of the curse of knowledge, or the projection of one's own knowledge onto others. Discussion explores how the illusion of transparency might impede negotiators' success. In most cartoon depictions of negotiators in action (a tiny fraction of the cartoon universe, we admit), negotiators are shown with dialog bubbles depicting their overt comments and thought bubbles revealing their private thoughts. These conventions convey the different levels at which negotiators operate: Some of their wants, wishes, and worries are conveyed to the other side, but some are held back for strategic advantage. Because one task in negotiation is deciding how much information to hold back (Raiffa 1982),
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2014
The usual purpose of negotiations is to explore options and reach an agreement, if possible. We investigated a notable exception to this generalization, where a party negotiates without any intention of reaching an agreement. False negotiation occurs when a party gains more by stalling the negotiations until an external change takes place that improves its position considerably. While false negotiators aim to avoid agreement within the current frame of the negotiations, they also aim to keep the negotiation process alive, since walking away from the negotiation table could endanger their position. We report the results of a study that compared the actions of false and sincere negotiators. The false negotiators used competitive tactics that encumbered the negotiations, yet they concealed their intentions by maintaining a facade of cooperation. Our theoretical discussion is focused on the balancing act involved in false negotiations and the challenges it poses for actors in social, ma...
Friendship, Deception and Punishment in Negotiations
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Negotiating is all about reaching your goals and trying to be better off than before. The goals serve primarily one's own interests, but a second objective in most negotiations is to maintain a good relationship with the other. When negotiating with a friend, the impact of the relational factor becomes even more apparent, especially if the resources to be divided ask for distributive bargaining. In situations with a zero sum character, withholding or misrepresenting the background information is, in spite of its doubtful ethical character, a common strategy in order to gain more power. This study addresses the question of how friends cope with the double task of the negotiator, and if they are prepared to deceive the other in order to get a better result.
Personal Schemas in the Negotiation Process: A Cognitive Therapy Approach
Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation, 2010
It is inevitable that at some point individuals will recognize that they may have conflicting interests with one another. These apparently incompatible differences may lead to an attempt to reconcile the differences so that some agreement may be reached. This is the process of negotiation. It affects all areas of our lives. We may negotiate the price of a car, the rent we pay, the hours and tasks we work on, the division of labor in our families, access to sexual pleasure, a parking space, and a replacement of a side dish on the blue-plate special. But negotiation also can be a matter of life or death, such as the negotiation of a treaty to avoid armed conflict or the reduction of genocidal warfare.
False Negotiations: The Art and Science of Not Reaching an Agreement
The usual purpose of negotiations is to explore options and reach an agreement, if possible. We investigated a notable exception to this generalization, where a party negotiates without any intention of reaching an agreement. False negotiation occurs when a party gains more by stalling the negotiations until an external change takes place that improves its position considerably. While false negotiators aim to avoid agreement within the current frame of the negotiations, they also aim to keep the negotiation process alive, since walking away from the negotiation table could endanger their position. We report the results of a study that compared the actions of false and sincere negotiators. The false negotiators used competitive tactics that encumbered the negotiations, yet they concealed their intentions by maintaining a facade of cooperation. Our theoretical discussion is focused on the balancing act involved in false negotiations and the challenges it poses for actors in social, managerial, and political settings. We conclude our analysis with an example from the realm of international negotiations.
Philosophical Psychology, 2011
Negotiation research primarily focuses on negotiators’ interests in order to understand negotiation and offer advice about the prospective outcome. Win-win outcomes, i.e., outcomes that serve the interests of all negotiating parties, have been established and promoted as the ultimate goal for any negotiation situation. We offer a perspective that draws on Aristotle's philosophical program and discuss how the outcome is not defined by the parties’ interests, but by the intersubjective validity of claims, which can essentially be treated as representative of the “truth.”
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2008
This study examined the relationship between negative emotions and variables that affect negotiators' profit. Based on a simulated negotiation, this study induced emotions by providing negative feedback on how negotiating partners perceived and evaluated each other's behavior. Then relationships were examined between negative emotions and emotional regulation strategies, misrepresentation of information, tolerance of ambiguity, and negotiators' profit. A total of 228 undergraduate students enrolled in an economics course in the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Management at a university in Ankara participated. There were 130 students in the experimental group and 98 students in the control group; 102 were men and 126 were women, ages 17 to 35 years ( M = 22.6 yr., SD = 2.3). A simulated negotiation process was used. Regression coefficients suggested positive relation between Emotional Reaction and the use of a Suppression strategy and Misrepresentation of Information. N...
Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation
Using a simulated two-party negotiation, we examined how trustworthiness and power balance affected deception. In order to trigger deception, we used an issue that had no value for one of the two parties. We found that high cognitive trust increased deception whereas high affective trust decreased deception. Negotiators who expressed anxiety also used more deception whereas those who expressed optimism also used less deception. The nature of the negotiating relationship (mutuality and level of dependence) interacted with trust and negotiators' affect to influence levels of deception. Deception was most likely to occur when negotiators reported low trust or expressed negative emotions in the context of nonmutual or low dependence relationships. In these relationships, emotions that signaled certainty were associated with misrepresentation whereas emotions that signaled uncertainty were associated with concealment of information. Negotiators who expressed positive emotions in the context of a nonmutual or high dependence relationship also used less deception. Our results are consistent with a fair trade model in which negotiator increases deception when contextual and interpersonal cues heighten concerns about exploitation and decrease deception when these cues attenuate concerns about exploitation.
Ethical Aspects of Negotiations
The role of management functions in successful enterprise performance, 2016
Probably because of the egoism and the divergence of interests, people are forced to fight for their corner. It is happening on different plains of the social life, beginning with family, through colleagues' relations, friendship relation and social as well to finish with professional. Therefore it can be said that the negotiations are an indispensable part of our lives. In organizational disputes, managers negotiate conditions of cooperation with other business entities, employees establish the amount of their wages with the employer, circle the scope of their duties and responsibilities and etc. The interests of individuals or social and professional groups are often represented by the third party (ie. the negotiators) such as organizations as well as trade unions representatives. Negotiation skills are crucial for establishing business contacts, make new collaborations or maintain already taken business relations. In practice, the art of negotiation uses a wide range of techniques to help negotiators to achieve the intended purpose. However, some of these techniques raise ethical questions. The premise of this paper is not willingness of a negative assessment of the strategies adopted by the negotiators, but to show that perspective of the objective of the organization existence is not only to maximize profits for the company owner but social responsibility (ethics) as well. Moral dilemmas and unethical choices which negotiators faced often carry implications acting destructively both in relation to the company'senvironment (eg. contractors, collaborators) for further relationship with the deceived person or subject of negotiations, as well as in relation to the image and conscience of unfair negotiators.