BazermanMoore

CHAPTER
TEN
Negotiator Cognition
The decision-analytic approach to negotiation presented in the previous chapter suggests
that it is desirable for parties to strike an agreement whenever a positive bargaining
zone exists. Why, then, do negotiators frequently fail to settle? The decision-analytic
approach also provides strategies for reaching agreements of great value to both sides.
Why, then, do even negotiators who have access to this advice fail to reach Paretoefficient
outcomes?
This chapter explores the most common cognitive mistakes that people make in
negotiation. Specifically, we will look at six key issues that affect negotiator cognition:
(1) the mythical fixed pie of negotiation, (2) the framing of negotiator judgment, (3) the
nonrational escalation of conflict,(4) overestimating your own value, (5) self-serving
biases, and (6) anchoring biases. Each section illustrates how the decision-making processes
of the typical negotiator diverge from a prescriptive model of behavior and discusses
how we as negotiators can correct these deviations.
An understanding of these common mistakes will help you improve your negotiating
skills in two key ways. First, awareness is an essential step toward avoiding these
errors in important negotiations. Second, once you have learned to identify these errors
in your own behaviors, you will be better able to anticipate them in the decisions of
other negotiators.
THE MYTHICAL FIXED PIE OF NEGOTIATION
Why do negotiators so often fail to reach agreements that create maximum value for
both sides? One reason is the fixed-pie assumption. When individuals approach negotiations
with a fixed-pie mentality, they assume that their interests conflict directly with
the interests of the other side. Metaphorically, they believe they are both fighting
for the biggest piece of a pie of fixed size.
Agreements in diplomatic situations, solutions to marital disputes, and the creation
of strategic alliances are frequently blocked by the assumption that the parties’ interests
are diametrically opposed. Creative agreements occur when participants discover
tradeoffs across issues—but individuals will not search for these trades if they assume
the size of the pie is fixed.
The assumption of a fixed pie leads us to interpret most competitive situations as
win–lose. Many contests are, in fact, win–lose: athletic competition, admission to
168