BazermanMoore

substantially better in the Acquiring a Company problem. This research offers evidence
that examining differences between seemingly related problems may be a successful
direction for improving decision making.
What is the optimal level of abstraction that should occur to help people form analogies
across problems? Moran, Bereby-Meyer, and Bazerman (2008) argue that teaching
people more general negotiation principles (such as, ‘‘Value can be created,’’ or, ‘‘It
is important to understand how parties’ interests interrelate’’) enables successful transfer
to a broader range of new negotiation tasks than the focused analogies of
Loewenstein, Thompson, and Gentner (2003). Moran, Bereby-Meyer, and Bazerman
(in press) argue that learning general principles will improve not only the ability to positively
transfer specifically learned principles, but also the ability to discriminate their
appropriateness—that is, to determine when a principle should and should not be
applied.
Moran, Bereby-Meyer, and Bazerman (2008) found that learners who previously
received analogical training for one specific negotiation strategy (namely, logrolling
issues to create value) did not perform well when confronted with a diverse faceto-face
negotiation with a very different structure. Thus, logrolling may have limited
generalizability to other value-creating processes. To test this idea, Moran, Bereby-
Meyer, and Bazerman adapted Thompson, Gentner, and Loewenstein’s (2000) analogical
reasoning training to teach negotiators broad thought processes for creating value
in negotiations. Moran, Bereby-Meyer, and Bazerman compared specific training,
wherein learners compare two cases that illustrate the same specific strategy instances
(e.g., logrolling), with diverse training, wherein they compare two cases that illustrate
different value-creating strategies (e.g., one illustrates logrolling and the other compatibility).
Training effectiveness was assessed by looking at performance and outcomes in
a negotiation simulation that contained potential for using various value-creating strategies,
some of which were previously learned and others which were not.
Moran, Bereby-Meyer, and Bazerman (2008) found that more diverse analogical
training, wherein negotiators learn and compare several different value-creating strategies,
fostered greater learning of underlying value-creating negotiation principles than
more specific analogical training. This method facilitated transfer to a very distinctive
task and improved performance on a variety of value-creating strategies, including
some that participants had never previously encountered. The improved performance
was also accompanied by a deeper understanding of the potential to create value. Thus,
more diverse analogical training can be effective for attaining a higher level of expertise,
which enables an understanding of which particular strategies might be effective
in different situations and why. At the same time, when training becomes too diverse,
the applicability of the message may be lost. The optimal level of abstraction remains an
interesting question for future research, as does the question of how analogical reasoning
can be applied to improve individual decision making.
STRATEGY 5: TAKE AN OUTSIDER’S VIEW
Strategy 5: Take An Outsider’s View 193
In Chapter 2, we asked you to estimate ten obscure quantities and to place 98 percent
confidence intervals around your estimates. As we noted, most people answer only