competitive, win-lose situations;
When the perceiver singles out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out information that does not confirm that belief.
intangible factors are the underlying psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties during a negotiation;
when the parties depend on each other to achieve their own preferred
outcome they are interdependent;
the choice of whether to pursue a claiming value strategy is described as the “negotiator’s dilemma”.
the first number the buyer will quote to the seller
when the goals of two or more people are interconnected so that only one can achieve the goal, this is competitive situation, also known as a zero-sumor distributive situation，in which “individuals are so linked together that there is a negative correlation between their goal attainments”;
When parties’ goals arelinked so that one person’s goal achievement helps others to achieve theirgoals, it is a mutual-gains situation,also known as a non-sum or integrative situation;
an acronym for best alternative to a negotiated agreement;
10.Thedilemma of honesty
it concerns how much of the truth to tell the other party;
11.Thedilemma of trust
it concerns how much should negotiators believe what the other party tells them;
accepts the fact that there can only be one winner given the situation and pursues a course of action to be that winner;
attempts to find solutions so both parties can do well and achieve their goals;
to do whatever is necessary to claim the reward, gain the lion’s share, or gain the largest piece possible;
to find a way for all parties to meet their objectives, either by identifying more resources or finding unique ways to share and coordinate the use of existing resources;
is a very common distortion of the perceptual process. It occurs when one individual assigns attributes to anothersolely on the basis of the other’s membership in a particular social or demographic category.
actors pursuing the contending strategy pursue their own outcomes strongly and show little concern for whether the other party obtains his or her desired outcomes;
actors pursuing the yielding strategy show little interest orconcern in whether they attain their own outcomes, but they are quite interested in whether the other party attains his or her outcomes;
actors pursuing the inaction strategy show little interest in whether they attain their own out-comes, as well as little concern about the other party obtains his or her outcomes;
actors pursuing the problem solving strategy show high concern for attaining their own outcomes and high concern for whether the other
the point at which negotiator would like toconclude negotiations
a negotiator’s bottom line, the mostthe buyer will pay or the smallest amount the seller will settle for
23.a positive bargaining range
the buyer’s resistance is above the the seller’s, and the buyer minimally willing to pay morethan the seller is minimally willing to sell for
when you receive sth from another person, you should respond in the future with a favor in return
25.The winner’s curse
the tendency of negotiators, particularly inan auction setting, to settle quickly on an item and then subsequently feel discomfort about a negotiation win that comes too easily.
related to how the negotiators behave as they negotiate
determining what information an individual likely used to set target and resistance point and how he or she interpreted this information
negotiators reveal only the facts necessary to support their case
29.Pareto efficient frontier
the claiming value line is pushed towards the upper right-hand side to the fullest extent possibleby creating value, and the line is called the Pareto efficient frontier
the goal that both parties work toward but that benefits each party differently
the goal thatinvolves individuals with different personal goals agreeing to combine them in a collective effort
The tendency to overvalue something you ownor believe you possess.
tied to the current or desired future relationship between theparties.
a resistance point is the place where you decide that you should absolutely stop the negotiation rather than continue because any settlement beyond this point is not minimally acceptable.
other agreements negotiators couldachieve and still meet their needs.
one realistically expects to achievea settlement and the asking price, representing the best deal one can hope toachieve.
rather than using a person’s group membership as a basis for classification, however,halo effects occur when people generalize about a variety of attributes basedon the knowledge of one attribute of an individual.
When people assign to others the characteristics or feelings that they possess themselves.
39.Mythical fixed-pie beliefs
those who believe in the mythical fixed-pie assume there is no possibility for integrative settlements and mutually beneficial trade-offs, and they suppress efforts to search for them.
40.Anchoring and adjustment
cognitive biases in anchoring and adjustmentare related to the effect of the standard (or anchor) against which subsequent adjustments are made during negotiation.
41.Issue framing and risk
the way a negotiation is framedcan make negotiators more or less risk averse or risk seeking.
42.Availability of information
in negotiation, the availabilitybias operates when information that is presented in vivid, colorful, orattention-getting ways becomes easy to recall, and thus also becomes centraland critical in evaluating events and options.
43.The law of small numbers
in decision theory, the law of small numbersrefers to the tendency of people to draw conclusions from sample sizes. Innegotiation, the law of small numbers applies to the way negotiator learn and extrapolate from their own experience.
The tendency to overestimate the causal roleof personal or internal factors and underestimate the causal role of situationalor external factors, when explaining another person’s behavior.
an ultimatum is an attempt to induce compliance or force concessions from a presumably recalcitrant opponent.