CH 15 Individual differences II Personality and Abilities PDF

Preview

Summary

Negotiation 8e Chapter Notes...

Description

https://quizlet.com/110548330/470-final-ch-15-individual-differences-2-flash-cards/ Chapter 15: Individual Differences II: Personality and Abilities  It is intuitively reasonable to assume that characteristics of the person will contribute to that individual’s effectiveness (or lack) as negotiator  But it’s not that individual differnces aren’t potentially important; its that aspects of situations determine whether or not these differences can emerge and have a measurable effect during negotiation. Personality and Negotiation  Personality traits are stable tendencies to think, feel, or behave in certain ways that can be identified and measured.  Personality traits are the kind of descriptions that are markers of stable ways of thinking or acting that can usefully predict other aspects of individual or social behaivor  Personality traits = dispositions  Two arguements: o One side are those who argue that the study of personality is theoretically thin and that dispositional effects are less important than situations in predicting attitudes and behaivors. o On the other side are those concede that situations matter but insist that dispositions by themselves are significant predictors of relevant behaivors.  Dispositions and situations both matter 1. Conflict Style:  Dealing with conflict is central part of the negotiation process. People vary in the degree to which they engage with conflict in order to solve problems versus treat interpersonal conflict as something to be avoided  5 moves of behaivor that are commonly used to deal with conflict: contending, problem solving, inaction, yielding, and compromise  A negotiator may use rational criteria to make this choice, such as selecting the style that she believes will lead to the desired outcomes  But people also use styles consistently because they have a personality predisposition to do so  2 levels of concern underlying the 5 conflict management styles o one is the degree of concern a party shows for his or her own outcomes o other is the degree of concern a party shows for his or her own  two personality dimensions can represent these two levels o the degree of assertiveness that a person maintains for his or her own preferred solutions or outcomes o the degree of cooperativeness a person shows toward working with other so achieve mutual goals  competing style- high on assertiveness and low on cooperativeness  accommodating style- low on assertiveness and high on coopertiveness  avoiding style- low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness  collaborating style- high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness  compromising style- moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness  it is easy to surmise how particular conflict style tendencies might lead to particular behaivors, giver certain kinds of conflict situations  individual differences in conflict management style have been correlated with other dispositions 2. Social Value Orientation:

 



 

Social value orientations are preference that people have regarding the kinds of outcomes they perfer in social settings where interdependence with others is required Pro-self or egoistic orientation- means they are primarily concerned with personal outcomes and unconcerned with outcomes obtained by the other party o Pro-self individuals behave dristributively, adopting a style that is relatively tough and contentious, with more emphasis on bargaining over positions than exploring underlying interests that might yield mutual gain o Pro-self are less likely to reach high integrative solutions and they may use different tactics to get there, especially when a pair of two pro-self negotiators are negotiating Prosocial or cooperative orientation- means a preference for outcomes that benefit both self and others with whom they are interdependent o Prosocials (concerned with the well-being of others) are oriented toward problem solving and reciprocal cooperation → prosocials achieve more intergrative outcomes (higher joint gain) than pro-self o Judgement of satisfaction was higher for prosocials because they are focused on themselves and group so they have 2 sources of satisfaction so they may be more easily satified than individualistic negotiators who are only focused on themselves and therefore have only one source of satisfaction However, study shows that with good alternatives mutually available the differences between prosocial and pro-self negotiators tendms to dissipate Also, these social motives on negotiation behaivor appear to be generally the same regardless of whether they derive from individual disposition or from situational demands

3. Interpersonal Trust:  Degree to which negotiators trust the other party is important  Negotiators must gather information and determine how much the other party is likely to be deceptive or deceitful—by misrepresenting true positions, disorting relevant facts, or introducing spurious information and positions  Trust also functions as a personality variable with important effects in social relationships  Individuals differ in their level of interpersonal trust—defined as “a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, oral, or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”  High trusters- believe that others will be trustworthy and that they need to be trustworthy themselves; hence they are more likely to impose high moral standards on themselves and behave ethically o High trusters are not necessarily more easily decieved than low trusters o High trust individual is no more prone to gullibility than the low-trust individual  Low trusters- believe that others cannot be trusted to observe the rules and therefore may feel less pressure themselves to tell the truth  “self-fulfilling prophecy” aspect to dispositional trust o high trust individual is likely to approach the other person in a way that signals trust→ the other party searching for cues about appropriate behaivor in this situation, may respond in kind with trusting behaivor, leading to cooperative relationship between parties o low trust individual who conveys suspicion and mistrust may lead the other party to respond in kind with low self-disclosure, dishonesty and mistrust → initial low trust orientation and lead to a less cooperative relationship between parties o low trusters sometimes exhibit trusting behaivors as a way to exploit the other party and maximize self-interest.

4. Self-Efficacy and Locus of Control:  Self-efficacy is a judgement about one’s ability to behave effecitively in a given situation – the ability to do well at a task is a function of both motivation to be effective and ability to perform at a high level → Self efficacy refers to “people;s beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to excercise control over events in their lives.  self efficancy influence performance through the setting of higher goals and the adoption of more analytic strategies o Negotiator’s self-efficacy predicts the likelihood that he or she will choose to negotiate, rather than accept mediation o People with higher levels of self-efficacy set higher goals for themselves, and as a result obtained higher salaries in the simulation o Individuals perceived level of competence at the task of negotiation also may increase the likelihood that collaborative problem solving will occur → individuals high in taskspecific self esteem (preceived degree of competence in performing a task) engaged in more cooperative, problem solving behaivors o These perceptions of a persons own competence exten to the use of specific kinds of negotiation tactics. → those who believe themselves more skilled at using distributive or intergrative tactics employed these strategies more often and achieved higher outcomes in distributive or intergrative problems  Locus of control – refers to the extent to which people perceive that they have control over events that occur (related to self-efficacy) o High External locus of control- those who attribute the cause of events to external reason (ex. luck) o High Internal locus of control- those who attribute the cause of events to internal reasons (ex. ability)  Tougher negotiators  In distributive negotiation internals had higher resistance points than externals  Internals may negotiate better outcomes than externals  Internals were less likely to be excessively influenced by the other party’s first offer (and hence less likely to fall victim to an anchor  Internals reached agreements with higher joint payoffs and were able to do well for themselves  Internals appear to be good at both value creation and value claiming  Both self-efficacy and locus control speak to what are sometimes labeled “control perceptions —self judgements regarding ability to master situations  Individuals scoring high on risk-aversion personality scale were likely to avoid negotiating entirley and to yeild to the other party when they did elect to negotiate  The prospect that personality traits coexist yet work at cross purposes (e.g the high selfefficacy person who also happens to be risk-averse) is one of the reasons the effects of personality, while seemingly clear in theory, can be hard to decipher in practice. 5. Self-Monitoring:  Self-monitoring refers to the extent to which people are responsive to the social cues that come from the social environment  High self-monitors are attentive to external, interpersonal information that arises in social settings and are more inclined to treat this information as cues to how they should behave o In intergrative negotiation simulation, high self-monitors were more likely to plan the impressions that they wanted to make on the other negotiator (ex. to appear friendly) to plan to use logrolling during the negotiation, and to consider more strategies while planning

 

o High self monitors negotiating outcomes that helped them achieve higher percentages of their goals than low self-monitors Low self-monitors are less attentive to external information that my cue behaivor and are guided more in their behaivoral choices by inner, personal feelings But having the motivation to monitor the social context, read it accurately, and adjust to it can be real assets in negotiation. Self-monitoring seems important during planning, but it may also interact with other factors, such as the other party’s behaivor, to influence negotiation process and outcomes.

6. Machiavellianism:  Behaivor is work on the concept of Machiavellianism—Machiavelli’s analysis of human nature and pollitical behaivor  High Machs- cynival about other’s motives, behave unaltruistically and unsympatheically toward others, less willing to change their convictions under social pressure; more likely to tolerate behaivor that violates social norms and are more inclined to advocate the use of deception interpersonally; egoistic, focusing more on maximising their own outcomes with less concern about others, and they are likely to use a wider variety of influence tactics in oder to built political ties o Experiment 1- high machs are no different from low machs in frequency of lying before being directly accused by the experimenter. Once accused, high machs mantained their ability to lie with far greater credibility. They confessed less and were able to maintain more direct, convincing eye contact with the experimenter while lying than were low machs o Experiment 2 – high machs attempted significantly more manupulative behaivors than low machs. They told bigger lies, more verbally distracting, and more innovative in manipulative techniques employed o Experiment 3- high machs displayed a more opportunistic sense of timing with regard to making or breaking a coalition. They initiated more offers, decisively dissolved to coalitions when thery were not advantageous, and were sought after as coalition partners. High machs were usually a member of the winning coalition. a) distrust- high machs are actively distrusful others b) amoral manupulation- high machs are “selectively willing to deviate from moral standards when the opportunity for gain presents itself c) desire for control- seeing other people as threatening, high machs wish to dominate interpersonal situations d) desire for status- high machs are driven to ursue goals such as wealth, power, and status in order to feed a desire to accumalte external indicators of success o high machs did better than low machs in distributive negotiation o high machs did not want to change their negotiation style as a funciton of the other party’s Machiavellianism o high machs were more likely to approve of the use of deceptio tactics (making false promise, misrepresnting interests) in negotiation o high machs are willing to use a variety of tactics to pursue their objectives and in doing so, may intimidate the other party into adjusting strategy in ways that make the latter worse off  low machs- change their negotiation style as a function of the machiavellianism of the other negotiator: when negotiating with high mach; made fewer offers and were less effective negotiators than when negotiating with low machs 7. Face Threat Sensitivity:

      

“Face” refers to the value people place on their public image or reputation “Loosing face” and “saving face” describe situations in which a person fears a decline that reputation or encounters an opportunity to avoid such a decline some of us are, by desposition, more susceptible to reacting in a negative way to threats to face—more thin-skinned you might say face is important in negotiation, they argue, because threats to a person’s image will make a negotiatior competitive in a situation that might otherwise benefit from cooperative behaivor negotiating dyads with at least one high FTS negotiator (someone who scores high on sensitivity to face threats) were less likely to create value that could benefit both parties and less likely to reach cooperative settlements a high FTS negotiator is more likely to perceive the other party’s actions as a potential threat, leading to negative feelings, mistrust of the other party, and more competitive behaivor opponent of the high FTS negotiator may see that person as “high maintenance” requiring more care and trouble than he/she is worth

8. Epistemic Motivation:  Epistemic motivation describes an individual’s desire to develop and hold rich and accurate understanding of the world, including the negotiation problem at hand  High epistemic motivation- people analyze situations, weigh arguements, and solve problems through effortful thinking →Reach higher joint outcomes  Low epistemic motivation- people are more liley to form quick impressions and make snap judgements based on well-learned rules and heuristic  Epistemic motivation matters in negotiation bc the situation can be complex and people dont always have all of the information they need about the other party and about the negotiation task; accordingly, searching for and thinking about new information in order to develop a deep understanding of the situation should yield better outcomes, especially in integrative negotiations  Only one member of the negotiating pair needs high epistemic motivation for this effect to emerge  Epistemic motivation has an even greater beneficial effect when the negotiator is cooperatively rather than competively oriented  Personality traits that catalyze epistemic motivation—a willingness to seek out and process novel information—are generally quite helpful to negotiators facing complex situations with intergrative potential. 9. The “Big Five” Personality Factors: a. Extraversion- being sociable, assertive, talkative b. Agreeableness- being flexible, cooperative, trusting c. Concientiousness- being responsible, organized, achievement oriented d. Emotional stability- being secure, confident, not anxious e. Openness- being imaginative, broad-minded, curious  Study with first 3 five factors in distributive and integratice situations o Negotiators higher in extraversion and agreebleness were more likely to do worse for themselves → one reason is that negotiators were more susceptible to the trap of anchoring which occurs when one party’s extreme early offer biases the other party’s view of the underlying structure of the situation o These elements of personality did not affect how well negotiators did in a separate experiment involving a more complex integrative bargaining simulation. o In that situation personality was less important than cognitive ability

o Straightforwardness- defined as tendency to be frank and sincere with others → straightforwardness was liability for negotiators in both distributive and integrative situations o Effects of personality was lessened when negotiators had high aspirations for their own performance o High degree of motivation to do well overcame the liability of certain personality traits in negotiation o “Fit” or match between negotiator and task a low agreebleness negotiator “fits” a competitive, distributive situation  high agreebleness negotiator is better matched to a situation with integrative potential  negotiators whose personality fits the situation experienced more physical arousal (a faster heart rate) and psychological arousal (positive emotion) during the negotiation; these forms of arousal, in turn led to more persistence in negotiating and ultimately better outcomes  “the importance of staffing negotiators with individuals possessing specific dispositions, depending on the characteristics of the situation Section Summary – on the other hand, some narrow traits may do better job predicting negotiation behaivor than these broad personality factors because the aggregation of traits into factors masks important relationships between specific traits and specific strategies  personality is also potentially important in negotiation because people view the actions of other parties through a lens of personality  although interests and positions determine much of what happens in negotiation, negotiators tend to interpret the behaivor of the other party in terms of personality  misperception- negotiators inappropriately explain the actions of others in personality terms even through elements of the situation are actually responsible Abilities in Negotiation 1. Cognitive Ability: traditional conceptualization of interlligence  Cognitive ability refers to “a very general mental capability that among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience  Cognitive ability influences reasoning, decision making, information processing capacity, learning, and adaptability to change, particularly in novel or complex situations  CA is also thinking and mental processing  To the extent that negotiations entails the navigation of complex-problem solving tasks, it is reasonable to expect that individual cognitive ability may predict negotiation process and outcomes.  Studies found that there is a strong link between negotiator cognitive ability and the integrativeness of settlements reach by participants in a commercial real estate negotiation simulation  Also cognitive ability predicted the ability of negotiators to reach integrative settlements in a simulation about a syndication contract for a television program  Smarter negotiators have an advantage in moving the parties toward recognizing and exploiting joint gain  In distributive negotiations study- they found no link between intelligence and performance. However this finding should be regarded with caution because the task in their study was rather basic, single-issue negotiation

2. Emotional Intelligence: EI is an encompassing set of discrete but related abilities a. the ability to perceive and express emotion accurately b. the ability to access emotion in facilitating thought c. the ability to comprehend and analyze emotion d. the ability to regulate appropriately one’s own emotions and those of others  to the extent that the concept of EI captures stable and measurable tendencies involving the perception, comprehesion, and regulation of emotion, it may be an importan...