The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm IJCMA 24,4 A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes Andrea Caputo 374 Department of Economics, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, Rome, Italy Received 16 August 2012 Revised 14 November 2012 Abstract Accepted 15 November 2012 Purpose -What is the discipline’s current grasp of cognitive biases in negotiation processes? What lessons can be drawn from this body of literature? The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the limited research on cognitive biases in the context of negotiations. Design/methodology/approach -This article reviews research from judgment and decision-making, conflict management, psychology, and management literatures to systematize what we already know about cognitive biases in negotiations. Findings -Decision-making studies have mainly identified 21 biases that may lead to lower quality decisions. Only five of those biases have been studied relating to negotiations: the anchoring, the overconfidence, the framing, the status quo and the self-serving bias. Moreover, negotiation literature has identified five additional biases that affect negotiation processes: the fixed-pie error, the incompatibility error, the intergroup bias, the relationship bias and the toughness bias. Biased behavior differs across cultures and emotional mood. Research limitations/implications -Implications for future research include building comprehensive models of how negotiators can overcome cognitive biases, studying interconnections between different biases, and increasing complexity of the studies to provide practitioners with more practical advice. Originality/value -The literature reviewed in this paper spans diverse disciplines and perspectives. This paper can be a starting point for researchers interested in understanding how cognitive biases affect negotiations. Moreover, it could be a starting point for future research on this field. Keywords Decision making, Negotiation, Bias, Cognition, Heuristic Paper type Literature review Introduction Negotiations are essential and fundamental moments of life. Improving negotiation skills, as well as increasing the ability to negotiate effectively, is crucial in managerial, political, and business contexts. Simon’s (1957) bounded rationality acknowledges that individuals, while attempting to make rational decisions, often lack important information and the relevant criteria of problems, and prior literature in psychology has demonstrated that negotiators do not always act rationally. What is the discipline’s current grasp of cognitive biases in negotiation processes? What lessons can be drawn from this body of literature? Decision-making studies about cognitive biases have mainly focused on individual decision-making. However, International Journal of Conflict Management Vol. 24 No. 4, 2013 pp. 374-398 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1044-4068 DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064 The author thanks James Bailey, Gianpaolo Abatecola, Matt Cronin, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful and valuable comments, Martina Dorigo for personal support, the Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning at The George Washington University School of Business for hosting the research, and the University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, Roberto Cafferata and Corrado Cerruti for having supported this research and granted his visiting at The George Washington University. negotiation decisions are often made in conjunction with other parties, which may commonly have different interests (Bazerman and Carroll, 1987; Fisher et al., 1981; Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Lewicki et al., 2005; Pruitt, 1981; Raiffa, 1982; Thompson, 2001; Walton and McKersie, 1965; Zartman, 1977). As individual decisions are often affected by cognitive biases, which rarely make these decisions completely rational, the same applies to negotiated decisions between several parties. In this paper the term rationality refers to the decision-making process that is logically expected to lead to the optimal result, given an accurate assessment of the negotiator’s values and risk preferences (Bazerman and Moore, 2009, p. 4). The topic of cognitive biases within negotiations has been analyzed in the International Journal of Conflict Management on a few occasions with reference to the perception of fairness (Paese and Yonker, 2001) and multilateral negotiations (Traavik, 2011). Some recent reviews of the literature on cognitive biases appeared in the literature, but they focused only on biased decision-making processes (Bazerman and Moore, 2009; Brooks, 2011; Eberlin and Tatum, 2005; Morgeson and Campion, 1997). Although it is commonly seen as an important topic, the investigation of cognitive biases in the field of negotiations is under-researched. A gap in the literature is identified in journal articles systematizing the intersection of negotiation studies, from the group decision-making literature, and cognitive biases studies, and from the judgment and decision-making literature. While Thompson et al. (2006) critically reviewed the implications of biased decision-making processes for negotiations, this work intends to help to fill this gap through a systematic review of the literature that bridges the two areas of research. The aim of this study is to systematically review those studies in the management literature that analyzed the concept of bias within the negotiations’ field, and to suggest a series of new research trajectories that might emerge as a result. In fact, cognitive misperceptions can highly bias human behavior when making judgments and decisions in negotiations. In this paper I provide a theoretical background on decision-makers’ cognition to introduce the research and provide context; then the literature is systematically reviewed and its results are discussed. This leads me on to conclude that limited research, with alternate results, has been done with reference to the interaction between biases, on the role of culture, mood and personality, and on the effects of learning and experience on negotiators’ judgment. Finally, I suggest that further trajectories of research might be on integrative and multilateral negotiations, on the role of third parties, and, finally, on a more deep understanding of how to overcome biases in negotiations. Theoretical framework This section of the paper presents a brief introduction about the so-called negotiation theory and about judgment and decision-making literature, which have been used during the research as theoretical background. Among this literature, it is commonly acknowledged that negotiation is a process through which two or more parties could reach a needed joint decision, while having different preferences (Fisher et al., 1981; Gulliver, 1977; Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Lewicki et al., 2005; Pruitt, 1981; Raiffa, 1982; Rubin and Brown, 1975; Zartman, 1977). Due to the interdependence (Thompson, 1967) that reigns over and inside multi-actor decision-making processes, negotiation outcomes are affected by the decisions taken by all the parties involved. This can make Cognitive biases in negotiation processes 375 IJCMA 24,4 376 decision-making in negotiation even more complicated than individual decision-making (Bazerman and Moore, 2009). Thus, the quality of the negotiated agreement is affected by the rationality of those decisions that led to the agreement: this implies that the decisions and behaviors of each party matter. Decision-making studies can most often be divided within three perspectives: the normative, the descriptive, and the prescriptive (Bell et al., 1988). In particular, the normative approach has tended to find the rules of individual behaviors. This approach is founded on the economic concepts of absolute rationality and optimization, and takes into account how decisions should be made. Economists, through the so-called Game theory, were the first to provide normative advice to negotiators and decision-makers. The primary advantage of those studies is that, given absolute rationality, they provide the most precise prescriptive advice available to negotiators (Bazerman and Moore, 2009). The descriptive approach, conversely, has tended to study how decision are really made, basing its analysis on real observation and on the concepts of bounded rationality (Simon, 1957). Descriptive studies have contradicted Game theorists rely on two aspects: the human ability to be fully informed about all options, combinations and associated outcomes, and the human ability to act in a fully rational way. Finally, the prescriptive approach has tried to merge the former approaches to study how decisions could be made better (Bell et al., 1988). As an alternative to Game theory, Raiffa (1982) and Raiffa et al. (2002) was among the first to develop a decision-analytic approach to negotiations, focusing on how erring individuals actually behave. His goal was to provide guidance for negotiators involved in real conflicts, given the most likely profile of the other parties’ expected behavior. Thus, a prescriptive theory has been developed as he tried to give advice in real situations. Other interdisciplinary studies have built the so-called negotiation theory, in order to consider how a rational negotiator should behave in real negotiations (Fisher et al., 1981; Komorita, 1985; Kramer, 1991; Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Lewicki et al., 1992; Raiffa, 1982; Sheppard, 1984; Walton and McKersie, 1965; Zartman, 1977). The negotiation theory takes into account the negotiation’s structure and the other negotiator (Hammond et al., 2001), as well as the common errors that negotiators and their opponents make (Bazerman et al., 1992, 2000; Thompson, 2001). This theory implies that humans are not perfectly rational, and have emotional and cognitive limitations (Cyert and March, 1963; Simon, 1957). Furthermore, they lack a perfect and common knowledge of a situation and of the possible interests and behaviors of the counterpart (Lax and Sebenius, 1986). The negotiating structure is composed of three basic elements: (1) the parties involved; (2) the subjects or issues under negotiation; and (3) the preferences, and thus the interests and positions of the parties. Consequently, a rational negotiator should assess the key information about each party’s alternative to a negotiated agreement (Fisher et al., 1981), each party’s set of interests, and the relative importance of each party’s interests (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Raiffa, 1982; Raiffa et al., 2002). Those studies have provided plenty of tools to increase the negotiator’s performance in achieving satisfactory agreements, but are we so rational to use it when we need it? During the last four decades, bounded rationality (Simon, 1957) served as the integrating concept for the field of behavioral decision research. Simon’s (1957) bounded rationality acknowledges that individuals, while attempting to make rational decisions, often lack important information and relevant criteria of problems. Additionally, decision-makers have time and cost constraints that limit the quality and quantity of information, and they retain only a relatively small amount of those. Finally, decision-makers cannot calculate the optimal choice in a variety of alternatives, due to perceptual errors and computational limitations. Consequently, decision-makers simply search until they find a satisfactory solution that leads to an acceptable level of performance. Neale and Bazerman (1985), when positive frames exist, risk aversion dominates, and a negotiated settlement is predicted. Further research (Bazerman et al., 1985) found that positively framed negotiators completed significantly more transactions than negatively framed negotiators, consistent with Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory. Based on those studies, it appears that both parties become risk-seekers when considering potential outcomes in terms of what they have to lose (negative frame), while if th

Mastering the Art of Online Learning: Your Guide to Acing Online Courses

Introduction

In recent years, the popularity of online courses has skyrocketed, offering learners the flexibility to acquire new skills and knowledge from the comfort of their homes. However, succeeding in online courses requires a different approach compared to traditional classroom settings. To help you make the most of your online learning experience, this article presents essential strategies and tips to ace your online courses.

1. Set Clear Goals and Plan Ahead

Before embarking on an online course, establish clear goals and objectives. Determine what you hope to achieve by the end of the course and break down your goals into manageable milestones. Create a study schedule that aligns with your other commitments, ensuring you allocate dedicated time for coursework, assignments, and revision.

2. Create a Productive Study Environment

Establishing a conducive study environment is crucial for online learning success. Find a quiet, well-lit space where you can concentrate without distractions. Remove any potential interruptions, such as notifications from social media or email. Organize your study materials and have a reliable internet connection to ensure seamless access to course materials.

3. Actively Engage in the Course

Active participation is key to mastering online courses. Engage with course materials, including videos, readings, and interactive components. Take comprehensive notes, highlighting key concepts and ideas. Participate in discussion boards, forums, and virtual meetings to interact with instructors and peers, fostering a sense of community and enhancing your understanding of the subject matter.

4. Manage Your Time Effectively

Online courses offer flexibility, but it’s essential to manage your time wisely to avoid falling behind. Create a detailed schedule, allocating specific time slots for coursework, assignments, and studying. Break down larger tasks into smaller, manageable segments to prevent procrastination. Prioritize tasks based on deadlines and dedicate focused time to each one, ensuring consistent progress throughout the course.

5. Develop Effective Communication Skills

Online courses often rely on written communication, making it crucial to hone your skills in this area. Be concise and clear in your written responses, paying attention to grammar and spelling. Actively participate in discussions, asking thoughtful questions and providing constructive feedback to your peers. Regularly check your course emails and notifications, ensuring you stay updated with any important announcements or changes.

6. Utilize Available Resources

Take full advantage of the resources provided by your online course platform and instructors. Familiarize yourself with the learning management system (LMS) and explore its features. Access supplementary materials, such as textbooks, lecture slides, and external resources recommended by instructors. Utilize online libraries, research databases, and tutorial services to deepen your understanding of the subject matter.

7. Stay Motivated and Engaged

Maintaining motivation throughout an online course can be challenging, particularly when faced with competing priorities or a lack of face-to-face interaction. Set short-term goals and reward yourself upon their completion. Connect with fellow learners through virtual study groups or online forums to foster a sense of camaraderie. Regularly remind yourself of the benefits and personal growth associated with completing the course successfully.

8. Seek Support and Clarification

Don’t hesitate to seek support or clarification when needed. Reach out to your instructors for guidance or clarification on course material. Utilize online discussion forums to ask questions or engage in collaborative problem-solving. Leverage the support services provided by your course platform or institution, such as technical support or academic advising.

Conclusion

Online courses present unique opportunities for self-paced learning and personal growth. By setting clear goals, creating a productive study environment, actively engaging with course materials, and managing your time effectively, you can maximize your chances of acing online courses. Remember to stay motivated, seek support when needed, and make the most of the available resources. Embrace the flexibility and adaptability of online learning to achieve your educational goals.