NEGOTIATION FUNDAMENTALS

Welcome to Section 2’s Exercise:

Exercise: 3 Problems That Reveal Emotional Thinking

1. Assuming Intentionality: Read the two scenarios below carefully and

answer the questions. Try not to overthink it. Just answer honestly.

Scenario 1:

A high power CEO is being told the executive summary of a new initiative for the corporation. The project
manager explains that this initiative will make the company a lot of money and that it will harm the
environment. The CEO replies, “I don’t care about the environment, I just want to raise profits.” The
initiative is given the go ahead. Sure enough, the corporation makes more profit and the environment is
harmed.

Is the CEO responsible for harming the environment?

Scenario 2:

A high power CEO is being told the executive summary of a new initiative for the corporation. The project
manager explains that this initiative will make the company a lot of money and that it will help the
environment. The CEO replies, “I don’t care about the environment, I just want to raise profits.” The
initiative is given the go ahead. Sure enough, the corporation makes more profit and the environment is
helped.

Is the CEO responsible for helping the environment?

Scroll to next page of this .PDF for the next part once you’ve answered.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Explore more of our courses:​ ​https://www.udemy.com/u/lifeprogressionproject
Answer:​ This question comes out of the research of Joshua Knobe. He discovered what he humbly calls
“the Knobe effect” which is an asymmetry in our ascriptions of intentionality and moral responsibility.

Almost all of the participants in the study who answered these two questions, said that the CEO was
responsible for hurting the environment, but that she was not responsible for helping the environment. The
only difference between the two scenarios, is that the first uses the words “harm” and ” harmed” whereas
the second scenario switches those words for the words “help” and “helped”. The logical answer to both
questions then, is that the CEO is responsible, whether she helps the environment or hurts it, because she
was aware of the consequences and approved the initiative.

If you answered as most people did, it has to do with a negative, stereotypical perception of corporate
CEOs being anti environment and pro capital. This is a great example of how we make emotionally driven,
mistaken judgements of people based on how the person is perceived.

When in negotiations, your opponent will be making these kinds of mistakes about you if they have a
negative perception of negotiators. It is important to manage these perceptions by finding ways to help
them win and working with them, rather than against them. Conversely, be careful not to make mistakes in
assuming the moral intent of your opponent based on your perception of them.

2. Framing the Situation: Read the two scenarios below carefully and
answer the questions. Try not to overthink it. Just answer honestly.

Scenario 1:

You’re taking a walk on a beautiful day along a set of train tracks. About 30 yards ahead, you notice a
school bus full of toddlers that appears to be stuck on the tracks. Without warning, just behind you hear a
runaway trolley barreling in the direction of the children.

There is a lever within arms reach that can switch the track onto another track that steers away from the
children. Unfortunately, you see someone working on that track with their back facing you and with
earphones on. He appears to be unaware of the bus and the runaway trolley.

Do you flip the switch, so that the trolley will change course and kill the serviceman or do nothing and let
the bus full of kids die?

Scenario 2:

You’re taking a walk on a beautiful day along a set of train tracks. About 30 yards ahead, you notice a
school bus full of toddlers that appears to be stuck on the tracks. Without warning, just behind you, you see
a runaway trolley barreling in the direction of the children.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Explore more of our courses:​ ​https://www.udemy.com/u/lifeprogressionproject
You’re on a bridge above the track and you think it’s possible you can stop the trolley by dropping
something heavy enough over the bridge. A very obese man is approaching you and you know that he will
be enough to stop the trolley.

Do you push the very obese man over the bridge, killing him to save the children?

Scenario 3:

You’re taking a walk on a beautiful day along a set of train tracks. About 30 yards ahead, you notice a
school bus full of toddlers that appears to be stuck on the tracks. Without warning, just behind you, you see
a runaway trolley barreling in the direction of the children.

You spot a very obese man crossing a bridge that is directly above the track. There is a lever nearby that
you can use to open the bridge. This will cause the very obese man to fall on the track, saving the children.

Do you flip the switch, so that you kill the very obese man and save the children?

Scroll to the next page of this .PDF for the next part once you’ve answered.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Explore more of our courses:​ ​https://www.udemy.com/u/lifeprogressionproject
Answer: ​In Philosophy, this is what we refer to as a moral dilemma. In basic terms, you’re damned if you
do and you’re damned if you don’t. In everyday life we run into moral dilemmas on a much smaller scale,
e.g. should I tell the truth and hurt their feelings or say what they want to hear but not address the issue?

While there is no “right” answer to the questions posed above, the majority of people answered Scenario 1
by saying they would flip the switch, Scenario 2 by not pushing the very obese man and Scenario 3 by
saying they would flip the switch. Although we see a consistency in reasoning between Scenario 1 and 3, it
is interesting to note that while most people wouldn’t push the very obese man because it’s “wrong”, they
don’t have the same objection to pushing a button that would lead to the same result. By positioning the
moral dilemma in these ways, we see that priming a negative emotional reaction will lead to inconsistent
results, but that by avoiding the negative emotional reaction, we get consistent results.

In your negotiations, often it is the way in which you position your offer that will get the opponent to agree or
disagree, even though the result is the same. If you present your offer in a take it or leave it fashion, you
may be met with a reluctance to deal with your hostility. You can make the same outrageous requests, but
if instead you allow your opponent to reject your proposition, you influence the decision toward agreement
because they see that they can win with you. You will still get what you want and get the opponent to do
what you want, depending on how you frame your offer.

3. Perception of Options: Read the scenarios below carefully and answer

the questions. Try not to overthink it. Just answer honestly.

You’ve found out about a life changing program that is being sold in three ways.

Option 1: Print copy for $49

Option 2: Audio copy for $149

Option 3: Print and Audio bundle for $149

What’s the best deal?

You’ve found out about a life changing program that is being sold in three ways.

Option 1: Print copy for $49

Option 2: Audio copy with PDF transcript for $89

Option 3: Print and Audio bundle for $149

What’s the best deal?

Scroll to the next page of this .PDF for the next part once you’ve answered.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Explore more of our courses:​ ​https://www.udemy.com/u/lifeprogressionproject
Answer:​ While these scenarios don’t raise the kinds of emotions we have regarding moral problems, we
still answer the above questions emotionally.

Ideally, whatever your needs are should dictate which options to choose from, but in reality, we make our
choice based on the perception of options. In Scenario 1, we see the decoy effect at work. While the first
option might be reasonable, it just doesn’t make sense to spend $150 for a digital copy, when we can
spend the same amount for the audio and the book. That rationalization is done by us, because the 2nd
option isn’t really an option, but a decoy placed there to make the most expensive option appear to be the
most reasonable. Most of us would choose Option 3, even though we might only need to spend $50 to get
the material we want. In Scenario 2, we see a range of prices, which engages our anchoring bias. Option 2
appears to be the best because it has the optimal amount of value and price. What’s most interesting about
both scenarios, is that we completely forget to reject all three options outright or request more options that
would suit our particular needs. These are several ways in which we are biased toward emotional
decisions.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Explore more of our courses:​ ​https://www.udemy.com/u/lifeprogressionproject