Negotiating Tips and Tactics

As it relates to persuasion, some tactics are largely common sense. Maintaining a friendly disposition, for example. But the degree to which such simple and easy fixes can have an impact is sometimes still surprising. As an article in the WSJ reports:

“People teamed in an investment game with online partners whose facial images appeared friendly and reliable entrusted their partners with 42% more money than those whose partners looked downbeat and threatening, says a 2012 study by British and U.S. researchers.”

…

“Facial expressions are important even when you think no one is looking. People tend to distrust others whose ‘dominant face,’ or habitual expression, is grumpy, disapproving or angry, says Judson Vaughn, an impression-management consultant. And suddenly switching that downbeat expression to a 1,000-watt smile, just because someone is looking, is likely to undermine trust even more, he says.”

For the genuinely friendly, capital raises may simply be easier.

If you want to negotiate with someone it may be better to schedule the meeting in the morning. An article in the NYTimes suggests that people are more likely to cheat or deceive as the day wears on and depletes their brain:

“This so-called morning morality effect results from ‘cognitive tiredness,’ said Isaac H. Smith, an assistant professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University and co-author of the article with Maryam Kouchaki, an assistant professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern. ‘To the extent that you’re cognitively tired,’ Dr. Smith added, ‘you’re more likely to give in to the devil on your shoulder.'”

Click on the link below for descriptions of the experiments performed.

An article in the WSJ cited multiple studies claiming that humans will choose to be angry before committing to a competitive environment. In one study participants were told that they would be negotiating or playing a video game and asked if they would prefer to watch Robin Williams perform a stand up routine or watch a scene where a witness is harassed ahead of the challenge. Most chose the upsetting clip, which the study argues is used as a primer. “People intuitively chose to become angry.”

In another study participants listened to either heavy metal or calming music before being asked to perform a task. They were then asked to either negotiate with another person for money or play a violent video game.

“The results for both studies were similar: The angry participants who listened to the heavy-metal music performed better: They made more money in the negotiation or killed more enemies in the computer game—but only when they expected their anger to boost or help them. ‘Our expectations make us behave in ways that ultimately influence the outcome,’ says Dr. Tamir. If we believe our anger will help us win an argument, we are likely to be more confident and assertive. ‘It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy.'”

First-person pronouns cause investors (and perhaps all humans) to react more positively to information. In a study highlighted by the WSJ, 250 participants listened to fictional earnings calls and then were asked to make investment decisions based on the information relayed on the calls. The study also evaluated 500,000 real-life earnings calls for similar first-pronoun language and then compared the market reaction. “…the study found that investors leave with a more positive impression—regardless of a company’s results—when managers use personal pronouns such as ‘I,’ ‘we,’ ‘my,’ ‘ours’ and ‘us,’ or what the researchers refer to as self-inclusive language.”

The authors of the study believe that investors react this way because the language suggests the speaker has greater control. Another professor of psychology interviewed for the article argued that it was likely because the language “creates an air of vulnerability, which listeners tend to find authentic and accessible.”

Pause fillers like “um” and “uh” can be used to maintain control of a conversation. An article in the Economist highlighted several examples where this language is used as a signal to the other parties involved in a conversation. The article also claimed that men are more likely to use these indicators with the suggestion that it is done to maintain control of the conversation. What is surprising is how quickly humans respond in dialogue, per the article:

“Humans mostly follow a rule called ‘no gap, no overlap’, reacting to the end of a conversational turn by beginning their own in about 200 milliseconds—about the time it takes a sprinter to respond to the starting gun. This is all the more remarkable given that it takes about 600 milliseconds for someone to work out what they are going to say by mentally retrieving the words and organising how they are to be expressed.”