The assumption of rationality has been challenged by quite a few
people, on both empirical and normative grounds.
Empirically, it was shown repeatedly in psychological studies that
even the most sophisticated people consistently violate the canons
of rational behavior.
Normatively, we have already seen that rational models of
negotiation do not always provide us with satisfactory solution to
negotiation problems. As is demonstrated by the Prisoner’s
dilemma, rational behavior can result in irrational outcome.
As Schelling’s example of the rationality of the irrational
demonstrates, behaving irrationally may yield rational outcomes. So
rational choice theory is in some cases either silent about the
desired solution, or provides an unsatisfactory result.
Key Criticisms of Rational Choice Theory
•Cognitive limitations on:
•
Information processing
•
Ability to perform complex calculations
•
Systematic biases
•Hot Cognitive Processes
•
Dissonance avoidance
•
Avoidance of value tradeoffs
•
Wishful thinking
•
Schema and expectations driven inferences
Situational Constraints on Rational Negotiations
•
Psychological Stress: Threats, opportunities, time pressure
•
Uncertainty
•
Short foresight (limited horizon)
•
Fundamental mistrust of opponent
•
Audience effects and audience costs
•
Personality Factors
•
Cognitive factors
•
Physical and psychopathological factors
•
Situational factors
•
Group interaction and group-induced influences
•
Setting effects
•
Cognitive complexity and negotiations
•
Tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity
•
Big picture people vs. small details people
•
Authoritarian vs. democratic personality
•
Team person vs. lone ranger
•
Advantages and disadvantages of mental liabilities
•
Can we fake a personality type and can we take an
advantage of an image?
Cognitive Biases
•
Availability
•
Representativeness
•
Overconfidence
•
Risk propensity
•
Compound biases
Physical and psychopathological factors
•
Fatigue
•
Isolation
•
Bladder Diplomacy
•
Associative locations
Stress and Decision making:
Components of Decisional Stress
Threat Perception
Perception of Opportunity
Time Pressure
Decisional Stress = (Threat-Opportunity) × Time Pressure
Decision quality
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Level of Stress
Characteristics of Policy Groups
•
Formal and informal hierarchies
•
Common history
•
Joint future
•
Dependence on constituency and
superiors
•
Two-level pressures
•
Tendency toward consensus
•
Self-suppression of disagreement
•
Suppression of disagreement by
isolation of “noncooperative”
members of the group
•
Feeling of harmony and selfsatisfaction
How to prevent groupthink?
•
Reduce formal hierarchy—allow junior
participants to express themselves
•
Leader should absent him/herself from the
meeting of the group; let others run meetings; get
reports about the content of the meetings without
being directly present
•
Leader should not let his/her views known. Would
be best to express views only at the end, having
heard the various views in the group.
•
Encourage open argumentation and dissent.
Argumentation and dissent make for vigilant
decisions
•
Allow the group to open up to outside views