In this paper, it highlights a twosome of persuasion power methods in helping the negotiant to derive a higher opportunity to acquiring into the dialogue procedure. Besides, the manner the negotiant is traveling to use these obsessed powers ( information advantage, emotional use and see degree ) in the work of act uponing and pull stringsing the other party ‘s determination devising and reserve monetary value. However, today in this paper, I would be concentrating on one facet of the obsessed power which is information advantage. It would be base on how one can leverage on the profusion in information cognition able to increase his persuasion ability in deriving an border over the other negotiant.
Therefore via a series of influential and increase in willingness to acquire into the dialogue procedure, the negotiant who has a higher persuasion power would stand a high opportunity in pull offing the whole flow ( ruling most of the statements ) and for the less active parties ( the 1 would hold a signifier of free siting consequence by moving as a “ chump ” place leting the other party to make most of the work and piece for the benefits from the result of the procedure ) who are being influence to acquire into the procedure would play a place of cooperation.
When the negotiant is able to take the dialogue procedure, he might stand a high opportunity of winning the dialogue by holding a larger part of the negotiated pie. The whole procedure of the paper is illustrated via a simplified flow chart of figure 1.
Persuasion power, information profusion, willingness to prosecute, domination
There are a legion of articles and diaries saying that people would act otherwise in different state of affairss. The dialogue result might be different when one deals with different people with different cultural background, personality, dialogue accomplishments and emotional stableness. Peoples are more comfy negociating with person consist of a high similarity degree, in another word, they are more willing to take the hazard of allowing their ushers down when similarity increases the signifier of trustiness within oneself to another parties. The consequence would besides differ from each other when it happens at different dialogue timing ( e.g. there are a high opportunity of acquiring a good monetary value with those gross revenues individuals who are still looking to shut the first trade of the twenty-four hours, comparing to those sale individuals who are busy in shuting the trades [ supply and demand ] ) . The procedure of determination devising and information procedure would be besides different chiefly because of different perceptual experiences, communicating manners and cognitive ability to understand certain demands and footings offered during the dialogue procedure. Thus it would besides change the entire size of the dialogue pie and the distribution ratio of the concluding pie.
In winning the dialogue procedure, it would depend on the power of the negotiants ( Legitimate power: a formal positional advantage over another parties, Reward power: the ability to publish extra additions, Coercive power: the ability to penalize or menace, Expert power: the cognition advantage on a certain field that is less familiar to another party, Referent power: emotional well being influence over another party ) within three different classs: overpowered ( domination of the whole dialogue procedure ) , balance ( each of them would obtain a equity sum of portions ) and underpowered ( acquire carried over and lose the power to hold a say within the dialogue procedure ) . Therefore in this paper, I would advert on the ability of one negotiant can utilize his/her adept power or latest information border to increase the opportunity of ruling the dialogue procedure and lead to the ultimate triumph in deriving a higher part of the pie.
The ground of composing this paper is chiefly due to one factor that we have to split the pie finally after the pie enlargement. Via looking at the degree of persuasion power different between each negotiant would give us some hints on who would acquire the big pie at the terminal of the dialogue.
Persuasion: It is a signifier of act uponing procedure by taking the opposition into the understanding of your desire thought. It is closely related to the subject under communicating as two or more parties are involved and they are seeking to act upon each other to aline the other individual ‘s mentality to their aspiration.
There are several methods of persuasion like concluding ( supplying logical statement: fact A would take to the happening of fact B ( Douglas, 1998 ) , scientific consequences: statement supported by valid research and solid grounds: cogent evidence ) , emotional ( e.g. seduction: calculatingly appealing another party to elicit positive intervention, presentation manner, cultural embeddedness ( Dequech, 2003 ) , propaganda: selectively present positive facts that is in the advantage of the negotiant in act uponing the other parties in purchasing his thought ( Ross, 2002 ) and empathy: an indirect influence to do another party feel sorry for you and give in to your proposed thought ( Lauren, 1991 ) ) , non verbal communicating ( organic structure linguistic communication, struggle handling manner and adoptability and respond to alter ) and coercive processs ( reciprocation: return of favor, scarceness of resources, brainwashing: a signifier of systematic thought injection to the other individual ‘s head in order for him to follow your orders ( Langone, 1988 ) and hypnosis: manipulate another parties with mental province ( Coe, 1972 ) )
Information: It is constructed base on a series of messages that links up to organize a meaningful phrase for another parties to understand certain thought. Information can be in a signifier of informations used in calculating ( e.g. binary Numberss ) , physical information used by a measuring ( international system of units ) , a construct that strings logical statements together ( e.g. an abstract thought ) , the cognition on a subject, a series of form, a representation of thoughts and even a signifier of direction. Information profusion focuses on the sum of information one has in progress before the dialogue procedure, which could include the current market monetary value, the alternate methods to spread out the pie, the proficient cognition and other extra information of the dialogue issues. The degree of the negotiant ‘s information is greatly dependent on the frequence of exposal to the beginning of information ( e.g. the frequence of media update and the willingness to beginning for new information ) .
The aid and recognition of the most updated and precise information would be critical for a negotiant to accurately put his/her reserve monetary value, BATNA ( Best option to a negotiated understanding ) and aim monetary value. Furthermore, he/she can use the adept power to supply necessary or extra information to act upon the other party.
Willingness to prosecute: There has been a legion of theories and researches that by and large project the determination to prosecute is one of the cardinal manners of hazard taking behavior. ( Baumeister, 1988 ) This signifier of behaviors is normally inflicted by two conflicting motivations: possible loss turning away and possible addition maximization. Furthermore, the determination may be influenced by the sum of sensed chances of options that another party offered subjected to the value offered by the opposition ( Lopes 1993 ) . In add-on to the above account, it would besides hold to depend on the possible addition in prosecuting the peril of enduring a loss. If the addition is higher than the loss, under dialogue, the positive bargaining zone will look bring oning both parties to prosecuting the existent dialogue procedure.
Domination: In the normal context, it would usually intend being more superior or distinction over the other parties. However in this study, the term “ Domination ” would be considered under the frequence of pull offing the dialogue procedure and to take the possible result towards the dominator ‘s aspiration needs. It would necessitate to include the controlling of the opposition ‘s thought and efficaciously influence his/her to believe the manner you wish him/her to believe about you. In another words, the dominator would be able to convert the other side to acquire fond of his/her thought and take into history the bulk of his/her suggestions. The domination factor is an event caused by power instability and weak personal traits ( Viviane, 2010 ) .
In order to contract down the research subject, I am presuming that there are merely two negotiants and the 1 who made the first offer would dwell of a higher persuasion power. The first negotiant would be labeled as P1 and the other party would be labeled as P2.
Hypothesis 1: The cognition power is positively related to the ability of persuasion
The cognition power would hold two basic effects: it is positively related to the assurance in showing the thought in the P1 ‘s position and have an influential impact aroused by P1 to P2.
The addition in the degree of relevant cognition within P1 besides means that there is an increase in the truth in P1 ‘s judgement against the current dialogue issue. Our grade of assurance for a specific issue would change depending on the sum of information we have on manus and this would hold an huge impact on the possible actions we take ( Clarie, 2008 ) .
The chief ground is concentrating information profusion in the study is that it has a direct impact to swear bridging between two parties because the information given by P1 is subjective and base on supportive facts. Thus the degree of entrustment would be established quicker than emotional ( per se arouse by the P2 ) or coercive actions ( forceful ascriptions that might backlash ) .
The direct influential impact occurs when P2 understands the message that P1 is seeking to pass on. With a solid based of cognition supported persuasion, P1 is able to supply seasonably and dependable information to increase the ability of converting power when he/she is seeking to pass on with other party ( e.g. it is non mere talk with a batch of hot air ( some statements without support from the fact ) , but with apparent based to back up the thought. ) ( Abhijit, 1993 ) . Thus the degree of cognition would make a foundation for P1 ‘s persuasion power.
Hypothesis 2: Addition in cognition persuasion power would bring on higher opportunity of enforcing willingness to prosecute into the dialogue procedure from other party
The information retrieve outright would be the direct filter information from the stating of the other negotiant because they are the most accessible from the short term memory ( McGill, 1989 ) . With the high cognition persuasion power, the negotiant is able to pelt with existent figures and information to bring on fright of losing the current benefits from the given chance. The other party would increase their willingness to prosecute in the dialogue as the presented information would be more accessible from the short term memory and would hold more weight when it comes to judgement and determination devising ( Kisielius, 1986 ) . The easiness of retrieval is an of import determiner in utilizing the information to construct up self decision to specific incident ( Paul, 1991 ) .
Competency-based trust edifice would be critical at the minute of prosecuting first clip dialogue brush ( Daniel, 2004 ) . With the cognition persuasion power, one is able to unwrap necessary information to another party to build the basic signifier of trust nexus between both parties. The willingness to portion and unwrap accurate information would hold a positive consequence to another party projecting a positive image of the negotiant as he is here to portion instead than negociate on the merchandise and inflict possible injuries to the party.
The persuasion cognition theoretical account ( figure 2 ) has illustrated a conceptualized cognition theoretical account from the position points of both the mark ( P2 ) and agent ( P1 ) . P1, moving as a agent to the issue would be trying to make persuasion episode overlapping the P2 ‘s get bying behavior in order to drive P2 to increase his/her willingness and comfort zone to acquire into the dialogue with P1. The country of persuasion effort is enforced by the agent ‘s subject cognition ( e.g. merchandise cognition ) , persuasion experience and the spread cognition between the agent and the mark. ( Marian, 1994 ) The bigger the persuasion episode, the higher the similarity between the mark and agent, which leads to the higher the willingness of the mark traveling into the dialogue procedure.
Hypothesis 3: Willingness to take hazard from the opposition and higher degree of persuasion power would increase the opportunity of process domination of the party with higher persuasion power and increase corporation dependence by the lower persuasion power negotiant.
P2 would so develop the beliefs about the possible results and benefits projected by P1 in the procedure of get bying exercising or even at the start of the persuasion influence by P1. Marian ( 1994 ) mentioned in his article that these sorts of belief ( effectivity in get bying behavior and the possible addition ) would increase the convincing degree of P1 ‘s offer or aspirations. This would increase the corporative degree of P2 to do the dialogue a successful instance. The perceived “ value added ” elements ( e.g. information obtained from P1, clip spend on the current dialogue procedure and the amplified possible additions ) are normally projected as a signifier of single escalation of committedness to increase the attraction of the current offer on the tabular array, which increases person ‘s corporation dependence with P1 and reduces the cognitive ability to single designation in dividing the existent benefits and perceived benefits ( Fox, 2009 ) .
Via the definition of domination above, it is above holding a superior place as comparison to the mark opposition. As P2 has developed a stable sense of corporation dependence towards P1 ‘s superior in cognition base, it would make a contributing environment for P1 to take the whole procedure throughout the class of dialogue procedure. ( Sandra, 2002 ) Thus it would heighten the degree of P1 ‘s domination within the procedure.
Hypothesis 4: With the domination in the procedure and high cooperation from the other party, the negotiant is able to obtain a higher opportunity in winning the dialogue
The domination of the dialogue procedure would hold a calculating impact to the positive results towards P1 as the P1 is executing a competitory scheme and seting accent on negative framing [ disadvantages/ possible loss ] towards walking off from the tabular array ( Loewenstein, 2005 ) . However, over ruling the procedure would discourage P2 from acquiring into the most desire result demanded by P1. One of the chief grounds is that over ruling would increase the consequence of fright and choler from P2, because he/she does n’t hold adequate say in the procedure, which is accounted in the emotional portion of the persuasion, was non discussed in this paper. ( Arif, 2006 ) Although the emotional component is non discussed in this study, I have highlighted one factor that P2, under certain state of affairs, would be likely to be more corporative to P1 ‘s suggestion via corporate dependence over competency-based trust. With the certainty of the corporate behavior projected from P2, we would be able to reason that P1 stands a higher opportunity in winning the dialogue through ruling the procedure.
Information based persuasion power may supply the negotiant an border over the slice of a bigger part of the pie sharing. It would hold to depend on the spread cognition between the agent and the mark audience, the emotional convincing manner of the performing artist, the timing of the occurrence/offer, the bargaining zone of both parties and the possible tendency. However, to set up the first trust between both aliens, competence based trust would be a quicker and direct manner. As such the restrictions of this paper would be as follows: foremost, due to the fact that we are in the information age, the velocity and accessible of information would cut down the cognition power spread between both parties. Second, domination might non work for group dialogue as people would defy if there is a seeable instability of power distribution and decrease of concentration converting power as one is seeking to act upon two or more parties. Therefore for the recommendation of future research, it would hold to concentrate on the degree of structural domination within the procedure, that provides comfort to the other parties to let you to take the dialogue procedure.
Abhijit Biswas and Daniel L. Sherrell ( 1993 ) The influence of merchandise cognition and trade name name on internal monetary value criterions and assurance Psychology and Marketing Volume 10, A Issue 1, A pages 31-46
Arif Nazir Butt ; A Jin Nam Choi ( 2006 ) The Effects of Cognitive Appraisal and Emotion on Social Motive and Negotiation Behavior: The Critical Role of Agency of Negotiator Emotion. Human Performance, Volume 19, A Issue 4, A Pages 305 – 325 Department of the interior: A 10.1207
Baumeister, R. F. , & A ; Scher, S. J. ( 1988 ) . Self-defeating behaviour forms among normal persons: Review and analysis of common suicidal inclinations. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3722.
Claire I. Tsai, Joshua Klayman ( 2008 ) Reid Hastie Effects of sum of information on judgement truth and coni¬?dence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. doi:10.1016
Coe W, Buckner L, Howard M, Kobayashi K ( 1972 ) A Hypnosis as function passage: focal point on a function particular accomplishment, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Jul 15 ( 1 ) :41-5
D Dequech ( 2003 ) Cognitive andA Cultural Embeddedness: Combining Institutional Economics and Economic Sociology. Journal of Economic Issues
Daniel Z. Levin and Rob Cross ( 2004 ) The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science Vol. 50, No. 11 ( Nov. , 2004 ) , pp. 1477-1490
Douglas Walton ( 1998 ) A Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge
Fox, S. , Bizman, A. , & A ; Huberman, O. ( 2009 ) . Escalation of Committedness: The Effect of Number and Attractiveness of Available Investment Alternatives.A Journal of Business & A ; Psychology, 24 ( 4 ) , 431-439. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9124-2
Kisielius and Brian Sternthal ( 1986 ) , “ Analyzing the Vividness Controversy: An Availability-Valence Interpretation, ” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 ( March ) , 418-43 1.
Langone MD ( 1988 ) Cults: A QuestionsA andA replies. A American Family Foundation
Lauren Wispe.A The Psychology of Sympathy. Springer, 1991.A ISBN 0-306-43798-8
Loewenstein, J. , Morris, M. W. , Chakravarti, A. , Thompson, L. , & A ; Kopelman, S. ( 2005 ) . At a loss for words: Predominating the conversation and the result in dialogue as a map of intricate statements and communicating media.A Organizational Behavior & A ; Human Decision Processes, 98 ( 1 ) , 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.007
Lopes, L. L. ( 1993 ) . Reasons and resources: The human side of hazard taking. In N. J. Bell & A ; R.W. Bell ( Eds. ) , Adolescent hazard pickings, ( pp. 29754 ) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marian Friestad and Peter Wright. ( 1994 ) The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How Peoples Cope with Persuasion Attempts The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 1
McGill, Ann L. and Punam Anand ( 1989 ) , “ The Effect of Vivid Attributes on the Evaluation of Options: The Role of Differential Attention and Cognitive Elaboration, ” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 ( September ) , 188-196.
Paul M. Herr, Frank R. Kardes, John Kim ( 1991 ) Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 454-462
Ross, Sheryl Tuttle ( 2002 ) Understanding Propaganda: The Epistemic Merit Model and Its Application to Art.A Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 36, No.1. pp. 16-30
Sandra G. L. Schruijer and Leopold S. Vansina ( 2002 ) Leader, leading and taking: from single features to associating in context. Department of the interior: A 10.1002
Tiziana Casciaro and MikoA‚aj Jan Piskorski ( 2005 ) Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly A Vol. 50, No. 2
Viviane Brachet-Marquez ( 2010 ) , Domination, contention, and the dialogue of inequality: A theoretical proposal, in Harry F. Dahms, Lawrence Hazelrigg ( ed. ) Speculating the Dynamics of Social Processes ( Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Volume 27 ) , Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.123-161