Behaviour Change

PROPAGANDA FOR CHANGE is a project created by the students of Behaviour Change (ps359) and Professor Thomas Hills @thomhills at the Psychology Department of the University of Warwick. This work was supported by funding from Warwick's Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Little girl makes some cash!

Just go with it (2011) negotiating scene.

This scene shows just how persuasive a child can be when bargaining for a deal they want.
Danny approaches Maggie with a very strong interest of convincing her of playing his “daughter” on holiday to Hawaii. Danny’s position is weaker than Maggie’s as she has nothing to lose and only gains to make, however if she says no Danny just loses and needs to go find someone else to play his “daughter”! Maggie takes advantage of Danny’s lower position when negotiating.

Maggie wants $600 dollars plus a 6 week intensive acting course. Maggie has set a benchmark which acts as an anchor. Research shows that anchoring is an effective tool in negotiation such as Orr & Guthrie (2005) who found a strong positive correlation between the initial anchor and negotiation outcome. Maggie has also been the first to offer a deal in the negotiation. Research has shown the first person to make an offer experiences a batter outcome (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). In reply Danny says $50 and 2 week acting course. Maggie says $500 and 4 week acting class. Danny says $300 and 3 week acting class, Maggie agrees on this and shakes his hand. After a short positional negotiation they have reached an agreement. The Zone of possible agreement has been explored by both parties, with Danny getting a cheaper price and Maggie getting more than just experience.

After the deal has been made the two parties mention BATNA (best alternative to the negotiated agreement) where Danny says he would have done it for $500 and Maggie says she would have done it for just experience. Past research has shown that being aware of your BATNA before making a deal will mean a better outcome for yourself than the other person that is unaware of their BANTA (Brett, Pinkley & Kackofsky, 1996; White & Neale, 1991). BANTA is of great importance when negotiating, as the better your BANTA the more likely it will affect your negotiating leading to a positive outcome for yourself (Pinkley, Neale and Bennett, 1994)

Brett, J. F., Pinkley, R. L., & Jackofsky, E. F. (1996). Alternatives to having a BATNA in dyadic negotiation: The influence of goals, self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(2), 121-138.

Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-670.

Orr, D., & Guthrie, C. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 21, 597.

Pinkley, R. L., Neale, M. A., & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives tosettlement in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 57(1), 97-116.

White, S. B., & Neale, M. A. (1991). Reservation prices, resistance points, and BATNAs: Determining the parameters of acceptable negotiated outcomes. Negotiation Journal, 7(4), 379-388.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.