A Minute To Win It: A Gamified Approach To Negotiation

‘A Minute To Win It’ uses a game show narrative designed to educate and entertain the audience on key concepts of Negotiation and Influence. The purpose of this written piece is to critically analyse the theories incorporated in the video and reflect on the creative process. The game show uses a combination of rapid-fire questions, real-world scenarios and comedy; this format was chosen due to its engaging nature, which allows for gamification of learning. Gamifying the educational content makes it more interactive and, therefore, more accessible and memorable for the audience (Zainuddin et al., 2020). By incorporating humour, audience engagement, and a competitive format, the show keeps participants actively involved while reinforcing negotiation principles through experiential learning (David & Weinstein, 2023).

The spinning wheel sets the comedic tone for the video, initiating our goal of utilising the media entertainment theory, which suggests that media can be a positive tool for learning by embedding educational content within entertainment formats (Grizzard & Francemone, 2020). A challenge that followed this stylistic choice was in balancing the educational material with entertainment, ensuring that the humour did not undermine the content. This issue was addressed by strategically placing comedic elements between informative segments rather than overlapping them, ensuring they complemented rather than overshadowed the theoretical content. This approach maintained audience engagement while keeping the focus on key concepts.

The topics were selected not only because they provide a holistic view of negotiation basics but also because of their relevance to real-world situations. We began by describing Negotiation itself as a collaborative problem-solving process (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993), followed by some core foundational terms such as Reservation Price and Aspiration Price (Poucke & Buelens, 2002; Kristensen & Garling, 1997) to illustrate how people determine acceptable boundaries during negotiations. We also explored ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) and BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) (Sebenius, 2017), which are essential for understanding bargaining power and deal feasibility.

Next, to showcase different negotiation styles, we included Integrative Negotiation, which seeks mutually beneficial outcomes and gives importance to creating value (Benetti et al., 2021). Additionally, we contrasted 2D and 3D negotiation approaches (Sebenius, 2025) to highlight the different levels of complexity and demonstrate the importance of setup and context beyond mere tactics to achieve favourable outcomes.

We also delved into different techniques like the Anchoring Effect (Brink, 2017), which illustrated how first offers skew perceptions, while Placebic Information (Langer et al., 1978) and the Pique Technique (Santos et al., 1994) showed how subtle, even irrational cues can increase compliance. Moreover, we covered Nibbling (Laser, 1981), showing how small requests made even post-agreement can alter final outcomes. Lastly,  we included some practical scenario questions demonstrating the different concepts to give the audience a more comprehensive and applicable understanding of the topic.

The content may have been unclear in some instances where the theories were not fully explained; certain negotiation terms may require more explanation. Clarity could be improved by adding summaries of the key terms discussed during each round.

Finding a balance between humour and informational segments was challenging. Despite our efforts, the transitions between the two were not always effective in maintaining focus on the educational elements of the show. The shift in tone may have disrupted the flow of information and made it difficult to grasp the content. 

At the beginning of the project, it was challenging to come up with an idea that could balance creativity and the effective communication of complex negotiation theories in an engaging format. Eventually, we settled on the aforementioned gameshow idea; while this format made it difficult to plan and structure the project and maintain clarity, we enjoyed presenting the academic content this way. Once we began filming, the idea allowed us to present the concepts informatively but also with some humour. This also allowed us to demonstrate our creativity primarily through our editing style. In hindsight, the gameshow narrative was an effective decision, which provided us flexibility in presenting the theories in an informative yet fun manner.

Overall, this project taught us that academic concepts do not have to be confined to traditional methods of delivery to be effective. By experimenting with a game show format, we found that humour can deepen understanding when used strategically. Navigating the tension between clarity and engagement challenged us to think critically about the content and how we presented it. The process of developing this project emphasised the importance of adaptability and purposeful design when translating complex theories into memorable and accessible educational content.

References:

Benetti, S., Ogliastri, E., & Caputo, A. (2021). Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: a comparative study of the USA and Italy. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.47

Brink, M. (2017). The negotiation element in mediation. Corporate Mediation Journal, 1(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.5553/cmj/254246022017001002004

David, L., & Weinstein, N. (2023). A gamified experiential learning intervention for engaging students through satisfying needs. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395231174614

Grizzard, M., & Francemone, C. J. (2020). Media Entertainment Theory. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0258

Kristensen, H., & Gärling, T. (1997). Determinants of buyers’ aspiration and reservation price. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(5), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4870(97)00020-2

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.6.635

Laser, R. J. (1981). I Win—You win negotiating. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 11(11/12), 24–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26807684

Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Choice Reviews Online, 31(11), 31–6322. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.31-6322

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00610.x

Sebenius, J. K. (2017). BATNAs in negotiation: common errors and three kinds of “No.” Negotiation Journal, 33(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12176

Sebenius, J. K. (2025, January 14). 3-D negotiation strategy. PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-training-daily/negotiating-in-three-dimensions-2/

Van Poucke, D., & Buelens, M. (2002). Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: Contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4870(01)00068-x

Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326