“Fallacious truths”: How negotiations work in the brain
Many people perceive things as “true” in negotiations that are often not based on facts but on prejudices or assumptions, creating a “fallacious truth”. This leads to emotionalized decisions. Modern brain research explains why this is particularly dangerous in negotiations.
Five facts.
Fact 1 – The human brain is an individual cosmos
Our brain has no access to the outside world. It sits in the dark, closed-off chamber of our skull. It acts largely autonomously and interacts mainly with internal processes and internal representations. Despite the constant flood of sensory information from the environment, the brain is selective and processes only a fraction of this information. This selectivity results from the need to use resources efficiently and to focus on relevant aspects of the environment in order to ensure adaptation and survival.
The brain is more concerned with itself than with the information coming from the outside world. It processes only a minimum of sensory information. That is, only what the brain needs to find its way in the world. The process of information processing is controlled by a variety of internal mechanisms that serve to filter, prioritize and interpret information. Individual experiences, emotional states and cognitive preferences play an important role in determining which information is considered relevant or attractive. These cognitive criteria influence which external stimuli or information attracts the attention of the brain and is processed further.
“External information” must therefore be relevant, attractive and differentiating in order for our brain to engage with it.
When listening to arguments in a negotiation, the brain also goes through this process of information processing, first evaluating the relevance and attractiveness of the arguments presented before making a decision or initiating an action. Therefore, it is crucial that the arguments presented in a negotiation meet the specific relevance criteria of the negotiating partner in order to have a positive effect. Without a thorough analysis of these criteria, it will be difficult to develop effective and targeted argumentation strategies that achieve the desired results in the negotiation situation.
This is why a professionally conducted negotiation first involves analysis and then argumentation. In order to be effective, arguments must meet the relevance criteria of the person with whom we are negotiating. Without analyzing these relevance criteria, we will not succeed in developing targeted arguments.
Fact 2 – It’s the subconsciousness, stupid! – The cognitive user illusion
The feelings, motives and desires that drive us come from the subconscious. Most of the time, we don’t even know why we want something.
Our consciousness has a talent for convincing itself that it is in control. However, the brain does a lot without us being aware of it. So our mind is switched on less often than our cognitive self-image would suggest.
The reason for all this unconscious activity is that conscious thinking consumes a lot of energy. And energy is scarce. Consciousness therefore only kicks in when something unexpected happens.
This can lead to anchoring effects, especially with anchors, and, from the opposite side, to controlled decisions. The anchor effect[1] is a term from cognitive psychology and describes the effect that people are influenced by environmental information when making decisions, e.g. a price that has been introduced, without being aware of this influence. The environmental information is referred to as the “anchor” on which the decision is based.
In order to “de-anchor”, knowledge of fact 3 is critical to success.
Fact 3 – It’s all about emotion – protection through implementation intentions
Our brain is like a parliament in which rival parties fight for supremacy. Sometimes we decide selfishly, sometimes generously, sometimes with the long term in mind – and we always decide emotionally.
Because emotions determine everything. Our thinking and our decisions. Ultimately, our brain differentiates between positive emotions (rewards) and negative emotions (punishments).
This applies especially in negotiations. Many negotiation tactics are based, among other things, on achieving reciprocity through reciprocity, i.e. gratitude debt or by means of a state of fear (e.g. through scarcity, time pressure or threat).
To avoid being manipulated by the other side in negotiations, implementation intentions[2], a strategy[3] for self-regulation, can help. This concept has the function of specifying the conditions under which long-term goals can be realized by means of certain actions. Thus, a clear structure in the negotiation, such as the F.I.R.E.-Concept of Control ®, can protect against emotionalized decisions in negotiations. With a clear preparation of a target corridor and a best-case definition based on the negotiation environment, it is possible to distance oneself from the other side’s decision-influencing anchors.
Fact 4 – Tactical Emphaty – Is trust a heuristic judgment?
What exactly is trust in a negotiation situation? Scientifically, trust is also referred to as a “positive future projection”, i.e. an estimation of the future behavior of the other party. This estimation is controlled by our judgment heuristics, i.e. mental shortcuts or rules (due to the high physical energy consumption of the brain. See Fact 2) that we humans use to make complex decisions
or process complex information, often under time or information constraints. However, these estimates are also prone to error and can be manipulated.
One example of this is the representativeness heuristic[4]. This heuristic is based on the fact that we estimate probabilities and categories based on similarities. If something resembles a familiar pattern or represents a certain category, we tend to make assumptions about the properties or characteristics of that object or event, even if these assumptions might not be statistically correct. If someone resembles us, we tend to attribute more trust to that person in a negotiation. Our brain then comes up with a positive projection of the future.
Trust is therefore not a value, but the result of a subjective unconscious evaluation that generates this state. This means that our negotiating partner comes to a positive assessment of our person with regard to a similar range of experiences, affiliations and values. Increased cooperation, more open communication, reduced mistrust and conflict, increased flexibility and approaching one’s own limits (or red lines) are the result.
If you want to work constructively with the brain of the other person in negotiations, you should be aware that trust is the key driver for a stable negotiation relationship.
Critical knowledge that can be learned in a structured way.
Fact 5 – Emotions help to control information in our negotiation partner
First, information is tagged with an emotional marker before it reaches our long-term memory. When the information is retrieved, the marker reproduces the feelings we experienced when we stored it.
Second, the emotional center of the brain, the limbic system, releases messenger substances when we have positive or negative feelings. These improve the signal transmission between nerve cells and thus strengthen our memories.
This can be used to firmly anchor important messages in a negotiation. Knowing how to reduce stressors is therefore part of the repertoire of experienced and successful negotiators.
Conclusion:
Every brain has its own reality – and thus its own truth. In fact, we are not rational beings but rather rationalizing beings. In other words, we always have good reasons for our emotional decisions. Understanding these better and using them in negotiations protects us from manipulation and helps us to achieve our own negotiating goals.