Cognitive Framing in Negotiation
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Professionalism & Career Development
What is cognitive framing in the context of negotiation?
A cognitive frame is a subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense of situations, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions. Common cognitive frames are discussed below.
Next Article: Mental models of negotiation Back to: NEGOTIATIONS
What are Interests, Rights, Power frames?
Ury, Brett, and Goldberg (1988) proposed an approach to framing disputes that view parties in conflict as using one of three frames:
Interests-based frames - People are often concerned about what they need, desire, or want. People talk about their positions, but often what is at stake is their underlying interests.
Rights-based frames - People may also be concerned about who is right that is, who has legitimacy, who is correct, or what is fair.
Power-based frames - Negotiations resolved by power are sometimes based on who is physically stronger or is able to coerce the other, but more often, it is about imposing other types of costs economic pressures, expertise, legitimate authority, and so on.
Common Cognitive Frames
Other common characterizations of cognitive frames include:
Substantive frame - This is a focus on what the conflict is about. Parties taking a substantive frame have a particular disposition about the key issue or concern in the conflict.
Outcome-based frame - This is a party's predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome from the negotiation.
Aspiration frame - This is a focus on satisfying a broader set of interests or needs in negotiation.
Process-based frame - This is a focus on how (the process by which) the parties will go about resolving their dispute.
Identity-based frame - This is a focus on how the parties define who they are.
Characterization-based frame - This regards how the parties see and define the other parties.
Loss - gain frame - This regards how the parties define the risk or reward associated with particular outcomes. It is difficult to know what frame a party is using unless the party tells you.
An individual's frame through which they interpret communication may create or be the source of biases.
Negotiators can use more than one frame at a time. Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame. Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict.
Particular types of frames may be used with certain types of issues or lead to particular types of agreements. Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors, and a frame may change throughout a negotiation.
For example, the negotiation context clearly affects the way both sides define the issue and conversations that the parties have with each other about the issues in the bargaining mix.