The “Jujitsu” effect can be a very effective sales technique. It will convince a consumer to purchase additional items or to purchase more than he/she planned because of the thought that if you already paid the large price of something, you should also purchase the less expensive items that might go with it. Of course, the “Jujitsu” effect does not only apply to sales, but also to all kinds of different situations. It means that the effect a first item (or situation) had on you, will influence what you think of the next one. An instance where I gained compliance from others is when I went to purchase coffee from a local coffee shop. When it was my turn to order, I decided to have a 3$ cup of coffee. The person working then asked me if I would like to add a flavor to it for another 25 cents as well as whipped cream for another 25 cents. I agreed to both.A fixed-action patternis a series of acts that occur automatically. This sequence will be carried out to completion once started. It can apply to many different groups of society, as well as animals. We can notice these across many different situations.(a) A typical fixed-action pattern for window shoppers at a shopping mall would be to stop in front of a shop that has clothes on display.how the Regan study illustrates each of the three exploitable features of the rule of reciprocity.The decision to comply with someone’s request is frequently based upon the Rule of Reciprocity. Again, a possible and profitable tactic to gain probable compliance would be to give something to someone before asking for a favor in return. The opportunity to exploit this tactic is due to three characteristics of the Rule of Reciprocity:1.The rule is extremely powerful, often overwhelming the influence of other factors that normally determine compliance with a request.2.The rule applies even to uninvited first favors, which reduces our ability to decide whom we wish to owe and putting the choice in the hands of others3.The rule can spur unequal exchanges.Noblesse oblige refers to a social norm obliging powerful people to act benevolently toward those less privileged. Gains from reciprocity can be used for status competition (e.g. coalitional support); high status individuals can help at lower cost but might also need less reciprocation.CONSISTENCY/COMMITMENT.People do not like to back out of deals. We’re more likely to do something after we’ve agreed to it verbally or in writing, Cialdini says. People strive for consistency in their commitments. They also prefer to follow pre-existing attitudes, values and actions. Good personal consistency is highly valued by society, also consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life and a consistent orientation affords a valuable shortcut through the complexity of modern existence. That is by being consistent with earlier decisions we can reduce the need to process all the relevant information in future similar situations. Instead, one merely needs to recall the earlier decision and respond consistently. The key to using the principles of Commitment and Consistency to manipulate people is held within the initial commitment. That is–after making a commitment, taking a stand or position, people are more willing to agree to requests that are consistent with their prior commitment. Through the Low-balling tactic an advantage is offered that induces a favored behavior or decision. The subject justifies this decision to themselves by changing their views to fit the decision. Then the advantage is taken away, and the behavior/decision is fully supported by the subject’s new views. Two ways to fight back against opponents attempting to use your need for consistency against your best interests are:1. If you get that weird feeling in your stomach and realize what is happening, call them out on it. Say that you don’t want to continue purely for the sake of consistency.2. If you’re not sure what you really believe, ask yourself and pay special attention to    your immediate instinctive/emotional response. You can lie to yourself and rationalize things when thinking intellectually, but not as easily in these basic responses.According to the textbook, one good way of defending based on the principles of commitment and consistency is to state your personal beliefs publicly prior to the attempted persuasion. Social proof is most influential under two conditions. two factors maximize the influence of social proof on an individual? The first is uncertainty. When people are unsure, when the situation is ambiguous, they are more likely to attend to the actions of others and to accept those actions as correct. In ambiguous situations, for instance, the decisions of bystanders to help are much more influenced by the actions of other bystanders than when the situation is a clear‐cut emergency. The second condition under which social proof is most influential is similarity: People are more inclined to follow the lead of similar others. Evidence for the powerful effect of the actions of similar others on human behavior can be readily seen in the suicide statistics compiled by sociologist David Phillips. WETHER EFFECT:David Phillips points a convincing finger at something called the “Werther effect. “The story of the Werther effect is both chilling and intriguing. It is Phillips’s argument that certain troubled people who read of another’s self-inflicted death kill themselves in imitation. In a morbid illustration of the principle of social proof, these people decide how they should act on the basis of how some other troubled person has acted. Phillips got his evidence for the modern-day Werther effect by examining the suicide statistics in the United States between 1947 and 1968.The actual purpose of  Milgram’s Study had nothing to do with the effects of punishment on learning and memory but instead, Milgram conducted multiple experiments that mirrored the fictional study to determine the following: “When it is their job, how much suffering will ordinary people be willing to inflict on an entirely innocent other person” Acting contrary to their own preferences, many normal, psychologically healthy individuals were willing to deliver dangerous and severe levels of pain to another person because they were directed to do so by an authority figure. three most influential symbols of authority to be effective are titles, clothing and automobiles. In separate studies investigating the influence of these symbols, individuals possessing one or another of them are accorded more deference or obedience by those they encountered. Moreover, individuals who deferred or obeyed underestimated the effect of authority pressures on their behaviors. The symbols would bear different significance in other countries since every country differ from each other even if they have cross-cultural similarities.

pie-slicing :Strategy 1: Assess your BATNA and improve it.2: Determine your reservation point, but do not reveal it.3: Research the other party’s BATNA and estimate the reservation point.4: Set high aspirations (be realistic, but optimistic).5: Make the first offer (if you are prepared).6: Immediately reanchor if the other party opens first.7: Plan your concessions.Pattern, magnitude (GRIT model), and timing of concessions.8: Support your offers with facts.9: Appeal to norms of fairness,10: Do not fall for the “even split” ploy.

Seltek:Integrative Negtiation Skills are used to create value. Thee three tactics I will  use are the following: separate positions from interests, reveal some information about preferences and priorities and lastly, make multiple offers simultaneously. On the other hand, based on distributive Negotiations, the three tactics I will use to claim value are the following: Influence counterpart’s perceived alternatives, influence perception of ZOPA, and lastly, get counterpart to move closer to a reservation point. Seltek’s Reservation Point is $7M ($10mil appraised value – $3 mil reconfiguration cost) and Seltek’s Target Point is about $25 million.The two BATNAs in the context of Reservation Points are the following; Seltek’s BATNA: Reconfigure the plant for general manufacturing; Biopharm’s BATNA: buy a plot of land and build a new plant.

CHP.9.Conflict/Disagreement (Wilmot and hocker 2011): conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.Elements of conflict:-An expressed struggle -Interdependence- Perceived Incompatible Goals -Perceived scarce resources -InterferenceAccurate view “Argument”: latin verb :arguere “to make it clear”/greek: inquire =dialectic(dialogue or serious conversation dialogue)/process of making thoughts clear to ourselves and to others/ a private viewpoint became public/journey of discovery and new knowledge in a spirit of honesty and openness.Types of conflicts/interests: 1)content/substance issues: something concrete e/g/resources time, money,promotions.2)relational/personal issues: intangible interpersonal needs like esteem,power,affection,recognition,inclusion. unresolved ones tend to be dysfunctional,3)procedural issues-how to get things accomplished perceived fairness. to identify interests ask: what if? what will it take? what would be the perfect situation? how do you like to be treated? what problems are we trying to solve?multiparty neg neg: key challenges: 1.a mixed-motive situation, at least three parties.2.potential for coalition building:nature of motives,pool…3.Complicating trade-offs:interwined…4.decision rules by voting and majority rule:inherent problems. multiparty negotiation key strategies: 1.know the hidden table(interests or constituencies)represented by those at the table. 2.develop “ground rules” such as “stay at the table”, “timed equal participation”, “pre-settlement settlement” 3.assign process roles such as timekeeperr, a process manager, a recorder of information. coalitations:callenges, strategies: 4 challenges of coalitions: 1.optimal size: minimum, sufficient for a desired goal 2.trust and temptation: integrity is a function of the costs and rewards of C members, status quo bias, C integrity norm. 3.pie slicing: normativee method of fair allocation does not exist;novie vs experienced negotiators. 4.unbalanced power relationships: more coalitionns defecting from, fewer integrative agreementt..-strategies for max. coalitational effectiveness: -principle of commitment and consistency-seek verbal contacts-use unbiased-appearing rationale.principal-agent neg.: nature,adv.and disadvantages: -nature: “a risk-neutral principal must negotiate an incentive contract to motivate a risk-averse agent to undertake costly actions that cannot be observed”-a agent has a stake in the outcome. –advantages:  expertise, substantive knowledge, networks and special influence, emotional detachment, ratification, face-saving. –disadvantages: nature: maximal effective only when their interests are aligned with those of the principal: shrinking ZOPA, incompatible incentive structure, communication distortion, loss of control, agreement at any cost.  constituents: nature, challenges: nature: peripheral players with indirect stake in outcome and influence; “on the same side” as a principal but exerts an independent influence through p, and can be used. types: superiors of P, subordinates of P,accountable and responsible. –challenges for const.relationships: accountability, decision-making vigilance, conflicts of interest ,identity/face-saving:maintaing touher stance, fewer concessions…Negotiating teams;challenges, strategies for improving effectivenesschallenges:-conformity pressures increase with group size, information pooling, info processing -team cohesion :ex.common identity. -strategies: pick teammates 1 neg expertise and 1 technical exp and1 interp skills. -goal and strategy alignment-prepare together-assess accountability.  

chapter 11:

2 types of neg.situations: cooperative neg: contract is explicit, mutual understanding, people negotiate via proposals and counterproposals and can use words to explain and justify their offers, people usually come to the table voluntarily. – noncooperative neg.:contract is tacit, people often do not know what others will do, people neg through their behaviours and actions, people are often pulled into neg. without wanting to be. Social dilemmas vs.Prisoners dilemmas: behaviour more competitive in social dilemmas: size dif, costs of defection spread out, social dilemmas are riskier and provide anonymity, less control over the situation. definition s.dilemma: Sometimes, managers find themselves involved in a prisoner’s dilemma that contains several people (e.g., in the opening example of the research group). In these types of situations, negotiators find themselves choosing between cooperative strategies and self-interested strategies. The multiperson prisoner’s dilemma is known as a social dilemma. types: collective traps, R.C.D. and collective fences P.G.D.different kinds of social dilemmas: internal intraorganizational (taking or contributing: committee work recognition) external interorganizational ( taking  price competition, pollution or contributing: paying taxes, public tv). how to build cooperation in social dilemmas: structural strategies: align incentives, monitor behavior, regulation,privatization,tradable permits. psychological strategies: psych contracts and the norm of commitment, superordinate goals, communication, personalise others, social sanctions, focus on benefits of cooperation. how to encourage cooperation when parties should not collude: keep your strategy simple, signal via actions, do not be the first to defect, focus on your own payoffs, not your payoffs relative to others, be sensitive to egocentric bias. avoiding the escalation of commitment: set limits, avoid decision myopia, recognise sunk costs, diversify responsibility and authority, redefine the situation.effectiv. for tit-for-tat:intro: the tournament of champions. definition: the strategy tit-for-tat was submitted by Anatol Rapoport. Tit for tat is a game theory mechanism subject to a payoff matrix similar to that of a prisoner’s dilemma. Tit for tat was introduced by Robert Axelrod, who developed a strategy where each participant in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma follows a course of action consistent with his opponent’s previous turn. For example, if provoked, a player subsequently responds with retaliation, but if he is not provoked, the player cooperates.Tit for tat is a strategy that can be implemented in games with repeated moves or a series of similar games. The concept revolves around game theory, an economic framework that explains how humans interact with each other in competitive environments. There are two types of game theory: cooperative game theory and uncooperative game theory.Tit-for-tat accumulated the greatest number of points across all trials with all of its opponents.Tit-for-tat always cooperates on the first trial, and on subsequent trials, it does whatever its opponent did on the previous trial.tit for tat never beat any of the strategies it played against.because it cooperated poe the first trial, it can never do better than its opponent. the most it can do is earn as much as its opponent.  characteristics of using it: not envious, nice, tough, forgiving, simple/not clever, extremely stable. recovering from defection: make situational attributions, one step at a time, getting even and catching up, make your decisions at the same time, superrationality.

INFLUENCE:principle 1: reciprocation.2.social proof.3.commitment and consistency.4.liking.5.authority.6.Scarcity is defined as the perception of products seeming to become more attractive when their perceived availability is rather limited.In fundamental economic theory, scarcity relates to supply and demand. Basically, the less there is of something, the more valuable it is.The more rare and uncommon a thing, the more people want it. Familiar examples are frenzies over the latest holiday toy or urban campers waiting overnight to pounce on the latest iPhone.The author presented as New Scarcity the Costlier Cookies and Civic Conflict, saying that “The idea that newly experienced scarcity is the more powerful kind applies to situations well beyond the bounds of the [previously described] cookie study. For example, social scientists have determined that such scarcity is the primary cause of political turmoil and violence…. [We] are most likely to find revolutions where a period of improving economic and social conditions is followed by a short, sharp reversal in those conditions. Thus it is not the traditionally most downtrodden people – who have come to see their deprivation as part of the natural order of things – who are especially liable to revolt. Instead, revolutionaries are more likely to be those who have been given at least some taste of a better life. When the economic and social improvements they have experienced and come to expect suddenly become less available, they desire them more than ever and often ride up violently to secure them…Freedoms once granted will not be relinquished without a fight.”