Negotiating the Power of Consistency with ADR Services and LACBA's Linda Bulmash
Friend and colleague Los Angeles attorney-mediator Linda Bulmash of ADR Services, Inc. advises us to be consistent in negotiating the resolution of litigation in this month's LACBA negotiation tip.
The Power of Consistency in Negotiation and Mediation
When a person makes a public commitment to a course of behavior, the human psyche will push them to follow through with their commitment. For instance we break New Years resolutions because we seldom share them with others and usually do not write them down.
An interesting phenomenon occurs when the commitment is made public or a person pro-actively takes the first step to follow through with a course of action. An interesting research study found that although people are often unsure of their choice of the winning horse at a racetrack, they become much more confident of their choice once they place their bet. They are driven to consistency once they make a public commitment to a course of action.
Therefore experienced negotiators and mediators focus on getting people to publicly verbalize and/or write down each small commitment to follow a certain course of action (e.g. buy a car or resolve a dispute) knowing that once done publicly, it is highly likely that they will believe this is the best choice and will find a way to attain the object of their commitment.
Thanks, as always, for the great advice Linda! And if you're looking for a local neutral, check out Lucie Baron's dynamite list of L.A. mediators here!
Comments (1)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endmichael webster - December 10, 2008 3:16 AM
1. It is true that public commitments of a certain type will increase commitment. The website https://www.stickk.com// is an interesting example of this. They want you to be able to "put a contract out on yourself" in order to increase your commitment to certain goals.
2. The paradox of commitment is that often it requires giving up actions, something Thomas Schelling has written about extensively, see the introduction to Sax and Lebinius The Manager as Negotiator.
3. But, the particular example cited by Linda is thought to be an example of irrationality. Bettors who think a horse is a good bet at say 5-2 cannot really have obtained any new information by the act of betting to reasonably think the horse is now a much better bet than 5-2. (My own personal take on these experiments is that post bet, the person is answering a different question than what the true odds are.)
4. You might like this page as reference to cognitive bias research: http://biasandbelief.pbwiki.com/