Beyond Reason

by Roger Fisher

  Admittedly, ignoring an emotion can be helpful under certain conditions, such as when we receive a birthday gift from a colleague and do not like it. But even when we suppress emotions, they still tend to have an impact on our mental functioning (e.g., see E. A. Butler and J. J. Gross, “Hiding Feelings in Social Contexts: Out of Sight Is Not Out of Mind,” in P. Philippot and R. S. Feldman, eds., The Regulation of Emotion, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004, pp. 101–26). Emotions consume mental resources, affect the cardiovascular system in ways that appear to be out of sync with metabolic demand, and even can lead to increased blood pressure in one’s social partner (see “Wise Emotion Regulation,” by J. Gross and O. John, in Barrett and Salovey, eds., Wisdom of Feelings, New York: Guilford Press, 2002, pp. 312–13).

  Deal Directly with Emotions?

  Some emotion researchers believe there are dozens of emotions while others offer evidence for a limited set of “basic emotions.” (For perspectives on what constitutes a “basic” emotion, see Ekman and Davidson’s edited book, cited earlier.)

  Paul Ekman is a pioneer in the study of basic emotions. He views basic emotions as having evolutionary roots and an adaptive function for survival. He proposes a list of fifteen emotions that are distinct from one another and that meet his criteria for what constitutes a basic emotion (“Basic Emotions,” in T. Dalgleish and T. Power, eds., The Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1999, pp. 45–60). He notes that the actual number of emotions is greatly expanded, because each basic emotion actually denotes a family of related emotions.

  This helps explain why, in Beyond Reason, we have chosen to focus on five core concerns. One need not analyze which of the various emotions the other person is feeling, nor their causes, in order to use the core concerns to enlist positive emotions. Rather than focusing on dozens of emotions, a negotiator can take action with five core concerns.

  Nevertheless, the more emotionally attuned a negotiator is, the more effectively he or she will be able to calibrate his or her behavior. Having skill in recognizing facial expressions or reading another’s emotions is thus of significant value (see D. Goleman’s book and the article by Salovey and Mayer, cited earlier) as long as the negotiator is not overwhelmed with the task and loses focus on relational or substantive matters.

  Where do we stand on the question of whether there are “basic emotions”? We believe that there may be a subset of evolutionarily determined basic emotions, but that there is a large subset of socially meaningful, qualitatively unique emotional experiences. Anger, for example, is different in experience and effect than annoyance, rage, or humiliation. On page 13, we provided an illustrative list of fifty emotions, many of which are extracted from the classic emotion text by Richard Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).

  2 ADDRESS THE CONCERN, NOT THE EMOTION

  Five Core Concerns Stimulate Many Emotions

  Years back, Charles Horton Cooley proposed the notion of the “looking glass self,” suggesting that our understanding of ourselves—our identity—is based on how we perceive that others see us (Human Nature and the Social Order, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902). The core concerns framework recognizes this fundamental insight.

  In the research literature, Daniel Shapiro refers to the core concerns as “relational identity concerns.” He has developed theory clarifying the connection between emotions and relational identity concerns. (For details, see D. L. Shapiro, “Negotiating Emotions,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 2002; 20 [1]: 67–82. Also see D. L. Shapiro, “Enemies, Allies, and Emotions: The Role of Emotions in Negotiation,” in M. Moffitt and R. Bordone, eds., The Handbook of Dispute Resolution, 2005.)

  Use the Core Concerns as a Lens

  Our core concerns framework is congruent with many emotion theories. Consider the work of Lazarus and Ekman. Lazarus proposes that we evaluate our interactions for “core relational themes,” generalized relational meanings about an interaction (Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 121). As he states, core relational themes are the “central (hence core) relational harm or benefit in adaptational encounters that underlies each specific kind of emotion.” From this theoretical perspective, then, core concerns may be considered relational themes that emerge within many, if not most, interactions; how we evaluate treatment of our core concerns manifests as an emotion.

  Ekman similarly suggests that we have “autoappraisers” that continually scan for “themes and variations of the events that have been relevant for our survival” (Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life, New York: Henry Holt, 2003, p. 29). When these autoappraisers find a relevant theme or variation, emotions are called forth. Autoappraisers, then, may be “programmed” to survey our interactions for signs that core concerns are met or unmet. There clearly has been evolutionary importance in affiliating with the right group, having enough autonomy to protect ourselves from harm, and having a social status that does not threaten others who can hurt or kill us. Emotions notify us of the result of this process.

  Use the Core Concerns as a Lever

  Although you can use the core concerns proactively to set the emotional tone you want, what happens if the other person is in a bad mood? There is evidence that you can overwhelm—or “undo”—the effects of negative emotions with positive ones (e.g., see B. Fredrickson and R. Levenson, 1998, “Positive Emotions Speed Recovery from the Cardiovascular Sequelae of Negative Emotions,” Cognition and Emotion, 12 [2], 191–220).

  Furthermore, emotions are contagious (e.g., E. Hatfield, J. T. Cacioppo, and R. L. Rapson, 1993, “Emotional Contagion,” in Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2 [3], 96–99). We sometimes “catch” the mood of another, and often this effect occurs outside our conscious awareness. Talking with a depressed person can make us sad while seeing a baby smile may bring an automatic smile to our face. Emotional contagion provides us with an opportunity: We can enlist positive emotions in ourselves, making it more likely that the other negotiator will catch our enthusiasm.

  3 EXPRESS APPRECIATION: FIND MERIT IN WHAT OTHERS THINK FEEL, OR DO—AND SHOW IT

  Appreciation: A Core Concern and an All-Purpose Action

  If you want to learn more about the power of appreciation, we highly recommend you look into the research and writing of John Gottman, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle. For many years, he and colleagues have studied one of the most challenging social relationships—that between marital partners (see J. Gottman and N. Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999).

  He brings newlyweds into his “love lab” and hooks them up to all kinds of devices to record their physiology, facial expressions, words, and the extent to which they wiggle in their chair. He asks the couple to spend fifteen minutes discussing a disagreement between them. Afterward, he reviews the interaction on videotape with each partner independently and asks each what emotions were felt.

  He is able to predict—apparently with more than 90 percent accuracy—which couples will get divorced several years down the road. And a key factor in divorce is the failure of couples to appreciate one another. In stable marriages, the ratio of positive to negative moment-to-moment interactions is five to one during a disagreement. Partners share at least five positive interactions—smiling, appreciating one another, or making a friendly joke—to counter every biting comment, condescending remark, or demeaning eye rolling. In unstable marriages, the ratio is closer to one positive interaction for every one negative interaction.

  Gottman’s research supports our notion that there is great power in initiating a positive tone to a negotiation (J. M. Gottman, J. Coan, S. Carrere, and C. Swanson, “Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 1998, 5–22). In 96 percent of the ca
ses he studied, a conversation that started on a positive tone maintained a positive tone; a conversation that began negatively tended to stay negative. Thus, these findings offer evidence that even in ongoing relationships, setting a positive tone to a negotiation can improve the emotional tenor of the entire discussion.

  Gottman’s research also underscores Beyond Reason’s focus on core concerns and not on emotions per se. The complexity of Gottman’s research paradigm is almost as impressive as his results. In order to get a good sense of what each marital partner is experiencing, he extracts an incredible amount of data, from facial expression to blood pressure, sweat level to body language. The data he gathers are analyzed by sophisticated mathematics and computer technology. In a negotiation, it would be extremely difficult to focus on substantive and procedural issues while simultaneously observing for all the data points he records.

  Additional research on the power of appreciation comes from the Institute of HeartMath. Their studies reveal that a sustained state of appreciation is associated with improved cognitive ability and performance. They have noted that physiological coherence—a pattern of increased synchronization between the heart, brain, and related physiological systems—rarely occurs for sustained periods of time. An exception, they found, happens when a person is in a state of sincere appreciation. As a result, there is reduced anxiety and stress symptoms, improved cognitive performance, and decreases in cortisol. (See R. McCraty and D. Childre, “The Grateful Heart: The Psychophysiology of Appreciation,” in R. A. Emmons and M. E. McCullough, eds., The Psychology of Gratitude, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 230–55.)

  Three Elements to Express Appreciation

  Our notion of appreciation is closely aligned to Carl Rogers’s idea of “empathic understanding,” a process of listening actively and without judgment to a person’s emotions, values, and views. Rogers suggests that we listen to another’s point of view as if our own, in essence trying to see the merit and legitimacy in that point of view. He also suggests the importance of communicating our understanding of the other’s point of view—and checking its accuracy—through paraphrasing. (See C. Rogers, On Becoming a Person, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.)

  Listen for Meta-Messages

  The observation that we have emotions about emotions goes back at least as far as 1964, when Tomkins and McCarter discussed “affect-about-affect” (see “What and Where Are the Primary Affects? Some Evidence for a Theory,” Perception Motor Skills, 18, 119–58). For practical information on meta-messages, we refer the reader to chapter 5 of the excellent book Messages: The Communication Skills Book (M. McKay, M. Davis, and P. Fanning, Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1995).

  Try the Role Reversal Exercise

  The role reversal exercise is a process for stepping into the other negotiator’s shoes, thus helping us to overcome the “fundamental attribution error” (a term coined by Stanford psychologist Lee Ross). The fundamental attribution error suggests that when we judge someone, we tend to over-weigh the “kind of” person he or she is and to underweigh the social pressures affecting that person. Consequently, we risk making errors in explaining the cause of the person’s behavior. We may think that the other negotiator’s rude behavior is a product of his rude disposition, when in fact he is a typically tempered individual who unfortunately got into a big fight this morning with his spouse. (For details on the fundamental attribution error, see L. Ross, “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process,” in L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10, New York: Academic Press, 1977.)

  4 BUILD AFFILIATION: TURN AN ADVERSARY INTO A COLLEAGUE

  In social psychology, Baumeister and Leary reviewed research on the “need to belong” (R. Baumeister and M. Leary, “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation,” in Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117[3], 497–529). Based upon their extensive review of the scientific literature, they conclude that:

  • there exists a fundamental motive to bond;

  • people bond even without material advantage;

  • strong negative emotions correlate with broken bonds;

  • stable bonds produce positive emotions and opium-like chemicals in the brain; and

  • people without stable bonds tend to suffer higher levels of mental and physical illness and are more prone to behavioral problems ranging from traffic accidents to suicide.

  In neuroscience, evidence reveals a link between broken bonds and negative emotions. Naomi Eisenberger and colleagues have shown that the pain of social rejection registers in the same part of the brain as physical pain (i.e., in the anterior cingulate cortex). The study suggests that “social pain is analogous in its neurocognitive function to physical pain, alerting us when we have sustained injury to our social connections, allowing restorative measures to be taken.” (N. Eisenberger, M. Lieberman, and K. Williams, “Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion,” Science, vol. 302, October 10, 2003.)

  Structural Connection

  Favoritism toward “our own group” is created in even the most minimal of conditions. In one study, participants were told that they had been randomly assigned to a group. They were even shown the lottery ticket that determined to which group they would belong. Despite the meaningless classification of participants, they showed a preference for members of their own group. (See A. Locksley, V. Ortiz, and C. Hepburn, 1980, “Social Categorization and Discriminatory Behavior: Extinguishing the Minimal Intergroup Discrimination Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 [5], 773–83. Also see M. Billig and H. Tajfel, 1973, “Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behavior,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 [1] 27–52.)

  Tajfel has further developed the notion of “social identity theory,” suggesting that people in a group seek to boost their self-esteem by positively differentiating their group from a comparison group on a valued dimension. People’s identity becomes wrapped up in their group membership. (See H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Inter-Group Behavior,” in S. Worchel and W. G. Austin, eds., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986.)

  Kurt Lewin, a pioneer in social psychology, conducted a study that illustrates the power of structural connections (“Group Decision and Social Change,” in T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology, New York: Henry Holt, 1947). One of his classic studies, conducted during World War II, investigated factors that would persuade housewives to serve intestinal meat. In one condition, housewives attended a lecture on the wartime and health benefits of serving the meat. Afterward, only 3 percent of the housewives reported serving it. In a second condition, a different group of women was invited into a discussion on whether “housewives like themselves” could be induced to serve intestinal meat. Afterward, nearly one third of the participants served the meat. The structural connection of being “housewives” and offering support to “housewives like themselves” apparently boosted their willingness to serve the meat.

  Personal Connection

  Building personal connections takes work. We feel closer, then more distant, then closer again. It is hard to maintain an optimal emotional distance, as exemplified by the porcupine example from chapter four, which we derived from a fable written by Arthur Schopenhauer in Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, 4th ed., vol. ii § 396 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). See the research of Baxter to learn more about this tension between being open versus closed (e.g., see L. Baxter, “A Dialectical Perspective on Communication Strategies in Relationship Development,” in S. Duck, ed., Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research, and Interventions, Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1988, pp. 257–73).

  5 RESPECT AUTONOMY: EXPAND YOURS (AND DON’T IMPINGE UPON THEIRS)

  What Is Autonomy?

  To l
earn more about research and theory on autonomy, check out the work of Edward Deci (The Psychology of Self-Determination, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980). He suggests that the “will” is our capacity to choose how to satisfy our needs. Self-determination (or “autonomy” in the language of Beyond Reason) involves utilizing that will.

  Expand Your Autonomy

  Research reveals that we sometimes underestimate the degree of autonomy we do have. When we fail repeatedly at a task, we may become emotionally paralyzed and passive. Experiments demonstrate that people become depressed when they feel they have no control over their destiny (M. Seligman, Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death, 2d ed., San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1991). In other words, they lack a sense of autonomy over their lives.

  “Learned helplessness” occurs when we accept miserable life conditions despite having autonomy to improve our situation. We learn to be helpless. Learned helplessness was first observed in experiments in which animals were electrically shocked and harnessed to prevent escape. When released from the harness and given the opportunity to avoid the shock, many passively accepted the shock (M. Seligman, and G. Beagley, 1975, “Learned Helplessness in the Rat,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 88 [2], 534–41).

  Albert Bandura approaches the issue of autonomy from a related perspective. His research on “self-efficacy” suggests that the more we think we can do, the more we can do (A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman, 1997). The belief that we are competent and capable to accomplish a task—whether a math problem or a difficult negotiation—enhances our performance, motivation, and commitment to the task.