The assumption of rationality has been challenged by quite a few people, on both empirical and normative grounds. Empirically, it was shown repeatedly in psychological studies that even the most sophisticated people consistently violate the canons of rational behavior. Normatively, we have already seen that rational models of negotiation do not always provide us with satisfactory solution to negotiation problems. As is demonstrated by the Prisoner’s dilemma, rational behavior can result in irrational outcome. As Schelling’s example of the rationality of the irrational demonstrates, behaving irrationally may yield rational outcomes. So rational choice theory is in some cases either silent about the desired solution, or provides an unsatisfactory result.

Key Criticisms of Rational Choice Theory Cognitive limitations on: Information processing Ability to perform complex calculations Systematic biases Hot Cognitive Processes Dissonance avoidance Avoidance of value tradeoffs Wishful thinking Schema and expectations driven inferences

Situational Constraints on Rational Negotiations Psychological Stress: Threats, opportunities, time pressure Uncertainty Short foresight (limited horizon) Fundamental mistrust of opponent Audience effects and audience costs

Personality Factors Cognitive factors Physical and psychopathological factors Situational factors Group interaction and group-induced influences Setting effects

Cognitive complexity and negotiations Tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity Big picture people vs. small details people Authoritarian vs. democratic personality Team person vs. lone ranger Advantages and disadvantages of mental liabilities Can we fake a personality type and can we take an advantage of an image?

Cognitive Biases AvailabilityAvailability RepresentativenessRepresentativeness OverconfidenceOverconfidence Risk propensityRisk propensity Compound biasesCompound biases

Physical and psychopathological factors Fatigue Isolation Bladder Diplomacy Associative locations

Stress and Decision making: Components of Decisional Stress Threat Perception Perception of Opportunity Time Pressure Decisional Stress = (Threat-Opportunity) × Time Pressure

Level of Stress Low ModerateHigh Decision quality Low Moderate High

Characteristics of Policy Groups Formal and informal hierarchies Common history Joint future Dependence on constituency and superiors Two-level pressures

Tendency toward consensus Self-suppression of disagreement Suppression of disagreement by isolation of “noncooperative” members of the group Feeling of harmony and self- satisfaction

How to prevent groupthink? Reduce formal hierarchy—allow junior participants to express themselves Leader should absent him/herself from the meeting of the group; let others run meetings; get reports about the content of the meetings without being directly present Leader should not let his/her views known. Would be best to express views only at the end, having heard the various views in the group. Encourage open argumentation and dissent. Argumentation and dissent make for vigilant decisions Allow the group to open up to outside views How to prevent groupthink? Reduce formal hierarchy—allow junior participants to express themselves Leader should absent him/herself from the meeting of the group; let others run meetings; get reports about the content of the meetings without being directly present Leader should not let his/her views known. Would be best to express views only at the end, having heard the various views in the group. Encourage open argumentation and dissent. Argumentation and dissent make for vigilant decisions Allow the group to open up to outside views