By Donald R. Philbin, Jr.
Psychology has informed negotiation theory for years. (See here.) As a result, we know that all negotiators:
- Are overconfident – we all live in Lake Wobegon where the grass is greener and everyone is above-average;
- Reactively devalue offers coming from an adverse party – even if they happen to be in our interest (“it can’t be good for us if it came from them”); and
- Have different risk tolerances – and react differently to the same offer.
But faster magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) machines have allowed brain scientists to monitor a subject’s reactions to different stimuli in real time. That has accelerated the pace of discovery and expanded research frontiers. Vanderbilt Law School, for instance, has received grants to investigate how insights of brain research affect the legal system. (See here.) When used in an effort to prove guilt or innocence, there is inevitable controversy. But learning how the human brain often functions can be good training for negotiators and the mediators that often assist them.
I have long been interested in the ways economics and psychology can broaden the typical legal analysis in mediation. The ABA recently published “How Brain Science can Make You a Better Lawyer” (here), a broad survey, but not particularly insightful negotiation theory. So I took a course titled, “Neuro-Collaboration: How New Perspectives from the Neurosciences Can Enhance Your Collaborative Conflict Resolution Skills” (here) the weekend before last in beautiful Woodstock, Vermont (yes, the leaves were still changing). Continue Reading »
