How Frames Work in Negotiation

It is difficult to know what frame a party is using unless that party tells you (you might listen to or read his or her exact words) or unless you make inferences from the party’s behavior. Even then, interpretations may be difficult and prone to error. Also, the frames of those who hear or interpret communication may create biases of their own. Nevertheless, research on frames has shed light on how parties define what a negotiation is about, how they use communication to argue for their own frames and try to shape the other’s orientation, and how they resolve differences when the two parties are clearly operating from different frames. Here are some insights drawn from other studies of framing effects:

1. Negotiators can use more than one frame. A land developer discussing a conflict over a proposed golf course that will fill in a wetland can speak about the golf course (the substantive issue), his preferences for how the land should be filled in (an outcome frame), and how much input neighborhood and environmental groups should be able to have in determining what happens to that wetland on his private property (a procedural frame), as well as whether he views these groups favorably or unfavorably (a characterization frame).

2. Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict. Two negotiators may be speaking to each other from different frames (e.g., one has an outcome frame and the other has a procedural frame), using different content in the same frame (e.g., they both have a procedural frame but have strong preferences for different procedures), or using different levels of abstraction (e.g., a broad aspiration frame versus a specific outcome frame). Such mismatches cause conflict and ambiguity, which may create misunderstanding, lead to conflict escalation and even stalemate, or lead one or both parties to “reframe” the conflict into frames that are more compatible and that may lead to resolution. For highly polarized disputes, mutual reframing may not occur without the help of a third party.

3. Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame. Frames may evoke certain strategies or cognitive and emotional responses from negotiators. For example, when parties are prompted to frame a negotiation in emotional terms, they tend to be more highly involved and behave competitively, leading to higher impasse rates.

4. Specific frames may be likely to be used with certain types of issues. In a negotiation over a job offer, for instance, parties discussing salary may be likely to use outcome frames, while parties discussing relationship issues may be likely to use characterization frames.

5. Particular types of frames may lead to particular types of agreements. For example, parties who achieve integrative agreements may be likely to use aspiration frames and to discuss a large number of issues during their deliberations. In contrast, parties who use outcome or negative characterization frames may be likely to hold negative views of the other party and a strong preference for specific outcomes, which may in turn lead to intensified conflict and distributive outcomes (or no agreement at all).

6. Parties are likely to assume a particular frame because of various factors. Value differences between the parties, differences in personality, power differences, and differences in the background and social context of the negotiators may lead the parties to adopt different frames.