The Three Second Space of Disaster Diffusion

Today, I'm going to share a negotiation exercise I use in academic teaching. The exercise is meant to convey the importance of social learning in making deliberate mindful conversations possible. Interventions of any kind that bring about minor shifts in emotional appraisals eventually curbing major behavioral mishaps or poor outcomes, in self or others, fascinate me. In essence, we, as human beings, will often feel intensely and intently, giving us the false impression of our first response as being precise and true. Surety is often mistaken for clarity. However, I know from observation, and some reflection, how intensity is typically good for facing imminent physical danger. In most of our daily life, we come across psychosocial scenarios for which a threat-based intensity is useless. Therefore, when caught in daily stressful navigation of many choices, what we decide early on in the emotional psychological process gives the ability to bring about the best possible behavioral outcome, which matters even later. Mindfulness makes some of this deliberate responding easier, partly because of how simply being in this attentive aware state of existence quietens the threat-based physiology in our system and makes us better psychologically available for constructive interaction. Hence, this exercise is shared, based on Curhan et al. (2022).

Negotiation Exercise

In a role play argument, introduce at least 3 seconds of silence before you speak or reply to your opponent/peer. Try to imagine how the same can be portrayed in theatrical or real-life situations in which two people aren’t agreeing initially. However, imagine an extended conversation that includes longer pauses than usual -- of the kind that doesn’t relay stonewalling but communicates engaged reflection. For our purposes, we’ll explore if the relevant research in relation to generating deliberate spaces for silence can make daily negotiations and arguments more productive. When applied in social learning regularly, this strategy can become better internalized by children, adolescents, and even adults over time.

Here are a few prompts for practicing this exercise.

Maintain the conversation for at least 5-minutes. Please note, winning the argument isn’t the main idea. In real life scenarios, the main idea is to maintain the conversation. If the other side is not as receptive even after ten minutes, end the conversation politely.

You'll still walk satisfied due to trying your best and will not have any afterthoughts of regret.

Disagreement

a) Initial Speaker: You promised to meet me at the library for our study session at 4pm. Well, I went to the library and waited for thirty minutes. You didn’t come. Why?

-------3 seconds-------- Then the next speaker should reply.

Difficult New Information

a) Initial Speaker: I just learned that you invited everyone to your birthday party except me. I thought we were friends. Can you tell me why?

-------3 seconds-------- Then the next speaker should reply.

Anger and Resentment

a) Initial Speaker: I saw you telling lies about me to my best friend. Can you explain?

-------3 seconds-------- Then the next speaker should reply.

Activity relevance: Social learning by the way of watching others, in roles of argument, can successfully show how to make negotiations more beneficial to both parties. Generating a space of communication and a non-defensive mindset is typically the challenge when disagreeing people face each other initially because they get caught in a threat-based win-lose dialogue. According to research*, introducing at least three seconds of silence in such conversations can make people feel less threatened and more reflective leading to better outcomes.

Ways in which your appraisals can feel more aligned with an authentic calmer response is by thinking within the frameworks of similarity, universality, shared goals, immediate outcomes, knowing what matters in the big picture, later, and eventually. There are some life situations in which having a strong stance is really important, for the betterment of the greater good. When this happens, maintain a polite loudness in your appeal. Having said that, what I have learned and observed over the years is how you put your words together, emotionally, is what is heard by people at first, not necessarily what you are saying out of good intent. It's how human beings are designed socially, to respond immediately after gauging whether I'm dealing with a friend or a foe, particularly if the person in front of you doesn't know you as well. Once you've been marked as a foe, there is no turning back. The most benign or neutral words will hit the person like rocks. The idea is to converse with the following belief:

Disagreement is possible amongst people belonging to the same group.

References

*Curhan, J. R., Overbeck, J. R., Cho, Y., Zhang, T., & Yang, Y. (2022). Silence is golden: Extended silence, deliberative mindset, and value creation in negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000877