 |
| 1 | |
Communication "works" to the degree that a wide variety of information is completely and thoroughly shared among the parties, and mutual understanding is reached. |
| | A) | True |
| | B) | False |
|
|
|
| 2 | |
The more prone we are to use symbolic communication, the more likely it is that the symbols we choose may not accurately communicate the meaning we intend. |
| | A) | True |
| | B) | False |
|
|
|
| 3 | |
Most of the communication during negotiation is not about negotiator references. Research into communications in negotiation has made it clear that the content of communication is only partly responsible for negotiation outcomes. |
| | A) | True |
| | B) | False |
|
|
|
| 4 | |
Mitigating circumstances occur where negotiators explain their positions from a broader perspective, suggesting that while their current position may appear negative it derives from positive motives. |
| | A) | True |
| | B) | False |
|
|
|
| 5 | |
A negotiator's choice of words may only signal a position; it may never shape and predict it. |
| | A) | True |
| | B) | False |
|
|
|
| 6 | |
Feedback is an important way to avoid some of the problems in communication and the presence of feedback can help in which of the following? |
| | A) | By leading negotiators alter their evaluations of possible outcomes. |
| | B) | Inform the sender that the message was received and encoded. |
| | C) | Feedback can distort communication by influencing the offers negotiators make. |
| | D) | Motivate the sender to change his or her behavior, either in a positive or negative direction. |
| | E) | Feedback can cause all of the above to occur. |
|
|
|
| 7 | |
Define exonerating circumstances. |
| | A) | Negotiators suggest that they had no choice in taking the positions they did. |
| | B) | Negotiators explain their positions from a broader perspective, suggesting that while their current position may appear negative it derives from positive motives. |
| | C) | Outcomes can be explained by changing the context. |
| | D) | Negotiators who use multiple explanations are more likely to have better outcomes. |
| | E) | None of the above defines exonerating circumstances. |
|
|
|
| 8 | |
Which of the following is not one of the four biases that threaten e-mail negotiations? |
| | A) | Temporal synchrony bias is the tendency for e-mail negotiators to behave as if they are in a synchronous situation when they are not (parties are not working on the same time frame). |
| | B) | Sinister attribution bias occurs when one mistakenly assumes that another's behavior is caused by personality flaws, while overlooking the role of situational factors (dissimilarity between parties and shortage of rapport may exist among e-mail lead individuals to project sinister and deceitful motives onto the other party). |
| | C) | Impasse in e-mail negotiations bias is the tendency for the negotiators to disclose personal information through e-mail about themselves and the issues with the other party (no mutual self-disclosure on the part of the out-group party). |
| | D) | Burned bridge bias is the tendency for individuals to employ risky behavior during e-mail negotiations that they would not use during a face-to-face encounter (negotiators may be more willing to challenge the other party). |
| | E) | Squeaky wheel bias is the tendency for e-mail negotiators to use a negative emotional style to achieve their goals (resort to intimidation, rude behavior, and poor etiquette to achieve outcomes). |
|
|
|
| 9 | |
In passive listening |
| | A) | the receivers restate or paraphrase the sender's message in their own language. |
| | B) | the receivers interject responses to keep communicators sending messages. |
| | C) | the receiver provides no feedback to the sender about the accuracy or completeness of reception. |
| | D) | senders may misinterpret acknowledgments as the receiver's agreement with their position, rather than that they are simply receiving the message. |
| | E) | None of the above occurs in passive listening. |
|
|
|
| 10 | |
Research supports which conclusion about role reversal? |
| | A) | Role reversal is effective in producing cognitive changes but not attitude changes. |
| | B) | When parties' positions are fundamentally compatible with one another, role reversal is likely to produce better results. |
| | C) | When parties' positions are fundamentally incompatible; role reversal may dull the perceptions of incompatibility. |
| | D) | Role reversal leads to easier resolutions of conflict, particularly when accurate communication reveals a fundamental incompatibility in the positions of the two sides. |
| | E) | All of the above conclusions are supported by research. |
|
|
.