Implicit Biases May Be A Good Thing!

In past blog posts, I have discussed implicit biases and how important it is to recognize their existence and to counteract them in our daily lives. Yet, there may be another and more positive way of looking at them. It is simply a question of “framing”. (See below!)

A November 27, 2018 blog posted on the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School notes that such biases can be used to one’s advantage in negotiating. Entitled, “The Advantages of Bias at the Negotiation Table,” the PON staff writer discusses four implicit biases that may be useful.

The first is anchoring which occurs when an individual “…rel[ies] too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (known as the ‘anchor’) when making decisions.” (Wikipedia ) . To use this bias to one’s advantage, the blog post suggests that a person start off with an extreme offer, thereby influencing the course of the negotiation and making any lesser offer seem “reasonable.” (Id. at Pon blog post.)

The second bias that can be used to one’s advantage is the availability bias which is “…the tendency to rely on readily available information.” (Id.). By carefully selecting advantageous examples of similar disputes and the amounts for which they settled, a negotiator can minimize the amount to be paid to settle the matter. (Id.)

A third bias is framing “…  in which people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented; e.g. as a loss or as a gain.[1] People tend to avoid risk when a positive frame is presented but seek risks when a negative frame is presented.” (Wikipedia) Presenting your viewpoint in positive terms, or as potential gains for the other person, will  induce the other person to want to reduce if not altogether avoid her risk of loss. The other person may even begin to trust you.

The final bias that may be useful is using “contrast effects” or offering several alternatives to settle a matter.  As the staff writer explains,

For example, rather than making a flat offer of $30,000 to settle a case, a defendant could offer a choice among $30,000 immediately, $10,000 annually for the next three years, or a $30,000 payment to charity. When compared with the other two options, the $30,000 cash offer is likely to appear more attractive than when it is the only offer on the table. A negotiator may very well compare the options offered rather than comparing the $30,000 to the option of holding out for more money. (Id.)

In sum, like everything else in life, there is more than one way of looking at biases; they can be good, or they can be bad depending on the situation and their use.

…. Just something to think about.

It is that time of year again when I take a little vacation from posting blogs. As always, thank you for reading and commenting on these blogs and for allowing me to assist you and your clients in resolving their matters. I appreciate your loyalty and trust.

 I hope all of you have a very happy, healthy and wonderful Holiday and New Year! I will be back in January 2019!


If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

Copyright 2018© Phyllis G. Pollack and, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

By |2018-12-07T16:55:12+00:00December 21st, 2018|Research|0 Comments

About the Author:

Phyllis Pollack
Phyllis G. Pollack, Esq. the principal of PGP Mediation (, has been a mediator in Los Angeles, California since 2000. She has conducted over 1700 mediations. As an attorney with more than 35 years experience, she utilizes her diverse background to resolve business, commercial, international trade, real estate, employment and lemon law disputes at both the state and federal trial and state appellate court levels. Currently, she is the in­coming chair of State Bar of California’s ADR Committee. She has served on the board of the California Dispute Resolution Council (CDRC) (2012­2013), is a past president and past treasurer of the SCMA Education Foundation (2011­2013) and a past president (2010) of the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA). Ms. Pollack received her BA degree in sociology in 1973 from Newcomb College of Tulane University and her JD degree from Tulane University School of Law in 1977. She is an active member of both the Louisiana and California bars. Pollack believes that it is never too late to mediate a dispute and recommends mediation over litigation as it allows the parties to decide their own solutions.