Negotiations Chapter 5 Test Files

The concept of "duty ethics" states that A. the rightness of an action is determined by evaluating the pros and cons of its consequences. B. the rightness of an action is determined by existing laws and contemporary social standards that define what is right and wrong and where the line is. C. the rightness of an action is based on the customs and norms of a particular society or community. D. the rightness of an action is based on one's conscience and moral standards. E. None of the above defines "duty ethics."

Ethical criteria for judging appropriate conduct define A. what is wise based on trying to understand the efficacy of the tactic and the consequences it might have on the relationship with the other. B. what a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation. C. what is appropriate as determined by some standard of moral conduct. D. what the law defines as acceptable practice. E. All of the above are defined by ethical criteria for judging appropriate conduct.

Only one of the approaches to ethical reasoning has as its central tenet that actions are more right if they promote more happiness, more wrong as they produce unhappiness. Which approach applies? A. End-result ethics. B. Duty ethics. C. Social context ethics. D. Personalistic ethics. E. Reasoning ethics.

Which of the following arguments refutes Carr's claim that business strategy is analogous to poker strategy? A. Because good poker playing often involves concealing information and bluffing or deception, these rules ought to apply to business transactions. B. If an executive refuses to bluff periodically he or she is probably ignoring opportunities permitted under the "rules" of business. C. Most games do not legitimize deception, and therefore business should not be analogous to a game that does legitimize deception. D. Bluffing, exaggeration and concealment are legitimate ways for corporations to maximize their self interest. E. None of the above arguments refute Carr's claim.

What is the implication of the dilemma of trust? A. We believe everything the other says and can be manipulated by their dishonesty. B. We do not believe anything the other says and therefore are immune to their dishonesty. C. We tell the other party our exact requirements and limits in negotiation, and therefore we will never do better than this minimum level. D. We never reveal our requirements and limits in negotiation, and therefore are able to far exceed that minimum level. E. None of the above describes the implication of the dilemma of trust.

Which is a Category of Marginally Ethical Negotiating Tactics? A. Traditional Competitive Bargaining B. Emotional Manipulation C. Misrepresentation to Opponent's Networks D. Bluffing E. All of the above

Which tactic is seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation? A. misrepresentation B. bluffing C. misrepresentation to opponent's network D. inappropriate information collection E. All of the above are seen as inappropriate and unethical tactics.

Research has shown that negotiators use what two forms of deception in misrepresenting the common-value issue? A. misrepresentation by omission and misrepresentation by commission B. misrepresentation by permission and misrepresentation by omission C. misrepresentation by admission and misrepresentation by permission D. misrepresentation by admission and misrepresentation by commission E. None of the above forms of deception is used in misrepresenting the common-value issue.

McCornack and Levine found that victims had stronger emotional reactions to deception when A. they had a distant relationship with the subject. B. the information at stake was unimportant. C. lying was seen as an unacceptable type of behavior for that relationship. D. the victim had used deceptive tactics as well. E. Research found that victims did not have strong emotional reactions in any of the above cases.

When using the justification that "the tactic was unavoidable," the negotiator is saying that A. the negotiator was not in full control of his or her actions and hence should not be held responsible. B. what the negotiator did was really trivial and not very significant. C. the tactic helped to avoid greater harm. D. the quality of the tactic should be judged by its consequences. E. The justification that "the tactic was unavoidable" implies all of the above.

When using the "intimidation" tactic to detect deception, one should A. emphasize the futility and impending danger associated with continued deceit. B. lie to the other to make them believe you have uncovered their deception. C. play down the significance of any deceptive act. D. make a "no-nonsense" accusation of the other. E. None of the above actions would be used as part of the intimidation tactic.

When using the "altered information" tactic to detect deception, one should A. try to get the other to admit a small or partial lie about some information and use this to push for admission of a larger lie. B. exaggerate what you believe is the deception and state it, hoping that the other will jump in to "correct" the statement. C. point out behaviors you detect in the other which might be an indication they are lying. D. indicate one's true concern for the other's welfare. E. None of the above actions would be used as part of the altered information tactic.

Which of the following tactics is the least preferable method of responding to another party's distributive tactics or "dirty tricks"? A. ignoring the tactic B. "calling" the tactic C. responding in kind D. discussing what you see and offer to help them change to more honest behaviors E. None of the above tactics should be used to respond to another party's dirty tricks.