By Prof. Guido Stein, Salva Badillo, and Lucía Zelaya
The key to a successful negotiation is not embedded in knowledge or reasoning ability but in applying emotional intelligence. This essay explains the role of emotions in negotiations.
Emotion is not the enemy of negotiation, but an inseparable part of it.
Emotional intelligence—the ability to perceive, understand, and regulate both our own emotions and those of others—has proven to be a more decisive factor in achieving success in high-pressure situations than IQ. Contrary to what many believe, however, emotional intelligence is not an innate gift, but a skill that can be cultivated through introspection, practice, and self-observation.
Those who dare to master their inner world will not only make more effective agreements but will also gain a deeper knowledge of themselves.
1. The biology of emotions in negotiations
Decision-making is not a purely logical exercise, but a dynamic influenced by neural structures whose function is to process emotions, evaluate risks, and anticipate consequences. In the field of high-stakes negotiations, understanding these mechanisms is essential to optimize decision-making and achieve more effective and balanced results:
The amygdala. In crisis, the human mind reverts to a primitive state in which reasoning is weakened and instinctive response prevails. This response is triggered by physical threats—such as hostage-taking or a suicide attempt—and also occurs in the business environment, where high-pressure situations can trigger similar survival mechanisms.
The illusion of control and the inevitable role of the subconscious. Multiple studies have shown that the brain makes decisions before the conscious mind becomes aware of them. Benjamin Libet revealed a phenomenon known as readiness potential—an electrical signal in the brain that occurs up to 500 milliseconds before a person becomes aware of their intention to move. This finding suggests that the decision to act begins at an unconscious neural level and only later reaches conscious awareness.
The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). While these individuals retain their reasoning abilities, they struggle to make decisions because they cannot assign emotional value to different options.
This brain region plays a crucial role in evaluating alternatives by connecting past experiences to future options. According to the somatic marker hypothesis, emotions act as filters that attribute significance to each alternative, thereby facilitating decision-making. For example, a hostage-taker may make an explicit demand. However, to resolve the conflict a negotiator needs to identify the underlying interest driving their action, a need that may be conscious or unconscious. If the negotiation fails to align the concession with the dominant emotion, an agreement will remain out of reach.
In face-to-face negotiations, the VMPFC plays a key role in interpreting microexpressions—brief, involuntary facial reactions that reveal genuine emotional states. A negotiator who presents multiple options can assess their counterpart’s visceral reaction to each one.
The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The DLPFC is responsible for evaluating options in a rational and deliberate manner; it cannot make decisions independently and relies on emotional input from the VMPFC. The primary function of the DLPFC is to justify decisions that the brain has already processed at an unconscious level.
A barricaded individual may surrender based on an intuitive sense that continued resistance will have serious consequences, but rationalize their decision with statements such as, “After all, I’m a better person than my hostage, and it’s not worth it.”
The nucleus accumbens. This brain region is linked to the anticipation of pleasure in decision-making. It plays a key role in biases such as loss aversion and impulsivity in financial decision-making.
In a ransom negotiation, a kidnapper may initially demand €3 million—an amount that could take months to obtain and carries the inherent risk of being tracked down by authorities. However, when presented with the opportunity to receive €500,000 immediately, the kidnapper’s nucleus accumbens drives them to accept the more tangible and immediate offer.
2. Self-knowledge
A negotiator must recognize that emotions are an inherent part of the human condition; however, this does not mean they should exert absolute control over our decisions. Neuroscience has shown that while certain stimuli can automatically trigger emotions, the brain has the ability to rewire itself through neuroplasticity. This means that individuals can develop the ability to respond in a more balanced way, neutralizing impulses that might otherwise cloud their judgment in critical situations.
A negotiator must recognize that emotions are an inherent part of the human condition; however, this does not mean they should exert absolute control over our decisions.
In high-stakes negotiations, where the margin for error is minimal, emotional detachment is an invaluable asset. The goal is not to suppress or deny emotions but to acknowledge them and manage their influence with prudence and timeliness. Balance is maintained by consciously separating emotions from the surrounding chaos.
Several tools can help transform negotiations from a purely transactional exchange to a collaborative dialogue in which mental clarity and strategy take precedence over impulsiveness.
2.1. Identifying emotional triggers. Psycholo-gical research has shown that each individual has emotional “buttons” that are activated by past experiences or deeply ingrained beliefs. These triggers can provoke disproportionate reactions to certain situations. Reflecting on past episodes where our reaction was disproportionate can help identify the root of these impulses and progressively diminish their impact.
2.2. Metamorphosis map. Creating a timeline of significant events provides a clear visualization of our personal evolution. This self-reflection tool helps us identify lessons learned over time and set milestones for future growth, strengthening both our identity and our decision-making confidence.
2.3. Detachment journal. Keeping a record of daily situations where emotional detachment would have been beneficial offers valuable insight into how emotions influence our decision-making. Noting the situation, our emotional response, and an alternative approach grounded in detachment helps us to cultivate a more strategic mindset, making us less prone to impulsive reactions.
3. Cognitive biases
Heightened emotions can easily lead negotiators to fall prey to cognitive biases. These biases, which stem from automatic thinking, hinder an objective understanding of facts and can compromise the success of a negotiation. To identify biases and mitigate their impact, it is essential to understand their nature and mechanisms.
Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to behavioral economics and psychology, posits the existence of two systems of mental processing:
- System 1: Fast, intuitive, emotional, and automatic.
- System 2: Slow, deliberate, logical, and conscious.
Cognitive biases arise when System 1 responds without the analytical intervention of System 2, leading to automatic decisions that may result in flawed judgments. These biases often manifest in subtle ways but can have critical consequences.
- Availability bias. This occurs when people assess the likelihood of an event based on how easily they recall recent or striking instances. The human mind tends to give greater weight to vivid or emotionally impactful events, even when they are not statistically representative.
Case: In a hostage negotiation, an inexperienced negotiator who has recently been exposed to a high-profile case in which a hostage-taking ended in tragedy overestimates the likelihood that the current situation will escalate into violence. Driven by fear, the negotiator hastily agrees to the hostage-taker’s demands without considering alternative strategies.
- Anchoring effect. This occurs when the first number or piece of information presented in a negotiation establishes a reference point that shapes all subsequent assessments, even if the initial value lacks a rational basis.
Case: A hostage-taker demands €1 million for the release of a hostage. An inexperienced negotiator is anchored to this disproportionate figure and bases their strategy on it without considering objective data. An experienced negotiator, on the other hand, understands that hostage-takers typically set initial demands well above what they are willing to accept and uses this knowledge to structure the negotiation in a more realistic way.
- Confirmation bias. This is the tendency of individuals to seek out and prioritize information that reinforces their preexisting beliefs, while dismissing data that contradicts those beliefs. This distortion can result in biased interpretations of reality and poorly founded decisions.
Case: A negotiator who firmly believes that hostage-takers never yield if they perceive weakness ignores subtle signs of fatigue or hesitation in the captor. By failing to recognize these opportunities for persuasion, the negotiator misses a strategic window for achieving a peaceful resolution.
- Illusion of validity. This occurs when a person overestimates the accuracy of their own predictions, even in the absence of solid evidence. Excessive confidence in personal judgment can result in poor decisions and unnecessary risks.
Case: A negotiator, convinced that they can anticipate a hostage-taker’s reactions without relying on historical data or behavioral analysis, misinterprets the situation and makes counterproductive decisions.
- Halo effect. This occurs when a positive or striking characteristic of a person is generalized to other areas, creating a biased overall perception.
Case: A hostage-taker who speaks politely and dresses neatly may be perceived as reasonable and less dangerous. This bias leads the negotiator to underestimate the actual threat that the hostage-taker poses, compromising the safety of the hostages.
- Optimism bias. This refers to the tendency to underestimate risks and overestimate our own abilities. In crisis situations, this bias can create a false sense of control and lead to inadequate preparation.
Case: A negotiator who is overconfident in their ability to persuade assumes that they can convince the hostage-taker without a structured plan. This overconfidence diminishes the effectiveness of the negotiator’s intervention and makes the situation more dangerous.
- Hindsight bias. Once the outcome of an event is known, people tend to perceive it as having been predictable from the outset. This cognitive distortion can influence how past decisions are assessed and foster a fatalistic perspective on circumstances.
Case: If a hostage negotiation ends in violence, some observers might say that the outcome was inevitable. However, this view does not take into account an analysis of factors that could have influenced the course of events.
- Representativeness bias. This bias involves estimating the likelihood of an event based on stereotypes or past patterns rather than relying on objective statistical data.
Case: A negotiator who assumes that a juvenile hostage-taker is less experienced and therefore easier to manipulate develops flawed strategies that underestimate the captor’s abilities.
- Loss aversion. People tend to fear potential losses more than they derive satisfaction from equivalent gains. This bias can result in hasty and disadvantageous decisions.
Case: A negotiator who, for fear of losing hostages, quickly agrees to the hostage-taker’s demands without considering the long-term consequences weakens their position and increases the likelihood of similar crises in the future.
- Illusion of control. This bias occurs when individuals overestimate their ability to control random events, leading to excessive confidence in their ability to influence outcomes.
Case: A negotiator who assumes that their personal skill alone can guarantee the success of the negotiation—without accounting for external factors such as the emotional state of the hostage-taker or police pressure—makes reckless decisions that jeopardize the operation.
Being aware of these biases and actively working to mitigate them can significantly improve the quality of our judgments and reduce the risks associated with rash or uninformed decisions.
4. From anxiety to confidence
Anxiety is defined as distress or uneasiness about what is about to happen or what we fear may occur. It is not merely inner turmoil but a force that reminds us of both our vulnerability and our ability to anticipate future events. Those who enter a negotiation in the grip of fear tend to underestimate their own power, make low initial offers, concede too quickly to others’ demands, and sometimes leave the negotiation table prematurely. As a result, their deals tend to be less advantageous. In terms of how it applies to executives, several studies reveal that anxious negotiators close deals that are, on average, 12% less financially attractive than those negotiated by individuals who approach the process from a neutral emotional state.
The perception of negotiation as an anxiety-inducing activity stems from three key psychological factors:
- Lack of control. Negotiation arises from the need to obtain something that cannot be achieved unilaterally. The sense that success depends on the will of others generates tension and unease.
- Unpredictability. It is impossible to predict with certainty how cooperative or aggressive the other party will be, or to anticipate their reactions and strategies with complete accuracy.
- Lack of clear feedback. Even after reaching an agreement, uncertainty lingers. Doubts about whether the best possible outcome was achieved, whether too many concessions were made, or whether excessive pressure was applied fuel insecurity and self-criticism.
However, anxiety is not inevitable. Effective strategies exist to instill confidence and enhance negotiation skills. There are three key ways to mitigate the impact of anxiety and strengthen a negotiator’s position.
- Preparation. A lack of information intensifies the inherent uncertainty of negotiations, adding to the negotiator’s psychological tension. Understanding the counterpart—their interests, constraints, and alternatives—is essential before entering a negotiation. Defining clear objectives reduces uncertainty and strengthens self-confidence. However, many people rely too much on intuition and overlook preparation, improvising and merely hoping for the best outcome. This phenomenon is known as the myth of natural talent: When someone exhibits strong conversational skills, it is often assumed that they possess exceptional innate intuition.
The most skilled negotiators prepare in advance but also cultivate the ability to improvise in a natural way.
However, research suggests that this strategy is not the most effective. The most skilled negotiators prepare in advance but also cultivate the ability to improvise in a natural way. What is often overlooked is the time they dedicate to refining their communication skills, the attentiveness with which they listen, the way they connect ideas, and their ongoing efforts to improve their skills.
Flexibility. Adaptability is a natural consequence of thorough preparation. A flexible negotiator adjusts their strategy without losing sight of core objectives, enabling them to respond intelligently to unexpected developments. Maintaining an openness to alternative solutions helps reduce anxiety and expands the possibilities for reaching satisfactory agreements.
Flexibility is not at odds with preparation; on the contrary, the more prepared a negotiator is, the greater their confidence and ability to improvise effectively. A well-prepared negotiator does not rigidly adhere to a plan but instead adapts to circumstances without losing sight of the goal.
Practice. Anxiety thrives on the unknown. Regular exposure to negotiation scenarios reduces the emotional impact of engaging in this process, making it more familiar and manageable. In psychology, exposure therapy is used to treat phobias because repeated exposure to the situations that cause fear helps to reduce this feeling. Similarly, the more we negotiate, the more comfortable and confident we become.
Practical experience is one of the most effective ways to internalize learning. In education, the gap between knowledge and action—often referred to as the “knowing-doing gap”—is widely discussed: Understanding something intellectually is only the first step.
5. From anger to calmness
Anger, like anxiety, is an inherently human emotion—an expression of our survival instinct that, in its original form, helped us confront threats and adversity. However, while anxiety stems from fear of the future and personal uncertainty, anger is directed at our counterpart, creating a barrier that impedes understanding and communication. It is an expansive emotion that, when unchecked, clouds our judgment and fuels a vicious cycle of blame, defensiveness, and confrontation. Often, those who experience anger justify their outburst as a legitimate response to provocation, unaware that their own reaction fuels the escalation of the conflict.
In negotiations, anger often distorts our perception of reality, leading to a combative approach that reflects the so-called fixed-pie bias. This bias stems from the mistaken belief that any gain for the counterpart translates into a direct loss for us, reinforcing a zero-sum mindset that hinders productive dialogue. In addition to making collaboration difficult, anger leads to impulsive and often self-defeating decisions. It is no coincidence that people are more likely to lie to an angry opponent than to a calm one. Anger dehumanizes the other, leading us to reduce them to a mere threat rather than recognizing them as individuals with legitimate aspirations.
When we recognize that we have the capacity to voluntarily free ourselves from anger, we make a conscious decision to abandon self-pity and emotional stagnation. This does not mean ignoring perceived injustices or relinquishing our position in a negotiation, but rather understanding that anger is not a fixed state—it is a choice.
6. Handling the counterpart
In high-stakes negotiations, beyond irrational behavior, the captor or hostage-taker is often in a state of extreme impulsivity. They are like a reckless boxer throwing rapid, chaotic punches—not to land a blow, but to disorient, create turmoil in the dialogue, and erode the negotiator’s mental clarity. The first question is: How do we break through this wall of hostility and desperation? And the answer to that question is to offer security. In a state of unconscious vulnerability, people crave stability and certainty. However, offering security requires more than words and active listening; it demands mastery of strategic tools that, when applied effectively, can play a pivotal role.
Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro outlined five emotional concerns that influence negotiations and can serve as key tools for managing an emotionally agitated counterpart:
Appreciation. Everyone wants to feel that their thoughts and actions are acknowledged and valued. In addition to strengthening cooperation, appreciation reduces resistance and distrust. In a hostage situation, for instance, a negotiator who acknowledges the hostage taker’s suffering or desperation creates an avenue for empathy that can help ease initial tension.
Affiliation. Rather than confronting the other party, a negotiator can build connections that foster a sense of belonging. This approach is often observed in police negotiations, where officers, rather than making threats, emphasize shared experiences or common ground with the hostage-taker to reduce their perception of hostility.
Autonomy. Respecting the other party’s decision-making ability is crucial. Imposing a solution often triggers resistance and hostility. In a negotiation with an armed robber, for example, allowing them to make controlled choices—such as deciding whom they want to speak with or whether they receive food—reinforces their sense of control and helps prevent escalation to violence.
Status. Recognizing each person’s role in the negotiation is essential. If a negotiator disregards the other party’s need for recognition, the latter may react with disdain or defiance.
Role. When a counterpart feels that their role is being ignored or minimized, negotiations become even more complicated. A clear example is when a hostage-taker acts as a group spokesperson. Instead of discrediting them, the negotiator allows them to express themselves in that capacity, reinforcing their sense of significance. This, in turn, makes the individual more receptive to proposed resolutions.
Being aware of these emotional concerns and creating a more favorable terrain for negotiation lays the groundwork for the following:
Identifying the counterpart’s dominant emotions. Recognizing our counterpart’s emotional baseline—whether they are prone to anxiety, anger, or fear—helps us anticipate the thresholds beyond which they will react irrationally and avoid triggers that could escalate the crisis. Establishing this reference point also helps us avoid actions that may be contrary to their interests, needs, and goals. It is not uncommon to see individuals make decisions that clearly work against their own interests, raising the question of why they fail to recognize this.
Emotional payments. These symbolic concessions do not necessarily require giving up anything tangible; rather, they involve offering elements that provide reassurance and gradually guide our counterpart toward a more rational state. When a hostage-taker demands justice for a personal cause, giving them the opportunity to be heard—whether through the media or by a figure of authority—can be a turning point that allows the negotiation to move toward a peaceful resolution.
Reflection: the first victory
From a personal perspective, what truly influences a negotiation is the struggle between instinct and reason, between the visceral nature of emotion and the lucidity of thought. The first victory lies in not allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by internal noise that amplifies the noise around us. If we become paralyzed by fear of what might happen, we will be unable to do anything sensible. A skilled negotiator does not blindly push forward but stays grounded in self-awareness and reflection. Each day is an opportunity to learn, adapt, and refine our approach.
