37 F. Aquilar and M. Galluccio (eds.), Psychological and Political Strategies for Peace Negotiation, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7430-3_3, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 It is inevitable that at some point individuals will recognize that they may have conflict- ing interests with one another. These apparently incompatible differences may lead to an attempt to reconcile the differences so that some agreement may be reached. This is the process of negotiation. It affects all areas of our lives. We may negotiate the price of a car, the rent we pay, the hours and tasks we work on, the division of labor in our fami- lies, access to sexual pleasure, a parking space, and a replacement of a side dish on the blue-plate special. But negotiation also can be a matter of life or death, such as the negotiation of a treaty to avoid armed conflict or the reduction of genocidal warfare. A “rational” approach to negotiation would be based on consideration of the value of reaching an agreement between two parties that would have a likelihood of being honored in the future. It does not help to negotiate a settlement if when negotiation is completed the other party is unwilling to follow through on the agreement. Thus, if the other party feels coerced or humiliated, then the follow- through on a negotiated settlement may be ephemeral. Or, if there is no way to enforce compliance on the other party, then opportunistic and unilateral abandon- ment of the agreement will be more likely. The parties to a negotiation attempt to persuade the other side in order to achieve an optimal outcome for the self. Rational negotiators recognize that the other side is also pursuing these goals and will not be easily dissuaded. The participants in a negotiation will consider the interests, options and “personalities” of the disputants in a negotiation, attempting to maximize their own position, often at the expense of the other participants. Except in the case where sheer force is applied to coerce compliance, the nego- tiator attempts to persuade. Fisher and Ury have proposed a model of principled negotiation that sets out certain guidelines (Fisher 1991). A principled and rational model of negotiation is guided by the following ideas: (1) We will rely on facts and logic. Thus, persuasion should be based on reference to information and to logical inference rather than to appeals of emotion or personal need; (2) We attack the problem, not the person. This implies that ad hominem attacks in negotiation Chapter 3 Personal Schemas in the Negotiation Process: A Cognitive Therapy Approach Robert L. Leahy R.L. Leahy ( * ) Director, American Institute for Cognitive Therapy, New York City e-mail: Leahy@CognitiveTherapyNYC.com