One negotiator bias is the setting of a referent point (the benchmark by which gains or losses are determined) along the same lines as their public target goals, so that negotiators come to negotiation with a posture that fosters risk-seeking attitudes, making it less likely that a settlement will be reached. Also, if negotiators are overconfident regarding the belief that their position will prevail, they will not be cooperative in pursuing other, more creative options conducive to a settlement. A negotiator's capacity to perceive the interests, aims, and needs of the other party has a bearing on rational negotiations, since a negotiator unable or unwilling to understand the other party's perspectives is not likely to bargain realistically. Further, a negotiator is likely to escalate conflict and polarization in negotiation when a firm public position is taken prior to negotiation. There is little room for anything but escalation since a retreat from or a change in the public position will be perceived as weakness and failure. Coming into the negotiation with a view that there is a 'fixed pie' (the gains of one party will mean loss for the other) also inhibits the development of creative options that yield maximal joint benefits. The elimination of the aforementioned biases will facilitate rational negotiation, and this can be done by improving the selection criteria used for choosing negotiators and training negotiators to eliminate decisionmaking biases. Thirty-two references are listed.