Final answer:
The use of a minimization tactic to find excuses for the other party's deception is incorrect. Minimization in negotiations is meant to downplay one's own concessions. Identifying deception often involves critical questioning and observation, not providing justifications.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a negotiator may use a minimization tactic to determine whether the other party is acting deceptively is False. Minimization tactics in negotiation do not aim to help the other party find excuses for deception, but rather to downplay the significance of one's own concessions or the demands of the opposing party. This is often done to persuade the other party to agree to less favorable terms.
Deception in negotiation is a complex matter. While informed consent in research requires honesty and a debriefing in the event of deception to maintain experiment integrity, in politics and international relations, a degree of deception is often considered a part of the strategy due to the inherent air of distrust among states. Realists, for example, believe in withholding details to avoid making their state vulnerable.
In the context of identifying deception from the other party, a negotiator might instead employ techniques that involve critical questioning or looking out for signs of discomfort or inconsistency, rather than providing excuses for the other party's deceptive behavior.