Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators

IF 3.4 2区管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104189

Christoph Nohe , Joachim Hüffmeier , Paul Bürkner , Jens Mazei , Dominik Sondern , Antonia Runte , Franziska Sieber , Guido Hertel

{"title":"Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators","authors":"Christoph Nohe , Joachim Hüffmeier , Paul Bürkner , Jens Mazei , Dominik Sondern , Antonia Runte , Franziska Sieber , Guido Hertel","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>Based on role congruity theory, this preregistered meta-analysis examines whether women negotiate less unethically than men. We predicted that moderators related to the person (negotiation experience) and the negotiation context (e.g., advocacy, cultural gender-role inequality) influence the proposed gender difference. We conducted a Bayesian three-level meta-analysis to test our predictions on a sample of 116 effect sizes from 70 samples (overall N = 14,028, including employees, MBA students, undergraduate students). As predicted, women negotiated less unethically than men (Hedges’ g = 0.25). The gender difference held for unethical judgements (Hedges’ g = 0.29), unethical intentions (Hedges’ g = 0.21), and unethical behaviors (Hedges’ g = 0.17). The gender difference decreased when parties negotiated for others as compared to for themselves, when parties strategically used positive affect, and tended to decrease when parties were experienced as compared to inexperienced negotiators. We discuss implications for theory and research.</div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 104189"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000784","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Based on role congruity theory, this preregistered meta-analysis examines whether women negotiate less unethically than men. We predicted that moderators related to the person (negotiation experience) and the negotiation context (e.g., advocacy, cultural gender-role inequality) influence the proposed gender difference. We conducted a Bayesian three-level meta-analysis to test our predictions on a sample of 116 effect sizes from 70 samples (overall N = 14,028, including employees, MBA students, undergraduate students). As predicted, women negotiated less unethically than men (Hedges’ g = 0.25). The gender difference held for unethical judgements (Hedges’ g = 0.29), unethical intentions (Hedges’ g = 0.21), and unethical behaviors (Hedges’ g = 0.17). The gender difference decreased when parties negotiated for others as compared to for themselves, when parties strategically used positive affect, and tended to decrease when parties were experienced as compared to inexperienced negotiators. We discuss implications for theory and research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

谈判中的不道德选择:性别差异及其调节因素的元分析

基于角色一致性理论，这个预先注册的元分析检验了女性谈判是否比男性更不道德。我们预测，与人(谈判经验)和谈判背景(例如，倡导、文化性别角色不平等)相关的调节因子会影响提议的性别差异。我们对来自70个样本(总N = 14,028，包括员工、MBA学生和本科生)的116个效应量样本进行了贝叶斯三水平荟萃分析，以检验我们的预测。正如预测的那样，女性的谈判比男性更少不道德(赫奇斯的g = 0.25)。性别差异存在于不道德判断(Hedges的g = 0.29)、不道德意图(Hedges的g = 0.21)和不道德行为(Hedges的g = 0.17)。当谈判双方为他人谈判而不是为自己谈判时，当谈判双方策略性地使用积极影响时，性别差异会减小，当谈判双方经验丰富而不是经验不足时，性别差异会减小。我们讨论了理论和研究的意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Multiple-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context