Explaining Differences in Men and Women's Use of Unethical Tactics in Negotiations

IF 0.5 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT Negotiation and Conflict Management Research Pub Date : 2018-08-30 DOI:10.1111/NCMR.12135
J. Pierce, Leigh Thompson
{"title":"Explaining Differences in Men and Women's Use of Unethical Tactics in Negotiations","authors":"J. Pierce, Leigh Thompson","doi":"10.1111/NCMR.12135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emerging evidence suggests that competitiveness and empathy explain men's greater willingness to use unethical tactics in negotiations. We tested whether and how robustly they do with three distinct studies, run with three distinct populations. Simultaneous mediation analyses generally, but not completely, confirmed our expectations. In Study 1, only competitiveness mediated sex differences in unethical negotiation tactics among Chilean business students. Although empathy also explained willingness to use unethical negotiation tactics, the Chilean men and women did not differ in this regard. In Study 2, competitiveness and empathy both mediated sex differences in American business students’ intentions to lie to a client, but competitiveness explained greater variance. In Study 3, both factors explained sex differences in lying to bargaining partners for real stakes by working‐age Americans. Our findings suggest that competitiveness and empathy each explain sex differences in willingness to use unethical tactics, but the former does so more consistently.","PeriodicalId":45732,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation and Conflict Management Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/NCMR.12135","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation and Conflict Management Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/NCMR.12135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that competitiveness and empathy explain men's greater willingness to use unethical tactics in negotiations. We tested whether and how robustly they do with three distinct studies, run with three distinct populations. Simultaneous mediation analyses generally, but not completely, confirmed our expectations. In Study 1, only competitiveness mediated sex differences in unethical negotiation tactics among Chilean business students. Although empathy also explained willingness to use unethical negotiation tactics, the Chilean men and women did not differ in this regard. In Study 2, competitiveness and empathy both mediated sex differences in American business students’ intentions to lie to a client, but competitiveness explained greater variance. In Study 3, both factors explained sex differences in lying to bargaining partners for real stakes by working‐age Americans. Our findings suggest that competitiveness and empathy each explain sex differences in willingness to use unethical tactics, but the former does so more consistently.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释男性和女性在谈判中使用不道德策略的差异
新出现的证据表明,竞争力和同理心解释了男性在谈判中更愿意使用不道德策略的原因。我们用三个不同的研究测试了它们是否有效以及有多有效,这些研究是在三个不同的人群中进行的。同步中介分析总体上(但不完全)证实了我们的预期。在研究1中,只有竞争力对智利商科学生不道德谈判策略的性别差异有中介作用。虽然同理心也解释了使用不道德谈判策略的意愿,但智利男性和女性在这方面并没有什么不同。在研究2中,竞争力和同理心都介导了美国商科学生对客户撒谎意图的性别差异,但竞争力解释了更大的差异。在研究3中,这两个因素解释了工作年龄的美国人对议价伙伴撒谎的性别差异。我们的研究结果表明,竞争和同理心各自解释了使用不道德策略意愿的性别差异,但前者的作用更为一致。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Value from Control: Subjective Valuations of Negotiations by Principals and Agents Why are Women Less Likely to Negotiate? The Influence of Expectancy Considerations and Contextual Framing on Gender Differences in the Initiation of Negotiation There is No Away: Where Do People Go When They Avoid an Interpersonal Conflict? Valuing Cooperation and Constructive Controversy: A Tribute to David W. Johnson Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1