IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v125y2014i2p61-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception

Author

Listed:
  • Kray, Laura J.
  • Kennedy, Jessica A.
  • Van Zant, Alex B.

Abstract

We examined whether gender differences in the perceived ease of being misled predict the likelihood of being deceived in distributive negotiations. Study 1 (N=131) confirmed that female negotiators are perceived as more easily misled than male negotiators. This perception corresponded with perceptions of women’s relatively low competence. Study 2 (N=328) manipulated negotiator gender, competence and warmth and found that being perceived as easily misled via low competence affected expectations about the negotiating process, including less deception scrutiny among easily misled negotiators and lower ethical standards among their negotiating counterparts. This pattern held true regardless of buyer and seller gender. Study 3 (N=298) examined whether patterns of deception in face-to-face negotiations were consistent with this gender stereotype. As expected, negotiators deceived women more so than men, thus leading women into more deals under false pretenses than men.

Suggested Citation

  • Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:125:y:2014:i:2:p:61-72
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781400048X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
    2. Francesca Gino & Lamar Pierce, 2010. "Robin Hood Under the Hood: Wealth-Based Discrimination in Illicit Customer Help," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1176-1194, December.
    3. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    4. Lewis, Alan & Bardis, Alexander & Flint, Chloe & Mason, Claire & Smith, Natalya & Tickle, Charlotte & Zinser, Jennifer, 2012. "Drawing the line somewhere: An experimental study of moral compromise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 718-725.
    5. Kray, Laura J. & Galinsky, Adam D. & Thompson, Leigh, 2002. "Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotiations: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 386-410, March.
    6. Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus, 2008. "Gender differences in deception," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 197-199, April.
    7. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    8. Sandy Jap & Diana C. Robertson & Ryan Hamilton, 2011. "The Dark Side of Rapport: Agent Misbehavior Face-to-Face and Online," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1610-1622, January.
    9. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2007. "Loose with the Truth: Predicting Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 225-238, December.
    10. Amanatullah, Emily T. & Tinsley, Catherine H., 2013. "Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 110-122.
    11. Mara Olekalns & Philip Smith, 2009. "Mutually Dependent: Power, Trust, Affect and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 347-365, March.
    12. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda & Lai, Lei, 2007. "Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 84-103, May.
    13. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Anderson, Cameron & Moore, Don A., 2013. "When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 266-279.
    14. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    15. Ayres, Ian & Siegelman, Peter, 1995. "Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 304-321, June.
    16. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    17. Walters, Amy E. & Stuhlmacher, Alice F. & Meyer, Lia L., 1998. "Gender and Negotiator Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 1-29, October.
    18. Mara Olekalns & Carol Kulik & Lin Chew, 2014. "Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 13-26, March.
    19. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arturs Kalnins & Michele Williams, 2021. "The geography of female small business survivorship: Examining the roles of proportional representation and stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 1247-1274, July.
    2. SimanTov-Nachlieli, Ilanit & Har-Vardi, Liron & Moran, Simone, 2020. "When negotiators with honest reputations are less (and more) likely to be deceived," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Dacinia Crina Petrescu, 2016. "The Influence Of Social Goals And Gender On Negotiation," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 61-66, October.
    4. Kerim Peren Arin & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos & Deni Mazrekaj & Marcel Thum, 2021. "Misperceptions and Fake News during the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 9066, CESifo.
    5. Jussi Palomäki & Jeff Yan & David Modic & Michael Laakasuo, 2016. ""To Bluff like a Man or Fold like a Girl?" – Gender Biased Deceptive Behavior in Online Poker," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Kouchaki, Maryam & Kray, Laura J., 2018. "“I won't let you down:” Personal ethical lapses arising from women’s advocating for others," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 147-157.
    7. Martin, Sean R. & Lee, Julia J. & Parmar, Bidhan Lalit, 2021. "Social distance, trust and getting “hooked”: A phishing expedition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 39-48.
    8. Michael R. Strain & Douglas A. Webber, 2017. "High school experiences, the gender wage gap, and the selection of occupation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(49), pages 5040-5049, October.
    9. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Kray, Laura J. & Ku, Gillian, 2017. "A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 28-44.
    10. Shirako, Aiwa & Kilduff, Gavin J. & Kray, Laura J., 2015. "Is there a place for sympathy in negotiation? Finding strength in weakness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 95-109.
    11. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Michael J. Cotter & James A. Henley, 2017. "Gender Contrasts in Negotiation Impasse Rates," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 12(1), pages 3-25.
    13. Lu Zhang & Young Rok Choi & Hao Zhao, 2021. "Stereotypes about academic entrepreneurs and their negotiation counterparts’ collaborative behavior," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 1269-1284, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kray, Laura, 2011. "Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt1639379n, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    2. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    3. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Beatriz & Rin-Sánchez, Francisco Daniel & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2014. "Economists: cheaters with altruistic instincts," MPRA Paper 60678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Joseph P. Gaspar & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2021. "Confident and Cunning: Negotiator Self-Efficacy Promotes Deception in Negotiations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 139-155, June.
    5. Najib A. Mozahem & Moniat El Noufous K. El Masri & Nazhat M. Najm & Samah S. Saleh, 2021. "How Gender Differences in Entitlement and Apprehension Manifest Themselves in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 587-610, June.
    6. Rosenbaum, Stephen Mark & Billinger, Stephan & Stieglitz, Nils, 2014. "Let’s be honest: A review of experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 181-196.
    7. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2013. "Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 120-134.
    8. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    9. Van Zant, Alex B. & Kray, Laura J., 2013. ""I Can't Lie to Your Face": Minimal Face-to-Face Interaction Promotes Honestry," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt88f3409v, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    10. Grosch, Kerstin & Rau, Holger A., 2017. "Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 258-267.
    11. Hamrick, Jennifer & Schafer, Jennifer & DeZoort, Todd, 2023. "The effect of client gender and negotiation style on auditors' proposed audit adjustments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    12. Huang, Jennie & Low, Corinne, 2022. "The myth of the male negotiator: Gender’s effect on negotiation strategies and outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 517-532.
    13. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2020. "Profession and deception: Experimental evidence on lying behavior among business and medical students," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 175-187.
    14. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Bowles, Hannah Riley, 2012. "Psychological Perspectives on Gender in Negotiation," Working Paper Series rwp12-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    16. Bernd Irlenbusch & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Behavioral ethics: how psychology influenced economics and how economics might inform psychology?," Post-Print halshs-01159696, HAL.
    17. Joseph P. Gaspar & Redona Methasani & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2022. "Emotional Intelligence and Deception: A Theoretical Model and Propositions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 567-584, May.
    18. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    19. Bowles, Hannah Riley, 2012. "Psychological Perspectives on Gender in Negotiation," Scholarly Articles 9830358, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:125:y:2014:i:2:p:61-72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.