IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v34y2023i2p935-958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s Race Got to Do with It? The Interactive Effect of Race and Gender on Negotiation Offers and Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Angelica Leigh

    (Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Sreedhari D. Desai

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599)

Abstract

Research suggests that women negotiators tend to obtain worse outcomes than men; however, we argue this finding does not apply to all women. Integrating research on social hierarchies, gender in negotiations, and intersectional stereotype content, we develop a theoretical framework that explains the interactive effect of race and gender on offers and outcomes received in distributive negotiations. With a focus on Black and White women and men negotiators, we predicted that stereotypes related to their race and gender lead Black women negotiators to receive more favorable negotiation offers and outcomes than White women and Black men negotiators and this effect is explained by ascriptions of dominance and prestige, respectively. Results of three experimental studies involving diverse samples—online panel participants, individuals selling items on Craigslist, and MBA students—support these predictions. More specifically, we find that Black women negotiators are perceived as more dominant than White women negotiators, and Black women negotiators are ascribed greater prestige than Black men negotiators. These ascriptions allow Black women negotiators to receive more favorable negotiation offers and outcomes compared with White women and Black men. These findings highlight the importance of jointly considering the influence of race and gender in negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Angelica Leigh & Sreedhari D. Desai, 2023. "What’s Race Got to Do with It? The Interactive Effect of Race and Gender on Negotiation Offers and Outcomes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 935-958, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:935-958
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2022.1629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1629
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2022.1629?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
    ---><---

    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:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:2:p:935-958. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.