IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v33y2024i6d10.1007_s10726-024-09901-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deception in Negotiations: Making People More Honest with a Two-Factor Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Srour

    (CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS)

  • Jacques Py

    (CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS)

Abstract

Dematerialized negotiations are increasing and tend to foster deceptive exchanges, while also limiting the ability to detect signs of deception. We therefore tested whether it was possible to deter negotiators from producing deceptive statements in the first place, by manipulating the mental conflict of lying (Dissonance factor) and increasing the perceived risk of being disbelieved if lying (Risk factor). A total of 458 participants were recruited online and placed in a buyer/supplier email negotiation scenario in one of eight experimental groups, manipulating the Dissonance factor (using, or not, a “you have the reputation of being honest and trustworthy” pro-social labeling technique), and Risk factor (three price levels of an alleged alternative offer and a control group). They were ultimately, as suppliers, asked their own purchasing price by the buyer—a highly sensitive piece of information. Results showed that the proportion of participants giving a true price in response to the question of their own purchasing price was significantly higher when they were exposed to our deception deterrence factors. Of the participants who did not dodge the question entirely, 38.1% of the control condition (no Dissonance, no Risk factor) gave their true purchasing price, compared to 80.8% in the combined Dissonance/Highest Risk factor level condition. Professionals can thus use simple theory-based deception deterrence factors to make their counterpart more honest in negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Srour & Jacques Py, 2024. "Deception in Negotiations: Making People More Honest with a Two-Factor Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 1471-1494, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09901-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-024-09901-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-024-09901-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-024-09901-0?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. Michèle Belot & Jeroen Ven, 2017. "How private is private information? The ability to spot deception in an economic game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 19-43, March.
    2. Strudler, Alan, 1995. "On the Ethics of Deception in Negotiation," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 805-822, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Chandrashekaran, Rajesh & Grewal, Dhruv, 2006. "Anchoring effects of advertised reference price and sale price: The moderating role of saving presentation format," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1063-1071, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dmitri Bershadskyy & Sunil Ghadwal & Jannik Greif, 2024. "MTVE: Magdeburg tool for video experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 609-619, December.
    2. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2019. "Lies and consequences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1203-1240, December.
    3. Tobey Scharding, 2019. "Individual Actions and Corporate Moral Responsibility: A (Reconstituted) Kantian Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 929-942, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Volkema, Roger J., 1999. "Ethicality in Negotiations: An Analysis of Perceptual Similarities and Differences Between Brazil and the United States," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 59-67, May.
    7. Mislin, Alexandra A. & Campagna, Rachel L. & Bottom, William P., 2011. "After the deal: Talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 55-68, May.
    8. Barbera, Michael & Northey, Gavin & Septianto, Felix & Spanjaard, Daniela, 2018. "Those prices are HOT! How temperature-related visual cues anchor expectations of price and value," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 178-181.
    9. Dwenger, Nadja & Lohse, Tim, 2019. "Do individuals successfully cover up their lies? Evidence from a compliance experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-87.
    10. 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.
    11. Kukla-Gryz Anna & Zagórska Katarzyna, 2017. "The effects of individual internal versus external reference prices on consumer decisions for pay-what-you-want payments," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 4(51), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making," Post-Print hal-00814614, HAL.
    13. repec:osf:osfxxx:3pwcg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Denise Fleck & Roger J. Volkema & Sergio Pereira, 2016. "Dancing on the Slippery Slope: The Effects of Appropriate Versus Inappropriate Competitive Tactics on Negotiation Process and Outcome," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 873-899, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Mao, Zhixin & Duan, Yongrui & Liu, Wenxia, 2023. "Consumers’ choice of private label considering reference price and moderating effect," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Claude Alavoine, 2014. "Ethics in Negotiations: The Confrontation between Representation and Practices," Working Papers 2014-272, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    18. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon & Chulyoung Kim & Sang-Hyun Kim, 2021. "Gender Differences in Repeated Dishonest Behavior: Experimental Evidence," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-11, May.
    19. Ahmetoglu, Gorkan & Furnham, Adrian & Fagan, Patrick, 2014. "Pricing practices: A critical review of their effects on consumer perceptions and behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 696-707.
    20. Peter Schwardmann & Joël van der Weele, 2016. "Deception and Self-Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-012/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    21. Anna Kukla-Gryz & Katarzyna Zagórska, 2017. "The strength of the anchoring effect on Pay What You Want payments: Evidence from a vignette experiment," Working Papers 2017-14, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    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:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09901-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.