Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making

What is the relationship between gender and the likelihood of being deceived in negotiations? In strategic interactions, the decision to deceive is based in part on the expected consequences (Gneezy, 2005). Because gender stereotypes suggest that women are more easily misled than men, the expected consequences of deception were predicted to be more positive with negotiators described in stereotypically feminine as opposed to masculine terms. Studies 1A and 1B confirmed that gender stereotypes affect the expected consequences of deception. An archival analysis of MBA classroom data (N = 298) was then conducted to explore the implications of this relationship in a naturalistic setting. Consistent with gender stereotypes, female negotiators were deceived more frequently than male negotiators, though female negotiators perceived no less honesty in their counterparts than did male negotiators. Economic and psychological consequences of deception were also examined, including agreement rates, sale price, and negotiator subjective experience. When believed by their target, lies facilitated deal making. However, psychologically, lying impaired both negotiators’ subjective experience by reducing perceptions of negotiator honesty. By linking gender stereotypes to the expected and actual consequences of deception, the current research extends our understanding of the role of gender in strategic interactions. Finally, how gender shapes experiences in the MBA classroom is discussed. Gender Bias in Ethics 3 Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making “... Salesmen ... categorize people into "typical" buyer categories. During my time as a salesman I termed the most common of these the "typically uninformed buyer".... [In addition to their lack of information, these] buyers tended to display other common weaknesses. As a rule they were indecisive, wary, impulsive and, as a result, were easily misled. Now take a guess as to which gender of the species placed at the top of this "typically easy to mislead" category? You guessed it-women.” (Parrish, 1985 p. 3, as quoted by Ayres & Siegelman, 1995) The reformed car salesman’s quote above reveals a truth about social perception: expectations about the vulnerabilities and strengths of interaction partners are shaped in part by their gender. Shared, category-based expectations, or stereotypes, exist about one gender versus another (Fiske, 1998). Though the activation of stereotypes is automatic and unavoidable (Devine, 1989), how stereotypes are applied to guide behavior in particular situations is often at the discretion of social actors. In competitive negotiations like car purchases, one party’s gain is another’s loss. As such, self-interested negotiators seeking to secure attractive deals may rely on gender stereotypes to make strategic decisions. The current research examines the relationship between gender stereotypes, the expected ease of being misled, and the decision to deceive men versus women in negotiations. Gender stereotypes create a broad set of challenges for women negotiators. Because effective negotiators are thought to possess stereotypically masculine traits such Gender Bias in Ethics 4 as assertiveness and rationality (Kray & Thompson, 2005), negotiating often means acting counterstereotypically for women. Burdened with unflattering stereotypes, women negotiators profess more anxiety, less knowledge about the process, and less confidence in their ability (Babcock, Gelfand, Small, & Stayn, 2006; Kray & Gelfand, 2009) compared to their male counterparts. As a result, women are vulnerable to the debilitating performance effects of negative stereotypes (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001), typically performing worse than men at the bargaining table (Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). In addition to producing differences in how men and women approach negotiations, gender stereotypes also affect the manner in which women and men are treated. Stereotypes create a set of expectations about how individuals should behave and those who fail to live up to them often experience social repercussions (Rudman, 1998). Indeed, prescriptive gender stereotypes dictating that women be agreeable may lead female negotiators to be judged more harshly for the identical behaviors of male negotiators (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Using a vignette, Bowles and colleagues manipulated both whether a job candidate attempted to negotiate a job offer and the candidate’s gender. Attempting to negotiate reduced perceivers’ willingness to work with female candidates relative to male candidates who engaged in identical negotiation attempts. The effect of gender stereotypes on negotiator behavior has also been shown in naturalistic settings, including the car dealership. In a striking field study, Ayres and Siegelman (1995) had women and men actors follow a standardized script inquiring about a new car purchase at various auto dealerships. They found that price quotes were Gender Bias in Ethics 5 significantly higher for women than for men. Because this discrimination occurred irrespective of salesperson gender, the researchers argued it was not simply a result of prejudice against women (which would presumably be more evident by male salespersons than female salespersons). Instead, they argued, discrimination resulted from a “statistical inference” being drawn by salespeople whereby gender-based cues determined the expected profitability of deals and resulted in disparate price quotes between the sexes (Phelps, 1972). Because the trained actors adopted identical bargaining strategies, it is likely that gender stereotypes, rather than behavioral differences, led salespeople to expect women were more likely than men to pay a high markup. In the words of the researchers (p. 317), “If sellers believe, for example, that women are on average more averse to bargaining than men, it may be profitable to quote higher prices to women customers.” The current research extends this work on gender discrimination, or behavior aimed at denying particular social groups positive outcomes (Allport, 1954), and bargaining to the domain of deception. By examining whether feminine stereotypes imply that women are easier to mislead and, if so, whether women negotiators are especially likely to be misled, theory and research are extended on multiple fronts. First, the relationship between deception and counterpart gender in negotiations is examined for the first time. In his groundbreaking research on deception in strategic interactions, Gneezy (2005) did not study gender differences and subsequent work has only examined gender from the perspective of the liar (Dreber & Johannesson, 2008). Second, the current work extends our understanding of gender stereotypes relevant to behavior at the bargaining table to examine assumptions about negotiators’ ease of being misled. Third, Gender Bias in Ethics 6 by utilizing a fully crossed design with respect to dyad gender composition, this research overcomes methodological limitations of previous work in this domain. In so doing, a more comprehensive picture of the role of gender in negotiations emerges. Finally, by exploring negotiation behavior in a naturalistic environment, the MBA classroom, the applied implications of gender in negotiations are explored. Deception in Negotiation Deception, or communication aimed at intentionally misleading another person, is often driven by self-interest (DePaulo et al., 1996). Because self-interest is a guiding force in negotiations, it is not surprising that deception is prevalent (Lewicki, 1983; Schweitzer & Croson, 1999). Though men are more willing to engage in unethical negotiating tactics than women (Dreber & Johannesson, 2008; Lewicki & Robinson, 1998; Robinson, Lewicki, & Donahue, 2000), whether gender influences the likelihood of being deceived in negotiations remains largely unexamined. Beyond the negotiation domain, DePaulo et al.’s (1996) study of lying in everyday life sheds light on the role of interaction partner sex. Using a diary methodology recording spontaneous lies, interactions involving women were found to involve more “white lies” (i.e. meant to protect their feelings). Yet because a wide range of interaction and relationship types was included in this analysis, this finding may not fully reflect women’s avoidance of competition (Niederle & Vesterlund, 2007). In situations with an inherently competitive element, such as negotiations, it remains an open question whether lies aimed at providing a strategic advantage are told more frequently to one gender versus the other. By holding constant the context involving a Gender Bias in Ethics 7 decision of whether to lie, the current research is able to examine whether highly competitive, strategic interactions invite gender bias. Gender Stereotypes and the Decision to Deceive Why would negotiators conclude that the risks associated with lying are lower with female negotiators? To address this question, let us consider the ethical decision making process. In strategic interactions, expectations about consequences guide the decision to deceive (Gneezy, 2005). In other words, rational actors consider both the subjective probability of getting caught and the cost of punishment. Viewed through the lens of gender stereotypes, both considerations put women at a disadvantage relative to men. With respect to lie discovery, feminine stereotypes involving gullibility and agreeableness suggest women are less likely than men to recognize and to challenge a lie. With respect to punishment, masculine stereotypes involving aggressiveness suggest men are more likely than women to retaliate against a discovered lie. If women are deemed less “risky” targets of deception than men, as the introductory quote suggests, then they become vulnerable to being deceived. Gender stereotypes suggest, first and foremost, that women must be warm and nice (Bem, 1974; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). This feminine imperative to be agreeable conflicts with the simple act of negotiating, leading women negotiators to appear pushy and demanding (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Bowles et al., 2007; Small et al., 2007). In general, attempting to negotiate can be considered impolite. Because conforming to politeness norms is particularly important for low status individuals such as women (Brown & Levinson, 1987), women demonstrate reluctance to initiate negotiations (Small et al., 2007). Gender Bias in Ethics 8 Prescriptive feminine stereotypes demanding niceness may also render women reluctant to accuse another of lying or, minimally, to lead their interaction partners to expect this reluctance. Accusatory reluctance is characterized by a discomfort in labeling others as deceptive (Ekman, Friesen, O’Sullivan, & Scherer, 1980; O’Sullivan, Ekman, Friesen, & Scherer, 1985). Almost by definition, the warmth and kindness expected of women mandates hesitancy in accusing others of foul play. Doing so is unpleasant, uncomfortable, and potentially aggressive, all of which violate prescriptive feminine stereotypes. In addition to the mandate that women be agreeable, the fact that women are allowed to possess certain undesirable traits, such as being gullible, impressionable, and naïve (Prentice & Carranza, 2002), may increase women’s likelihood of being deceived. These relaxed proscriptions for women provide a means of avoiding the uncomfortable task of accusing another of lying. As in the case of whistleblowers, accusing others of wrongdoing often carries penalties that people are motivated to avoid (Johnson, 2002). Furthermore, to the degree that women are presumed to possess these undesirable characteristics, a rational actor might conclude women are also more likely to believe a lie. Indeed, women’s own admission of their lack of knowledge about negotiating (Kray & Gelfand, 2009) likely lowers the subjective probability of their catching a lie at the bargaining table. Overall, the subjective risks of getting caught in a lie appear to be lower with female negotiators. Another potential consequence of deception is the threat of retaliation should the lie be discovered. Examined from this angle, women remain disadvantaged relative to men. Masculinity is associated with agency and aggression (Williams & Best, 1982); Gender Bias in Ethics 9 these masculine stereotypes suggest men are more likely than women to retaliate against a discovered lie. Once again, aside from any actual behavioral differences between men and women in retaliation, awareness of gender stereotypes may affect expectations about retaliation, thus influencing a rational actor’s decision to deceive. Likewise, even if women were as likely as men to retaliate, their ability to do so effectively may be limited. Women’s ability to punish a liar may be relatively constrained because women have lower status than men (Jackman, 1994) and status predicts the amount of attention granted by others (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). Each of these considerations leads to the prediction that women are more likely than men to be deceived in strategic interactions. Overview of studies. Three studies were conducted to determine the relationship between gender, gender stereotypes, and deception in negotiations. Studies 1A and 1B sought to establish a link between gender stereotypes and expected consequences of deception in negotiations. It was hypothesized that feminine stereotypes would be associated with positive consequences of deception (i.e. ease of reaching agreement) whereas negative stereotypes would be associated with negative consequences of deception (i.e. threat of retaliation). The final study was designed to examine the relationship between gender and deceptive behavior in a naturalistic setting, the MBA classroom. Consistent with the consequences of deception implied by gender stereotypes, negotiators were hypothesized to deceive women more often than men in competitive negotiations. Before proceeding to the experiments, it is important to clarify the methodological approach. Though gender stereotypes can clearly affect the behavior of both stereotyped Gender Bias in Ethics 10 actors and their interaction partners, the current research is focused on the latter phenomenon. This means that, regardless of whether a stereotype actually predicts behavior of a focal actor, it may lead his or her interaction partners to expect certain behavior. In Studies 1A and 1B, I first examine the expected consequences of deception as a function of gender stereotypes. Then, consistent with the relationship established between gender stereotypes and expected consequences, Study 2 explores whether negotiators disproportionately deceive women negotiators in the naturalistic context of the classroom. The central question is whether women are deceived more often than men and, if so, what are the actual consequences of doing so?