INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING: DOES GENDER MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Abstract

The current study examined the effects of gender and motivation on negotiation strategy and outcome. It was hypothesized that findings suggesting that women obtain lower joint outcomes from integrative bargaining than men may result from women, but not men, entering negotiation settings with a high level of concern for the other's outcomes. Drawing on the dual concern model of Pruitt and his colleagues, it was predicted that situationally induced high self‐concern would result in high joint outcomes for female dyads—ay high as those for male dyads under any conditions. Male dyads were expected to require situationally‐induced self‐ and other‐concern to reach optimal joint outcomes. Where there was no situationally induced concern for either self or other, male dyads were expected to obtain higher joint outcomes than female dyads. Results from dyads bargaining in a laboratory setting were generally supportive of predictions, except that men tended to do well but for where other‐concern alone had been situationally induced. Discrepant findings are discussed in terms of the generally low level of antagonism present in these dyads.

Citation

Calhoun, P. and Smith, W.P. (1999), "INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING: DOES GENDER MAKE A DIFFERENCE?", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 203-224. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022824