Gender stereotypes contradicted when negotiating

Aug 07, 2008

A common gender stereotype assumes that men are more aggressive and women are more emotional. In negotiation, men are assumed to be more assertive and women better at fostering relationships. However, a new study published in Negotiation and Conflict Management Research reveals that when people are trying to make a positive impression, they may behave in ways that contradict gender stereotypes.

Jared Curhan of MIT's Sloan School of Management and Jennifer Overbeck of the University of Southern California 's Marshall School of Business assigned 190 MBA students to same-sex groups to represent either a high-status recruiter or a low-status job candidate engaged in a standard employment negotiation simulation. Half of the participants were offered an additional cash incentive to make a positive impression on their negotiation counterparts.

When incentivized to make a positive impression on their counterparts, men and women in the high-status role acted in ways that contradicted gender stereotypes. Women negotiated more aggressively and men negotiated in a more appeasing manner. Being motivated to make a positive impression may have cued negotiators to counter whatever negative tendencies they believe others see in them and to thus display a contrasting demeanor.

Women who are motivated to make a positive impression, perhaps in an effort to refute the stereotype that they are weak or ineffective negotiators, may advocate more strongly for their own interests. In contrast, men who are motivated to make a positive impression, perhaps in an effort to refute the stereotype that they are overly aggressive, may yield to the demands of the other side.

The success of the strategies was mixed. Men's strategy of behaving in a more conciliatory fashion apparently succeeded in producing a positive impression in the counterpart's eyes. However, the women's strategy of behaving more assertively failed to create a more positive impression. Instead, women who behaved more assertively, were judged more negatively.

Source: Wiley

Explore further: Sundance doc examines real-life Close Encounter

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

FACT CHECK: Both sides in Keystone XL debate bend facts

7 hours ago

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf, say the privately funded, $8 billion project is a critically needed piece of infrastructure that will create thousands of jobs ...

Recommended for you

Sundance doc examines real-life Close Encounter

10 hours ago

Earth authorities are completely unprepared for the arrival of alien visitors and worried humans should ready themselves by watching a groundbreaking documentary, the film's director boasts.

Toward a scientific process freed from systemic bias

Jan 26, 2015

Research on how science works - the science of science - can benefit from studying the digital traces generated during the research process, such as peer-reviewed publications. This type of research is crucial for the future ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Decaf
not rated yet Aug 07, 2008
Sad truth.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.