Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators [Unethische Entscheidungen in Verhandlungen: Eine Meta-Analyse zu geschlechtsspezifischen Unterschieden und deren Moderatoren ]

Nohe, Christoph ; Hüffmeier, Joachim ; Bürkner, Paul ; Mazei, Jens; Sondern, Dominik; Runte, Antonia; Sieber, Franziska; Hertel, Guido

Abstract

Based on role congruity theory, this preregistered meta-analysis examines whether women negotiate less unethically than men. We predicted that moderators related to the person (negotiation experience) and the negotiation context (e.g., advocacy, cultural gender-role inequality) influence the proposed gender difference. We conducted a Bayesian three-level meta-analysis to test our predictions on a sample of 116 effect sizes from 70 samples (overall N = 14,028, including employees, MBA students, undergraduate students). As predicted, women negotiated less unethically than men (Hedges’ g = 0.25). The gender difference held for unethical judgements (Hedges’ g = 0.29), unethical intentions (Hedges’ g = 0.21), and unethical behaviors (Hedges’ g = 0.17). The gender difference decreased when parties negotiated for others as compared to for themselves, when parties strategically used positive affect, and tended to decrease when parties were experienced as compared to inexperienced negotiators. We discuss implications for theory and research.