In a negotiation experiment (N = 248) sex, equity sensitivity, and gender pairings were used to test six hypotheses. Results indicate that sex and equity sensitivity were predictive of subjects’ relationship preferences and sex, but not equity sensitivity, was predictive of subjects ’ measured assessment of the relationship preferences of the opponent. Equity sensitivity was also not significantly correlated with subjects’ satisfaction. Sex and sex within a role (seller versus buyer) was also found to influence settlement amount with males besting their female opponents when in mixed-sex pairs and with male sellers outperforming female sellers. The differences between males and females in settlement offers made appears to be one explanation for males’ success relative to females: Suggestions for expanding the range of measured outcomes in negotiation and implications for incorporating individual differences into negotiation research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 422-436.
2.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Pp. 276-299 in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Segal, N. L. & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 187-192.
4.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
5.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
6.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Arvey, R. D., Keller, L. M. & Segal, N. L. (1992). Genetic influences on job satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 89-93.
7.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J. & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 662-669.
8.
Brown, L. S. (1986). Gender-role analysis: A neglected component of psychological assessment. Psychotherapy, 23: 243-248.
9.
Carnevale, P. J. D. & Lawler, E. J. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30: 636-656.
10.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31(3): 137-149.
11.
Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. S., Dedrick, E. J. & Clemons, T. C. (1990). The role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal of Management, 16: 609-618.
12.
DuBose, P. B. & Bigoness, W. J. (1987). A test of Wheeler’s closed-offer arbitration system: An experimental study. Journal of Labor Research, 8: 385-393.
13.
Feather, N. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, psychological androgyny and the structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 604-620.
14.
Ford, D. L. (1983). Effects of personal control belief: An explanatory analysis of bargaining outcomes in intergroup negotiations. Group and Organization Studies, 8: 113-125.
15.
Fox, L. H. & Denham, S. A. (1974). Values and career interests of mathematically and scientifically precocious youth. Pp. 140-175 in J. C. Stanley, D. P. Keating & L. H. Fox (Eds.), Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Fry, W. R. (1985). The effect of dyad Machiavellianism and visual access on integrative bargaining outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11: 51-62.
17.
Graham, J. L. (1983). Brazilian, Japanese, and American business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 16: 47-61.
18.
Graham, J. L. (1984). A comparison of Japanese and American business negotiations. International Journal of Research, 1: 51-68.
19.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16: 399-432.
20.
Greenhalgh, L., Neslin, S. A. & Gilkey, R. W. (1985). The effects of negotiator preferences, situational power, and negotiator personality on outcomes of business negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 9-33.
21.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F. & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 935-942.
22.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61: 1055-1064.
23.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review, 12: 222-234.
24.
Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97: 251-273.
25.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M. & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General Scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 193-200.
26.
Keller, L. M., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Arvey, R. D., Segal, N. L. & Dawis, R. V. (1992). Work values: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 79-88.
27.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28.
King, W. C. Jr. & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 67: 133-142..
29.
King, W. C. Jr., Miles, E. W. & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 301-317.
30.
King, W. C. Jr., Miles, E. W. & Kniska, J. (1991). Boys will be boys (and &Is will be girls): The attribution of gender role stereotypes in a gaming situation. Sex Roles, 25: 607-623.
31.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and/organizations. Pp. 91-131 in L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental and social psychology, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press.
32.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Pp. 1279-1349 in M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
33.
Major, B., Bylsma, W. H. & Cozzarelli, C. (1989). Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain. Sex Roles, 21: 487-497.
34.
Major, B. & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. Pp. 43-76 in J. Greenberg & R.L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity andjustice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press.
35.
Major, B., McFarlin, D. B. & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1399-1412.
36.
Miles, E. W., Hatfield, I. D. & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15: 581-588.
37.
Naylor, F. D. (1984). Sex, schools, and emerging occupations interests. In J. Palmer (Ed.), Melbourne studies in education. Metralia: Melbourne University Press.
38.
Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14: 547-557.
39.
Porter, L. W. & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
40.
Pruitt, D. G. & Syna, H. (1985). Mismatching the opponent’s offers in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21: 103-113.
41.
Rubin, J. & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic Press.
42.
Scarpelto, V. & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?Personnel Psychology, 36: 577-600.
43.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R. & Jacobson, C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20: 103-111.
44.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
45.
Spector, P. E. (1981). Research designs. Beverly Hills: Sage.
46.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E. & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science hurters, 31: 56-77.
47.
Stolte, J. F. (1983). Self-efficacy: Sources and consequences in negotiation networks. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119: 69-75.
48.
Sutherland, E. & Veroff, J. (1985). Achievement, motivation and sex roles. PP. 101-128 in V. E. O’Leary, R. K. Unger & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
50.
Wall, J. A. Jr. & Blum, M. W. (1991). Negotiations. Journal of management, 17: 273-303.
