Male Negotiators: Chivalry or Machismo or Both?

Abstract

This study investigated the behavior of male negotiators as a function of the sex of their opponents and observers having no stake in the outcomes. Participants were 409 graduate and undergraduate students who engaged in role played negotiation. Analyses were conducted for only the all-male dyads. These males were rated as more dominating and offered to pay more when observed by women (n = 29) than by men (n = 64). Previously, dominating behavior had been interpreted as “chivalry” when male negotiators had stake-holding constituents. Since our observers were disinterested, our results (stated above) suggest that “machismo” might be a better interpretation than “chivalry” for such behavior. Although we found no evidence of obliging behavior by men with female opponents (which could be defined as chivalry), we did find dominating behavior by men with female constituents (which could also be defined as chivalry), but only when these men had female opponents.