Moral Emotions and Unethical Bargaining: The Differential Effects of Empathy and Perspective Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotiation
- 1.5k Downloads
Two correlational studies tested whether personality differences in empathy and perspective taking differentially relate to disapproval of unethical negotiation strategies, such as lies and bribes. Across both studies, empathy, but not perspective taking, discouraged attacking opponents’ networks, misrepresentation, inappropriate information gathering, and feigning emotions to manipulate opponents. These results suggest that unethical bargaining is more likely to be deterred by empathy than by perspective taking. Study 2 also tested whether individual differences in guilt proneness and shame proneness inhibited the endorsement of unethical bargaining tactics. Guilt proneness predicted disapproval of false promises and misrepresentation. Empathy did not predict disapproval of false promises when guilt proneness was included in the analysis. The comparatively private nature of the sin of false promises suggests that private ethical breaches are more likely to be deterred by anticipated guilt, while ethical breaches with clear interpersonal consequences are more likely to be deterred by empathy.
Keywordsnegotiation bargaining unethical behavior empathy perspective taking guilt shame SINS II scale
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Special thanks to Abigail Panter for helping to collect data for Study 1 and Louisa Egan for helping to collect data for Study 2. Special thanks also to the Dispute Resolution Research Center (DRRC) at Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University for generously funding this research.
- Barry, B. (1999). The tactical use of emotion in negotiation In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki and B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 93-121). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T. and C. A. Insko: 2009, Introducing the GASP Scale: A New Measure of Guilt and Shame Proneness (submitted).Google Scholar
- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (Second ed.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., and Ku, G. (2006). ‘The view from the other side of the table’. Negotiation, Harvard Business School Publishing, Case No. NO603A, USA.Google Scholar
- Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., and Barry, B. (2007). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases (5 ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
- Tangney, J. P., and Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R. L., Wagner, P. E., and Gramzow, R. H. (2000). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect – 3 (TOSCA-3). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
- Thompson, L. (2009). The mind and heart of the negotiator (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Wolf, S. T., Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T. and C. A. Insko: 2009, Shame Proneness and Guilt Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private Transgressions Self and Identity,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860903106843