Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Virtual Negotiation: Theory and Research

Abstract

Social roles create conflicting behavioral expectations for female negotiators; however, virtual negotiations reduce social pressures. This paper reviews theoretical explanations on why men and women might differ in negotiations that occur through email, telephone, or video. Forty-three negotiation studies comparing face-to-face and virtual negotiations were examined for gender differences. All studies were reported in English but not limited to US participants. While many reports omitted gender information, meta-analytic findings supported the prediction that women would be more hostile in virtual compared to face-to-face negotiations, as well as finding no hostility difference for men between virtual and face-to-face negotiations. While negotiators overall were more successful face-to-face than virtually, results separated by gender did not find this effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • *Allerheiligen, R. P. (1986). Communications medium and product class: Their effect on negotiation medium. Doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

  • *Arunachalam, V. (1991). Decision aiding in multi-party transfer pricing negotiation: The effects of computer-mediated communication and structured interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

  • Ayres, I. (1991). Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Review, 104, 817–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I. (1995). Further evidence of discrimination in new car negotiations and estimates of its cause. Michigan Law Review, 94, 109–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I. (2001). Pervasive prejudice? Unconventional evidence of race and gender discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. The American Economic Review, 85, 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barki, R. (1995). An empirical study of the impact of proximity, leader, and incentives on negotiation process and outcomes in a group decision support setting. Doctoral dissertation. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

  • *Barsness, Z., & Tenbrunsel, A. (1998, June). Technologically-mediated communication and negotiation: Do relationships matter? Annual conference for the International Association for Conflict Management, College Park, MA.

  • *Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Champagne, M. V., Wong, E., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2001). The impact of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication on the negotiation process. Unpublished manuscript, DePaul University.

  • *Citera, M., & Beauregard, R. (1997). Credibility in computer-mediated bargaining: Bargainer beware. Paper presented at the 12th Annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

  • *Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya, T. (2005). An experimental study of credibility in e-negotiations. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Croson, R. T. A. (1999). Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B. M. Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191–233). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1985). Composition of dyads as a factor in the outcome of workplace justice. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 704–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., & Owen, C. L. (1987). Sex effects in workplace justice outcomes: A field assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Delaney, M. M., Foroughi, A., & Perkins, W. C. (1997). An empirical study of the efficacy of a computerized negotiation support system (NSS). Decision Support Systems, 20, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and leader effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fry, W. R. (1985). The effect of dyad machiavellianism and visual access on integrative bargaining outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Graetz, K., Barlow, C., Prouix, N., Odenweller, L., Weierman, S., Blankenship, C., et al. (1999). Negotiation at a distance: Why you might want to use the telephone. Poster presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

  • Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 256–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *King, D. C., & Glidewell, J. C. (1980). Dyadic bargaining under individualistic and competitive orientation. Human Relations, 33, 781–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. M. (2000). More than just a footnote: Constructing a theoretical framework for teaching about gender in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 16, 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2000). The shadow negotiation: How women can master the hidden agendas that determine bargaining success. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A., & Thompson, L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 386–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 103–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 942–958.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B. (1984). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lewis, S. A., & Fry, W. R. (1977). Effects of visual access and orientation on the discovery of integrative bargaining alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 20, 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lim, J. (2000). An experimental investigation of the impact of NSS and proximity on negotiation outcomes. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lin, J. T. (1987). The impact of computer-mediated communication systems on interpersonal relations and task performance. Doctoral dissertation. London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.

  • *Matate-Mejía, G. L. A. (1998). Power asymmetry in computer supported negotiating dyads: Effects on conflict management and power enactment. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles.

  • *McGinn, K. L., & Keros, A. T. (2002). Improvisation and the logic of exchange in socially embedded transactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 442–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mennecke, B. E., Valacich, J. S., & Wheeler, B. C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision & Negotiation, 9, 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E. W., & LaSalle, M. M. (2006, August). Asymmetrical contextual ambiguity, negotiation self-efficacy, and negotiation performance. Paper presented to the 66th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

  • Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 32, 246–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Morley, I. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1969). Interpersonal and interparty exchange: A laboratory simulation of an industrial negotiation at the plant level. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 543–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morley, I. E., & Stephenson, G. M. (1970). Formality in experimental negotiations: A validation study. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 383–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice, 6, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Naquin, C. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 113–120.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, K. (2003). Sex categorization in computer mediated communication (CMC): Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology, 5, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares, N. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research, 30, 556–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Paese, P. W., Schreiber, M., & Taylor, A. W. (2003). Caught telling the truth: Effects of honesty and communication media in distributive negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 537–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., & Kolb, D. M. (2000). Rethinking negotiation: Feminist views of communication and exchange. In P. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 76–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rhee, H. S. (1993). A study of the impact of a negotiation support system on the negotiation process and outcomes. Doctoral dissertation. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

  • Ridgeway, C. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schultz, J., & Pruitt, D. (1978). The effects of mutual concern on joint welfare. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14, 480–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sheffield, J. (1995). The effect of communication medium on negotiation performance. Group Decision & Negotiation, 4, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Short, J. A. (1971). Cooperation and competition in an experimental bargaining game conducted over two media. Unpublished Communication Studies Group Paper no. E/71160/SH. Reported in Short, J. A., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunication, London: Wiley.

  • *Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeltzer, L. R., & Watson, K. W. (1986). Gender differences in verbal communication during negotiation. Communication Research Reports, 3, 74–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Smith, D. H. (1969). Communication and negotiation outcome. The Journal of Communication, 19, 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organization communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C. K., Bavetta, A. G., & Gist, M. E. (1993). Gender differences in the acquisition of salary negotiation skills: The role of goals, self-efficacy, and perceived control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 723–735.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Citera, M. (2005). Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52, 653–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Suarga (1997). Design and implementation of collective bargaining support system (cbss)—A web-based negotiation support system. Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 59–08A, p. 3083.

  • *Suh, K. S. (1999). Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An examination of media-richness theory. Information & Management, 35, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53, 676–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1974). Phasing of concessions, differential power, and medium of communication: Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 228–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Turnbull, A. A., Strickland, L., & Shaver, K. G. (1976). Medium of communication, differential power, and phasing of concessions: Negotiating success and attributions to the opponent. Human Communication Research, 2, 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tysoe, M. (1984). Social cues and the negotiation process. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizations, 34, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Valley, K., Thompson, L., Gibbons, R., & Bazerman, M. (1998). Using dyadic strategies to outperform equilibrium models of communication in bargaining games. Working paper, Harvard Business School.

  • *Wachter, R. M. (1993). An empirical investigation of the effects of communication media differences and the social relationships of individuals on the performance of two-party negotiations. Graduate thesis. Bloomington: School of Business, Indiana University.

  • Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 1–29.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C. (1994). Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotiation Journal, 10, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 1–50). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellens, A. R. (1986). Use of psychological distancing model to assess differences in telecommunication media. In L. Parker & C. Olgen (Eds.), Teleconferencing and electronic media: Vol. V, (pp. 347–361). Madison, WI: Center for Interactive Programs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellens, A. R. (1989). Effects of telecommunication media upon information sharing and team performance: Some theoretical and empirical observations. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 4(9), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wichman, H. (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a two-person game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice F. Stuhlmacher.

Additional information

Asterisk (*) indicates studies used in the meta-analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stuhlmacher, A.F., Citera, M. & Willis, T. Gender Differences in Virtual Negotiation: Theory and Research. Sex Roles 57, 329–339 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9252-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9252-y

Keywords

  • E-mail
  • Gender
  • Negotiation
  • Social Roles
  • Virtual Negotiation