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

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

  2. *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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation.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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. *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.

  9. *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.

  10. *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 

  11. *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 

  12. *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.

  13. *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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

  20. *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 

  21. *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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. 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 

  27. *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 

  28. *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.

  29. 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 

  30. *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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

  37. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. *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 

  40. *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 

  41. *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.

  42. *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.

  43. *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 

  44. *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 

  45. 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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. *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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  49. *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 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. *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 

  54. 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 

  55. *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 

  56. *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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. *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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. *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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 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 

  66. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. *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.

  69. *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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. *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 

  72. *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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  74. *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 

  75. *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.

  76. *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.

  77. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 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 

  80. 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 

  81. 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 

  82. *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 

  83. 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

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

Keywords

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