Laura J. Kray

Battle of the Sexes: Gender Stereotype Confirmation and Reactance in Negotiations

The authors examined how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt womens performance relative to men. The authors hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. In Experiment 4, the authors examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).

The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions

We hypothesized that the activation of a counterfactual mind-set minimizes decision errors resulting from the failure of groups to seek disconfirming information to test an initial hypothesis. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two experiments examining the decision making processes of groups. The task for both experiments was modeled after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, and groups had to actively seek disconfirmatory information to make a correct decision. Prior to beginning the group decision making task, groups were exposed to one of two pre-task scenarios in which the salience of counterfactual thoughts was manipulated. In Experiment 1, groups in the counterfactual prime condition were significantly more likely to make the correct decision than groups in the non-counterfactual prime condition. In Experiment 2, we replicated the effect of counterfactual primes on decision accuracy and demonstrated that groups in the counterfactual prime condition were more likely to seek disconfirmatory information than groups in the non-counterfactual prime condition. We also conducted mediation analyses that clarify the decision making process. Implications for group decision making are discussed.

Stereotype Reactance at the Bargaining Table: The Effect of Stereotype Activation and Power on Claiming and Creating Value

Two experiments explored the hypothesis that the impact of activating gender stereotypes on negotiated agreements in mixed-gender negotiations depends on the manner in which the stereo-type is activated (explicitly vs. implicitly) and the content of the stereotype (linking negotiation performance to stereotypically male vs. stereotypically female traits). Specifically, two experiments investigated the generality and limits of stereotype reactance. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that negotiated outcomes become more one-sided in favor of the high power negotiator when masculine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In contrast, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that negotiated outcomes are more integrative (win-win) when feminine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In total, performance in mixed-gender negotiations is strongly affected by the cognitions and motivations that negotiators bring to the bargaining table.

Implications of Counterfactual Structure for Creative Generation and Analytical Problem Solving

In the present research, the authors hypothesized that additive counterfactual thinking mind-sets, activated by adding new antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote an expansive processing style that broadens conceptual attention and facilitates performance on creative generation tasks, whereas subtractive counter-factual thinking mind-sets, activated by removing antecedent elements to reconstruct reality, promote a relational processing style that enhances tendencies to consider relationships and associations and facilitates performance on analytical problem-solving tasks. A reanalysis of a published data set suggested that the counterfactual mind-set primes previously used in the literature tend to evoke subtractive counterfactuals. Studies 1 and 2 then demonstrated that subtractive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on analytical problem-solving tasks relative to additive counterfactual mind-sets, whereas Studies 3 and 4 found that additive counterfactual mind-sets enhanced performance on creative generation tasks relative to subtractive counterfactual mind-sets.

GENDER STEREOTYPES AND NEGOTIATION PERFORMANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

Abstract Whether gender differences exist at the negotiation table is a timeless question. To address this question, we identify five major theoretical perspectives attempting to account for gender differences at the bargaining table. We distinguish these theoretical perspectives on the basis of the origin of gender differences and the research questions they address. A common thread that runs through each perspective is the gender stereotype, which presumes masculine skills are more valuable at the bargaining table than feminine skills. We then consider the empirical support for this basic assumption as approached by each theoretical perspective. Our review includes the two dominant bargaining paradigms identified by Nash (1950) – cooperative and non-cooperative (e.g. prisoner’s dilemmas) negotiations – and non-interactive and group-level tasks. We then look forward by identifying a research agenda on this timely question for the new millennium.

Thinking Within the Box: The Relational Processing Style Elicited by Counterfactual Mind-Sets

By comparing reality to what might have been, counterfactuals promote a relational processing style characterized by a tendency to consider relationships and associations among a set of stimuli. As such, counterfactual mind-sets were expected to improve performance on tasks involving the consideration of relationships and associations but to impair performance on tasks requiring novel ideas that are uninfluenced by salient associations. The authors conducted several experiments to test this hypothesis. In Experiments 1a and 1b, the authors determined that counterfactual mind-sets increase mental states and preferences for thinking styles consistent with relational thought. Experiment 2 demonstrated a facilitative effect of counterfactual mind-sets on an analytic task involving logical relationships; Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that counterfactual mind-sets structure thought and imagination around salient associations and therefore impaired performance on creative generation tasks. In Experiment 5, the authors demonstrated that the detrimental effect of counterfactual mind-sets is limited to creative tasks involving novel idea generation; in a creative association task involving the consideration of relationships between task stimuli, counterfactual mind-sets improved performance.

The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others' experiences in organizational justice judgments

Abstract This research examines how people integrate social reports regarding another persons injustice experience into their own justice assessments. Specifically, we examine three variables—participant injustice experience, co-worker injustice severity, and prior contact with co-workers supervisor—that influence the degree to which individuals express victim empathy (acceptance of the others injustice report) and victim derogation (assigning at least some blame to the victim) when a co-worker reports an injustice experience. We hypothesized that personal experiences with injustice would facilitate victim empathy and that the severity of a co-workers injustice report would simultaneously lead to victim empathy and victim derogation. We hypothesized that the effect of prior contact with co-worker supervisor on justice judgments would be moderated by personal experience and the severity of the co-workers injustice experience. Results from the experiment confirm these predictions.

Who Is Willing to Sacrifice Ethical Values for Money and Social Status? Gender Differences in Reactions to Ethical Compromises

Women select into business school at a lower rate than men and are underrepresented in high-ranking positions in business organizations. We examined gender differences in reactions to ethical compromises as one possible explanation for these disparities. In Study 1, when reading decisions that compromised ethical values for social status and monetary gains, women reported feeling more moral outrage and perceived less business sense in the decisions than men. In Study 2, we established a causal relationship between aversion to ethical compromises and disinterest in business careers by manipulating the presence of ethical compromises in job descriptions. As hypothesized, an interaction between gender and presence of ethical compromises emerged. Only when jobs involved making ethical compromises did women report less interest in the jobs than men. Women’s moral reservations mediated these effects. In Study 3, we found that women implicitly associated business with immorality more than men did.

Feminine Charm: An Experimental Analysis of Its Costs and Benefits in Negotiations

The authors examined feminine charm, an impression management technique available to women that combines friendliness with flirtation. They asked whether feminine charm resolves the impression management dilemma facing women who simultaneously pursue task (i.e., economic) and social goals in negotiations. They compared women’s social and economic consequences after using feminine charm versus a neutral interaction style. They hypothesized that feminine charm would create positive impressions of its users, thus partially mitigating the social penalties women negotiators often incur. They also expected that the degree to which females were perceived as flirtatious (signaling a concern for self), rather than merely friendly (signaling a concern for other), would predict better economic deals for females. Hypotheses were supported across a correlational study and three experiments. Feminine charm has costs and benefits spanning economic and social measures. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

It’s a Bet! A Problem-Solving Approach Promotes the Construction of Contingent Agreements

Negotiators often have different expectations about the future. A contingent agreement, or a bet that makes the ultimate outcome dependent on some future event, builds on negotiators’ differences. The authors argue that a problem-solving approach, in which negotiators thorougly explore options to build on their differences, is most likely to construct contingent agreements. The authors explore two factors expected to influence this problem-solving approach, namely, negotiators’ relational and accountability concerns. The authors argue when these considerations are imbalanced, negotiators are less likely to adopt a problem-solving style and construct a contingent agreement. To test this hypothesis, negotiators’ relationships and accountability pressures were manipulated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in an integrative negotiation, allowing the authors to examine whether a contingent agreement was constructed and joint gain. Experiment 2 sought to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 using a scenario study. Results across the two experiments support the authors’ hypotheses.