CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 403Conflict Management and NegotiationSocial Power and Status DynamicsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation

Small, Deborah A., Gelfand, Michele, Babcock, Linda, Gettman, Hilary·2007·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.600
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Unlike typical negotiation experiments, these studies investigated when men and women initiate negotiations in the absence of overt prescriptions to negotiate. Using a new experimental paradigm, the authors showed that the framing of situations is a critical driver of gender differences in initiating negotiations. Drawing on literature on language, power, and politeness, the authors argued that framing situations as opportunities for negotiation is particularly intimidating to women, as this language is inconsistent with norms for politeness among low-power individuals, such as women. By contrast, framing situations as opportunities for asking is much less intimidating to women, as this language is more polite and role-consistent. Consequently, gender differences in initiating negotiations persisted when situations were framed as opportunities for negotiation yet were eliminated when situations were framed as opportunities to ask. Moreover, primed power attenuated gender differences in aversive reactions to the negotiation frame. In all, the studies presented begin to elucidate the reasons for gender differences in initiating negotiations and further illustrate that such effects depend on the situation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.600

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the leadership and negotiation domains, women with sufficient power and self-efficacy respond to explicit gender stereotype activation with positive 'I'll Show You' responses.

    “In both the leadership and negotiation domains, women have been shown to respond to explicit gender stereotype activation with positive, I'll Show You responses when they have sufficient power and self-efficacy.”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007

  • Priming women with power diminished their aversion to initiating negotiations.

    “Related, researchers have shown that women's aversion to initiating negotiations was diminished when they were primed with power (Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007

  • The task of negotiation can be made identity-safe by framing the situation as an opportunity of asking rather than an opportunity for negotiation.

    “The task of negotiation can be made identity-safe by framing the situation as an opportunity of asking rather than an opportunity for negotiation (Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007

  • Although women were less likely to initiate negotiations than men, when framed as an opportunity to ask, women were equally likely to initiate at the bargaining table.

    “Although women were less likely to initiate negotiations than men, when framed as an opportunity to ask, women were equally likely to initiate at the bargaining table (Small et al., 2007).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Small et al., 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
600-613
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.600
OpenAlex
W2128336111
Cited by
402
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
FWCI
43.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
negotiation initiation, gender differences, framing effects, politeness norms, power priming, intimidation, language and power
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Collective Bargaining, Culture, Female, Games, Experimental, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Power, Psychological, Social Desirability, Social Perception, Negotiating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review